What a thoughtful post. The whole power/scrutiny thing is very interesting -- and admittedly not something I think of very much (nor is it something right in my face in my academic setting).
But I've seen the same fashions count for or against. It is such a subjective thing. We could say someone is smart because she looks sharp (crisp, fashionable suit) OR we could say she's not serious about the job because she's too focused on fashion (same crisp, fashionable suit). Someone can be too brilliant to be bothered with clothes (old jeans, ratty t-shirt) or too stupid to even dress himself (same outfit). Appearance may affect first impressions, but later people twist it around anyway. It isn't appearance in isolation -- and maybe that's part of what is bugging me about these articles. They pick a look and either promote it or tear it apart -- but the same look on 3 people may yield 3 quite different results.
Now a serious article on constructing one's overall academic identity and how the parts fit together -- that I could stand behind.
I don't think what you wear matters at all. Yes, appearance affects first impressions but first impressions are quickly superseded by a more lasting impression based on experience with a person. I think the way to establish credibility with students is to be competent. If a professor worries about whether students will accept her authority, that battle is already lost. The key is to assume the authority and students will too, and that has nothing to do with clothing and everything to do with bearing (which reflects one's own attitude). The projection of authority comes from an inner sense that you are entitled to be the professor. It is not endowed upon professors by students. It comes from owning the role.
There is an equivalent to guy casual for women. It is slacks or skirt and a top (shirt or sweater not tee or tank top). Someone who wears pointy shoes is asking for foot trouble if she teaches more than 1 class per day. Wearing a suit is required for administrators nearly everywhere but otherwise a waste of effort, in my opinion. Even at a conference, any credibility conferred by the suit flies out the window if you can't live up to it when you speak.
Yes, I agree that class is reflected in dress. The lower the SES of the person or school, the more dressed up (the more formal the dress code). Low SES children are dressed up more for school by their parents than high SES children in elementary school. The catch is that dressing up doesn't confer higher status. If we are going to model and teach lower SES college students to claim higher status roles, it is not by encouraging them to dress up but by encouraging them to be confident and relaxed enough in their role not to dress up. People in elite colleges do not dress casual because they are pretending to be too intellectual to worry about clothes. They dress casual because it is comfortable, functional, and because they do not need clothes to establish their competence -- they know that clothes cannot establish their competence.
I do not regard teaching as theater-style performance. I regard it as helping others to acquire knowledge and skills. The things we do should be in service of the latter. Wearing a suit is unhelpful toward that goal because costume doesn't matter if you are not in show business, not portraying something you do not own. Teaching matters and preparation matters. Be the professor, don't act the professor.
If undergrads approach their female professors in terms of dress, then we need to teach them not to. We are not required to accept as valid comment the superficialities written on evaluations by people barely past adolescence.
No, I am not criticizing Mel. I am disagreeing with her and the several Chronicle of Higher Ed columnists, with or without pointy shoes.
Sorry, Nancy, but research suggests that first impressions are important and that appearance is very important in a lasting way. We may not like the game, but we're playing it whether we want to or not.
Hey, Mel, have you been reading over my shoulder? Some of what you're writing about is quite similar to the article idea I proposed to one of the IHE editors last night... However, you have an especially eloquent and intelligent way of presenting the ideas.
thanks, AC!
Nancy:
Unlike the Chronicle columnists, nowhere in this post do I talk about classroom authority in relation to dress (and in my previous post, I said quite explicitly that I don't think my authority depends on my dress).
My point is a larger one, that as intellectuals reflecting on and theorizing our roles in the academy and in the world, thinking about dress as one component of our self-presentation can be useful.
I used the term "performance" to highlight the disparate aspects of our lives as academics -- much of what we do is solitary, in the library, lab, or office; and then the other parts of our job involve actions with and in front of other people. Any time you are being observed by others, it is a kind of performance. Some teachers are more overt or "artificial" in their choices, which is perhaps what you mean by "theater-style performance" -- but that's not specifically what I was talking about. For most people, simply the fact of being observed introduces a kind of self-awareness that can be usefully channeled towards rhetorical, pedagogical, or creative ends.
I also chose that term deliberately to reflect my awareness that each of us plays many different roles throughout our day -- who I am as a member of our faculty council is different from who I am as a teacher and as a friend or daughter. Sure, there is some overlap; but there are also clear differences and boundaries between those roles. Surely this is not a new observation. This supports my larger point that considering the stakes of academic dress goes beyond the classroom to encompass all facets of our academic selves, in Hall's terms, and that the meaning of specific sartorial choices is different within different institutional settings.
Heh. I have a friend who points out that the life of the mind is what academics do on their own time. For the rest, we have to play by the social and career rules of academia.
Fascinating discussion-- I arrived very late to it. I wondered if Nancy would show up again on this blog. Wasn't Nancy here for the whole plagiarism fracas? I wish Nancy would blog and stop being so mysterious. Nancy-- you have alot to say! We'd like to see you get a blog!
I agree that class and gender are factors with regards to how faculty are treated by administrators and students. Not all academic cultures are the same and some are more conservative than others.
Commenting by HaloScan
