Several attendees to the upcoming protest in DC this weekend are planning on dressing in strictly business attire. You can read their reasons via that last link, but here’s the gist of it:
“[W]e believe that a professional appearance will be more effective in projecting seriousness and determination to the administration, and more effective in swaying the opinions of those who are on the fence about the war.”
They say they’re reclaiming a sense of power and professionalism that has become identified with the Right exclusively. I can’t disagree with that, but part of me wonders how much of this is playing dress up. The Left can certainly spend far too much time worrying about what issues are the most palatable to the imaginary “Middle America” and not nearly enough time on what the issues should actually be. This is probably more prevalent among trying-to-get-elected DC types than the queer, pierced, bike-riding anarchists I call my friends out in SF.
However, I’m willing to admit that perhaps decorum—whether it be a shirt and tie or simply politeness—may transcend ideology and instead facilitate the expression of ideology. I do have sympathy for a lot of inaccessible government leaders and CEOs that are sometimes just as trapped by the system as any of us are. And RAN values our ability to transition from protesting outside a corporate headquarters to being invited inside to advise them how to suck less.
Whaddya think? Suits and skirts: shackles of corporate slavery or a prerequisite for being taken seriously? Or both?
Twitter Updates
I also have some mixed feelings about this but I’ll just share one quick thought. I was living in NYC during lead up to the Iraq war and I participated in several massive anti-war marches. One of the most memorable groups of marchers for a lot of folks were the “Corporate Lawyers Against War.” They dressed in pinstriped business suites and marched together with simple placards delaring not just their opposition to the Iraq war, but to war itself.
Personally I found this moving. I know that corporate lawyers are “part of the problem” in a lot of people’s eyes, and that’s often true, but I think the Lawyers in that march served two important purposes. First, they clearly sent the message that the anti-war movement social and class distinctions. Second they served as an important reminder that real movements for change are ultimately about brining people together–not victory of one group against another.
Yeah, but the suits in that case, Robin, were a reflection of identity, not a dress code.
Powerful conservatives and power in general respect well-dressed people because their well-dressed-ness reflects something about their identity, specifically wealthiness. Just putting on the drag isn’t going to make people take you more seriously.
How typical of Stanley to worry about what to wear to a protest. Shallow is as shallow does.
What did RAN wear when they went on their $50,000 vacation in Brazil? The mind reels.
I wore a pith helmet. I looked really good in it.
But generally we wore light clothing, as had been advised by the numerous Indigenous communities that we were lucky enough to meet with while we were there. I won’t lie, I did some swimming in the Xingu river too, but I’d hardly classify it as a “vacation”.
Did you want to contribute to the discussion or just bait people?