As a college student, I worked at an amusement park for a couple of summers. Part of my job was to check that employees met the dress code requirements on their way in: solid black shoes, khaki pants or shorts, no hair extending beyond the collar for men, no ‘unnatural’ hair colors, no piercings other than one per ear lobe for women, etc. Employees knowingly flouted these requirements frequently, and there was often palpable resentment toward me and the other employees whose job it was to enforce them. It was not uncommon for employees to be sent home because of dress code violations—an outcome they could have easily predicted given their knowledge of the requirements. As a result, they would waste their time commuting, fail to earn a wage for the day, and get a negative mark on their record for missing their shift. Employees in my department often viewed the choice of others to violate the dress code policies as irrational; they saw the desire for self-expression as frivolous and immature, and perhaps even an act of vanity. However, I think self-expression is, in fact, a significant moral good of which employees were being unjustly deprived and that their acts of defiance were often expressions of self-respect.
Dress codes have been getting some negative attention lately, especially insofar as they disadvantage certain people based on their race, culture, sex, or gender identity. For example, despite the recent passage of legislation in many states that forbids racial discrimination based on hair texture and style, it remains common for employers to deem the natural hair of many Black people “unprofessional.” There is growing recognition that this way of framing things reinforces racist stereotypes about who counts as “professional”—signaling trustworthiness, competence, and respect toward others—and who does not. This appeal to professionalism among white European Americans is part of a broader history of cultural imperialism, which often involves deeming “other” cultures uncivilized and immoral in their appearance. Contemporary workplace dress codes show that it remains commonplace to view certain Western ideals of dress as inherently virtuous. The other side of that coin is that it remains commonplace to view those who do not meet these Western standards as incompetent, untrustworthy, and disrespectful.
The requirements of “professionalism” common in workplace dress codes are also rooted in sexism as they often prescribe different appearance norms depending on the sex of the employee. For example, a woman may be allowed to have hair that extends past her collar while a man may not; a woman may be allowed to wear earrings while a man may not; and a woman may be required to wear makeup while a man may not. As philosopher Marilyn Frye has influentially argued, these separate expectations for men and women reinforce the idea that there are deep, important differences between the sexes that are critical to every facet of our interactions; it is therefore of the utmost importance that we can always, immediately, and without ambiguity know who is a man and who is a woman. The ways these differences between the sexes are marked also carry meaning: women are the ones who society expects to put on makeup, wear bras, and shave their body hair. Their shoes are difficult to walk in, and their pencil skirts and fitted slacks are restrictive and can make it difficult to do things like walk or sit. As feminist theorists like Simone de Beauvoir have been arguing for decades, women’s bodies in our society are not meant for them to do things with but are instead meant to be beautiful objects for men to look at. These sexist standards of dress are often reinforced in workplace dress codes, as is the idea that men and women are inherently and critically distinct from one another in ways that are relevant even to their work lives.
Of course, it’s also essential to recognize how sex and gender are more complicated than many workplace dress codes leave space for. Many people do not identify as either a man or a woman, leaving many intersex and/or nonbinary people without a suitable set of options for which dress code to follow. In addition, while workplaces are currently required to allow trans men and women to dress according to their gender identity (in the US, at least), having different dress codes and uniforms for men and women can present a dilemma to some trans people. Some must choose between either coming out in the workplace before they are ready, on the one hand, or dressing according to a gender identity they do not identify with, and that causes psychological distress, on the other.
Concerns such as these may have been motivating some of the resistance to workplace dress codes that I witnessed those summers working at the amusement park—for example, resistance to policies against having hair that extends outward more than two inches from the scalp, or against men having long hair. But most instances of resistance I witnessed were not plausibly related to identity-based concern—shaving facial piercings, ‘unnatural’ hair colors, a partially shaven head, or shoes that were not entirely black, for example. Nonetheless, I believe that many of these employees were responding to genuine moral reasons in favor of expressing themselves and that doing so was an act of self-respect. Their defiant self-expression counts as an act of self-respect in at least two ways.
First, workplace dress codes involve an excessive exertion of power over employees that can be degrading. While some dress code requirements are an appropriate use of power, as they keep employees safe or maintain the basic functioning of the workplace, many dress code requirements involve an excessive exertion of control because they are irrelevant to the job itself. While a person working in an active construction site should certainly wear a hard hat, and a person whose job is to play Cinderella at Disney World should certainly dress like Cinderella, most dress code requirements are unrelated to the job. Whether a person’s nails are painted has no impact on their ability to analyze data, and whether the hair on their head is partially shaven has no effect on their ability to stock shelves. Of course, employers could argue that these regulations are necessary for maximizing profit due to customer preferences. On this line of argument, extensive and detailed dress code regulations are justified because the employees’ job is fundamentally profit-maximization for the company. However, I would argue that such a way of conceiving of the role of workers is inherently agency-undermining and degrading, and that such a defense does not, therefore, avoid the harms I am concerned with here.
When employers exert power over employees by regulating the minutia of their activities for no clear or legitimate reason, it disrespects their agency, and employees often describe it as degrading. The undermining of agency and the resulting experience of degradation can be worsened when the dress code involves a violation of privacy, as when employers reprimand employees for not wearing a bra. They can also be worsened when the dress code interferes with life outside of work—for example, if employees cannot have blue hair, a pierced lip, or hairy armpits in the workplace, they likely also cannot have blue hair, a pierced lip, or hairy armpits outside of the workplace.
Many dress code requirements are also costly in terms of time, money, and attention. For example, removing one’s body hair takes time and costs money, and it can result in bodily harm in the form of nicks, ingrown hairs, and razor burn. Applying makeup is also costly and time-consuming, and (as philosopher Clare Chambers has compellingly argued) it changes the way a person can move in the world and interact with her own body: she can no longer simply take a sip from a cup or rub her eye when it itches, but must instead be mindful of the impact these things will have on her makeup. She will also need to bring the makeup with her wherever she goes and take time throughout the day to reapply and correct. The way her face looks must now be constantly in the back of her mind, as any obvious flaws in her makeup will be a possible source of humiliation. When employers require employees to engage in practices like these for no clear or adequate reason, it is no wonder that employees feel degraded. Their relationships with their bodies are altered by the mandates to satisfy the arbitrary preferences of their employers. Resisting this degradation can, therefore, be a legitimate expression of self-respect.
A second way resisting dress codes can be a form of self-respect relates to the fact that self-expression connects with several other important moral goods that employers should not deprive their employees of without good reason. For one thing, self-expression can be an essential component of self-love, understood here as valuing ourselves for who we are as unique individuals. When workplace dress codes require us to hide or modify certain features of ourselves—like our love of bright colors, or the pleasure we get from experimenting with certain modes of presentation—it causes tension in the person who values those parts of themselves since they must repress or hide something they value. Self-expression can also play a central role in developing self-understanding. To know ourselves, it is not enough to look inward; we must try things out and see if they feel like a good fit. When employers deny employees the opportunity to try things out because of dress code requirements, we lose the chance to explore certain parts of ourselves.
Finally, self-expression is an important step in being recognized by others as the person we see ourselves as. Our self-conceptions are difficult to hold onto if we don’t receive affirmation from others, and self-expression plays a critical role in allowing others to interpret us in ways that cohere with our conceptions of ourselves. Being recognized by others as the person we see ourselves as also provides us with opportunities to connect with like-minded people. While one might object that a person could engage in self-expression and thus attain these moral goods outside of the workplace, it’s worth noting two things. First, many Americans spend about half their waking lives at work, leaving them with precious little time outside the workplace to experience these goods. Second, many workplace dress code requirements impact employees’ appearance outside of the workplace as well (e.g., restrictions on hair colors or piercing locations). Thus, employees show respect for themselves when they resist dress codes that unjustly undermine their ability to pursue moral goods like self-love, self-understanding, and recognition by others.
The obvious objection to the line of argument I have been presenting throughout is that if employees don’t like it, they don’t have to take the job. By taking the job, they consent to the dress code, which, therefore, cannot be immoral because it is implicitly consented to. But, notice how this line of argument fails concerning other possible workplace requirements. For example, we would not (I hope) defend an employer engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment by stating that the employee could have left if they didn’t like it; nor would we accept an unsafe workplace that consistently presented workers with significant but avoidable risks to increase profit. There are limits to what employers can morally permissibly ask of their employees, even if the employee can quit. My claim here is that most workplace dress codes go beyond what employers can morally permissibly ask of their employees.
Workplace dress codes are, then, usually immoral. They are often rooted in racism, cultural imperialism, and sexism. Even when they aren’t, they frequently involve an unwarranted and arbitrary use of power over employees, which can be privacy-undermining and change employees’ relationships with their bodies. In addition, they undermine employees’ access to the moral good of self-expression and related phenomena like self-love, self-understanding, and recognition by others. Employers are obligated to keep employees safe, and—assuming the basic function of the workplace is morally permissible—they are permitted to enforce dress codes necessary for the functioning of the workplace. (Whether the Hooter’s dress code can be defended on the grounds that it is necessary for the functioning of Hooters will depend on whether the function of Hooters is morally permissible in the first place, then.) However, workplace dress codes that go beyond these goals should be eliminated. After all, if your taxes get done on time, what difference does it make if your accountant shows up to your next meeting in sweatpants?
The post Most Workplace Dress Codes are Immoral first appeared on Blog of the APA.
Read the full article which is published on APA Online (external link)
