The long history of lawmaking over what to wear
‘These women, I'm going to dress them in black ... I imposed black; it's still going strong today..." These are the words of Gabriella ( Coco) Chanel, spoken to one of her biographers. Chanel sought to influence what people wore through innovation, craftsmanship and creativity. Others have taken a more direct and legislative approach.
There have also been many attempts to prohibit people from wearing certain clothing styles, colours or fabrics.
The reign of King Henry VIII of England was a boom time for “Acts of Apparel”. The clothing laws included: no wearing of purple silk unless you’re the king or his close family; no wearing garments made of foreign or imported wool; no crimson, unless you have the rank of knight or higher, and unless you work for the government or own substantial lands, then no velvet, satin or damask.
Like father like daughter, Queen Elizabeth I passed laws requiring the Irish to dress in English-style garments. Breaking these laws could get your clothing confiscated and, theoretically, you could be fined for each day you had illegally worn purple, crimson or silk. The problem with ridiculous rules is that they become impossible to enforce and the fashion police apparently didn’t get many convictions. These laws were mostly an attempt to assert social distinctions and maintain a visual social hierarchy within society. Other shifts towards clothing related legislation have also sought to impose religious or ethnic distinctions.
At various points in history members of the Jewish community have been required to wear items that marked them out as Jews. A German decree issued in 1941, for example, required all Jews over the age of 6 to wear a yellow badge with the word Jude inscribed on it.
This was just one act in a long line of attempts to enforce items of apparel that would distinguish Jews from the rest of the populace.
Historian Paul Johnson documents earlier instances in history, when Jewish women were, quite bizarrely, required to wear one red shoe and one black, with the additional stipulation that they also wear a small bell on the mismatched shoes or around their necks.
In most countries the idea of attempting to legislate for social distinction through dress has all but vanished. Just try to stop an impoverished, unemployed youth from a council estate in East London from wearing Burberry or any other luxury fashion brand that takes his fancy.
Similarly, most modern nations wouldn’t dare insist that members of religious groups identify themselves through their apparel.
Today though, where there is talk of legislating apparel, the push seems to be for assimilation; distinction is no longer desirable. The recent attempted burqini ban should be viewed in the context of a long historical line of facile and ultimately counterproductive attempts to externally impose what people should or should not wear.
With the exception of public decency, telling people what to wear seems anachronistic. It is hardly surprising, but deeply gratifying, to know that France’s top administrative court – Conseil d’État – has overturned this controversial ban.
You could be fined for each day you had illegally worn purple or silk
Dr Justin Thomas is an associate professor at Zayed University On Twitter: @DrJustinThomas