Fashion and Identity: The Suit

Text by Emily Phillips

‘Identity’ can be defined as a social category determined by characteristic attributes, expected behaviours, and membership rules, or socially distinguishing features that an individual prides themselves on and views at once as socially consequential and unchangeable (Fearon, 1999). In terms of ways of dress, there are often distinguishing features in the way one dresses that are associated with the characteristics and behaviours that the individual possesses. Typically, and in most cultures, when fashioning identity women and men are distinctly different. These differences are often distinguished simply by ways of dress. For example, prior to the suffragette movement in the west and the social change that superseded, it was the norm that a man would wear trousers and a woman would wear a skirt or dress. It was not really until the World Wars that women, as a result of joining the workforce, needed bifurcated clothing. This was the first time in modern western history that women adopted a more masculine style. This change then led to a woman’s ability to wear clothing that was traditionally reserved for men, such as the suit. By analyzing the history of dress in regards to the masculine in relation to feminine bodies particularly in the west, as well as examining the ideas theorized by Craik, Entwistle, Flügel, and Kaiser, this essay will discuss the relationship between fashion and identity as it is effected by innate definitions of gender in society. It will specifically look at the suit and the connotations that it holds in connection to predisposed ideas of masculinity, and in turn determine its effect on the identity of the woman who wears it. Key concepts in this essay are identity, gender, cultural and historical context, and ultimately masculinity.

In her introduction to Fashion and Gender, Entwistle (2000, p. 140) quotes Wilson, stating that, “Fashion is obsessed with gender, [it] defines and redefines the gender boundary… This obsession is translated into the dress men and women wear in everyday life which also shows a concern to mark gender difference: in many contemporary situations and on many occasions, there are particular types of clothing demanded of men and women.” An example of such an occasion might be a wedding, at which women are expected to wear dresses and men, suits. To deviate from this expectation is becoming much more widely accepted today than in the past. However, while today’s fashions are seemingly more androgynous than ever, this hasn’t always been the case, and according the Entwistle (2000) this only displays an overriding obsession with gender in fashion.

In fact, Entwistle (2000) goes on to suggest that the process of differentiating gender through ways of dress begins at birth. Consider how the colours pink and blue are straightaway used to show an infant’s gender, which otherwise might not be obvious. From this point forward, an individual’s gender is often easily perceived based immediately on the clothes they are wearing and the innate gendered ideas of who that clothing should belong to. Entwistle (2000, pp. 140-141) calls this the gender appearance, in which we assume someone’s sex based on predisposed ideas of what either sex should look like [based solely on ways of dress], but in fact, we do not see their sex.

“So significant are clothes to our readings of the body that they can come to stand for sexual difference in the absence of a body. Thus, a skirt can signify ‘woman’… while trousers signify ‘man’,” (Entwistle, 2000, p. 141). To explain further, Entwistle (2000, p. 141) uses the icons used to distinguish gendered toilets, where the man is almost always shown in bifurcated garments and the woman in a skirt, as an example. Entwistle, (2000, p.141) writes, “The fact that women frequently wear trousers does not deter them from entering the door with the female icon, since these icons relate not so much to what men and women actually wear but to the clothing they are typically associated with (Garber 1992). Clothing for instance, is the only signifier of difference, serving to connote ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’. So strong are the connotations that items of clothing can even transcend the actual biological body.”

Entwistle (2000, p. 159) then quotes Laver (1995) explaining that in his discussion of male and female dress he suggests that women’s dress exhibits what he calls the ‘Seduction Principle’; the aim being to enhance sexual attractiveness. “He notes that, ‘in general, the purpose of clothes for women has been to make them more sexually attractive and the purpose of men’s clothes has been to enhance their social status,’” (Entwistle, 2000, p. 159). However, this has not always been the case; from the twelfth century men wore codpieces, first in armour and then as a fashionable garment. The codpiece became a man’s disposition to erotic display throughout many considerable periods in history. Similarly, tights and breeches, worn only by men, and for many centuries, brought attention to their figure (Entwistle, 2000, p. 160). It was only in the 19thcentury during what has been coined The Great Masculine Renunciation, when men’s fashion lost its flamboyancy in ruffles, gold, or wigs, and became simple and obsolete. John Carl Flügel (1931) argued that at this time, “Men gave up their right to all the brighter, gayer, more elaborate and varied form of ornamentation, leaving these entirely to the use of women.”

From this time, as men became consumed by employment which could secure status and power, dress was used to help achieve this (Craik, 1994, p. 179). Especially since the eighteenth century, men have been undecorated and sought to avoid the frivolous ideas of fashion that women had adopted from them, so that men’s fashions used a smaller range of fashion garments, with a basic wardrobe consisting of shirt, trousers, and jacket (Craik, 1994, p. 178). Or what is better known as the suit. Men disassociated themselves almost completely from extravagance with these garments (Craik, 1994, p. 179). In fact, Entwistle, (2000, p.174), suggests that the suit, which is essentially the entirety of what men’s fashion had become, works to eradicate any idea of eroticism from the male body. Similarly, (Steele, 1989b:61) as quoted by Craik (1994, p 177), writes, “Men’s bodies have never simply stood for sex; consequently, their clothes never have either.” With this in mind, it is possible that when a frequently sexualized female body is to be covered in men’s clothing, or the suit, that her sexual appeal would cease to exist, just as it had for the man.

While looking specifically at the suit, it is a garment that is not only traditionally associated with the man but that carries with it various meanings and connotations displayed to society that place a certain identity on the wearer. For example, “The suit, it is said, has the power to convey ‘respectability’,” (Entwistle, 2000, p. 173). Likewise, as is quoted by Entwistle (2000, p.173) Edwards argues, “the main example of the utility of menswear, namely the suit, is as much a symbol of masculine sexuality in terms of broadening the shoulders and chest and connecting larynx to crotch through collar and tie, as it is a practical uniform of respectability.” This may suggest that by wearing a suit, a woman can obtain a respectable status based solely on dress which in turn may become something of her identity. When the woman presents herself in a respectable manor and is therefore respected, she asserts a sense of power, which becomes a part of who she is. Similarly, Craik (1994, pp. 180-203), writes that “Clothes have been the index of professional character. In particular the business suit was associated with authority and status… Conversely, as women move into careers, professions and high-status arenas, their wardrobes are incorporating aspects of traditional male dress…. As rules maintaining status and gender distinctions persist, a significant proportion of men and women have resisted overt decoration and display.” As this occurs and women ascend professionally, while having adopted the suit, it is evident that they wish to assume to their identity the characteristics which the suit suggests in order to achieve authority and status. Therefore, it is clear that the suit absent of the body represents respectability, status, authority, and masculinity, and that this can pertain to the wearer regardless of sex or gender identity.

Figure 1

Evidently, when a women, or female body is dressed in a suit, she wears the suit not necessarily to become a man, but to be perceived as, feel like, or actually be, more powerful, successful, and respectable; to assume the connotations of the suit to her identity. This is not to say, however, that a woman must literally wear a ‘man’s’ suit in order to assume these connotations to her identity, but in fact that the suit can be tailored to a woman’s figure and still retain the same or a similar meaning. This was demonstrated with Yves Saint Laurent’s iconic Autumn-Winter 1966 collection which unveiled the first ever tuxedo adapted for women (Musée Yves Saint Laurent Paris, 2020). In turn, the couturier revolutionized the pantsuit for women in 1967, after nearly one hundred years of its perception as a solely masculine fashion, as shown in *Figure 1* (Musée Yves Saint Laurent Paris, 2020). Society was not quick to accept this change, but it was Yves Saint Laurent’s ideas that greatly influenced the ascent of women in society through the 1970s as this is when women first began to wear the suit and to assume to their identities its connotations in order to achieve greater success in their careers (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2020). This suggests that in fact the associations that are made about the suit in the absence of a body continue to hold regardless of the sex of the person who now wears the garment.

Alternatively, a fashion show put on by Butch Voices, an organization with the mission ”to enhance and sustain the well-being of all women, female bodied… who are masculine-of-center,” (Kaiser, 2012, p. 149), displayed women in ‘men’s’ clothing such as the suit, not under the context of professional associations but rather gender identity based connotations. With Butch Voices, the models and audience are typically women of queer or lesbian sexual identity who dress in a primarily masculine style whose gender identity can be described as butch [meaning to have an appearance or qualities traditionally seen as masculine] or as ‘masculine-of-center’ (Kaiser, 2012, p. 151). This suggests again, that the suit carries connotations so strong they even transcend the biological body (Entwistle, 2000, p.141). Furthermore, Entwistle argues that, “In men’s dress the male suit does not just accentuate male bodily features, but adds ‘masculinity’ to the body,” (Entwistle, 2000, p. 141). This in fact suggests that by adding a man’s suit to a women’s body that it reduces her femininity and replaces it with masculinity. For women who are ‘masculine-of-center’ or butch, the purpose of wearing a suit is to assume the masculine characteristics often associated with the male gender.

According to Kaiser (2012, p. 152):

“Historically, there has been a great deal of uncertainty surrounding reports of women who have dressed like men. Many women needed to pass as men in order to survive economically (that is, to hold a job), to avoid physical abuse, or to enjoy other benefits of a man’s world. It becomes very difficult, looking back, to attribute motivation, much less sexual or gender subjectivity. There were a variety of reasons women might have dressed like men.”

Findings by both Entwistle (2000) and Craik (1994) suggest that at least one reason for a woman to dress like a man would be to assume the characteristics which are associated with masculinity. Like Kaiser (2012) writes, “many women needed to pass as men,” this is not so much the case now but rather that many women need to be respected as men, or in some cases need/want to become more like a man in terms of sexuality rather than status.

In conclusion, it is therefore evident that to some extent, and in various ways, men’s clothing on the female body allows the woman to assume a certain identity based on the connotations held within the garments themselves.

By analyzing the history of dress in western culture in regards to the masculine and its relationship with the female body, as well as examining the ideas theorized by Craik, Entwistle, and Kaiser, this essay shows that identity can be hugely influenced by the connotations of certain items of clothing and in particular the suit.

Bibliography:

Craik, J. (1994) ‘Fashioning Masculinity’, in Craik, J. The Face of Fashion: Cultural Studies in Fashion. London: Routledge, pp. 177-180, 197, 199, 200, 203

Entwistle, J. (2000) ‘Fashion and Gender’, in Entwistle, J. The Fashioned Body: Fashion, Dress and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity, pp. 140 – 145, 159 – 163, 172 – 176

Fearon, J. (1999) What is Identity (As We Now Use the Word)?. Available at:https://web.stanford.edu/group/fearon-research/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/What-is-Identity-as-we-now-use-the-word-.pdf (Accessed: 5 May 2020)

Flügel, J., 1931. The Psychology Of Clothes. London: Hogarth Press.

Kaiser, S. (2012) ‘Sexuality and Style-Fashion-Dress’ in Kaiser, S. Fashion and Cultural Studies London: Bloomsbury, pp. 148 – 152

Musée Yves Saint Laurent Paris (2020) Pantsuit. Available at: https://museeyslparis.com/en/biography/premier-smoking (Accessed: 7 May 2020)

Musée Yves Saint Laurent Paris (2020) Tuxedo. Available at: https://museeyslparis.com/en/biography/premier-smoking (Accessed: 7 May 2020)

Sturken, M. and Cartwright, L. (2001) ‘Spectatorship, Power and Knowledge’, in Sturken, M. and Cartwright, L. Practices of Looking: an Introduction to Visual Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 76, 78 – 83, 87 – 89

The Metropolitan Museum of Art (2020).Pantsuit.Available at: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/83937 (Accessed: 7 May 2020)