Uniforms: You are What You Wear and What You Wear is You
Uniform (from Merriam-Webster.com):
- Having always the same form, manner, or degree; not varying or variable
- Consistent in conduct or opinion
- Of the same form with others; conforming to one rule or mode
- Presenting an unvaried appearance of surface, pattern, or color
A reader of our introductory post, Next Generation HS, made a great point that is worth considering as you read this article and the ones that will follow:
“There is a small but important conundrum that is illustrated in this article. Does the uniform make the person or vice versa?”
Those of us who have put on a uniform at some point in our career; whether police, firefighter, military, disaster response, or others; have certainly felt a discernible change in our mindset, or even our physical bearing, as we went through the ritual of donning the various parts of the uniform. The creased pants and shirt; the belt with the buckle in perfect alignment with button flap of our shirt; the organizational, unit and rank insignias describing who we are a part of and what we have accomplished (so far); the polished boots; and finally, the Dixie-cup hat (ok, my first uniform was as an enlisted sailor, but you get the point). We change as we dress for work: it is representative of something greater, and in that sense, the uniform makes us.
That “something greater,” however, is both the trust the public gives us to protect them, and the actions we have taken to deserve that trust. Most uniformed services sanctify their uniforms, and the badges, medals and other insignias affixed to them are talismanic. We are reminded of the efforts made to earn them. Without those actions, uniforms are just a collection of ornate garments and trinkets. In that sense, we make the uniform.
So the answer, from my skewed perspective, to whether the uniform makes the person or vice-versa is “both.” It is a costume, a utilitarian outfit, a symbol and a bond. In the next few articles we will examine uniforms in their various forms, beginning with police uniforms.
History of Police Uniforms
The history of police uniforms followed the history municipal police departments themselves. The prototypical police department was the Metropolitan Police in London, which was formed in 1829 from an array of smaller less-formal patrol groups and constabularies. The Met issued blue uniforms for their officers to distinguish them from the British Army, who still wore their characteristic red and white uniforms.[i]
Major American cities followed the organizational style and uniform of the Met later in the nineteenth century. In 1845, the New York Police Department was established, and by 1853 had its officers wearing navy blue paramilitary-style uniforms.[ii] At the same time, new police departments in Boston, Chicago, and other cities adopted the blue uniform, which was often acquired from surplus US Army stock.
Over the following century, law enforcement agencies throughout the United States switched from civilian attire to paramilitary-style uniforms in various colors, but usually in utilitarian blues, grays and browns.
The Fashion Police
Police uniforms have generally been a combination of utilitarian design and martial esthetic. There were, however, a couple of examples where police organizations decided that form would prevail over function.
Take as exhibit A, the uniform of the Italian Carabinieri, which was recently re-designed by the high-fashion design house of Valentino. These uniforms are a modernized take on their traditional design, which harkens back to their roots as a military fighting force at the origin of the Italian republic. As a gendarmerie force, the Carabinieri fill a paramilitary role in Italy that is best compared to a hybrid between American state police forces and National Guard units.
The New York Times, in a 2009 article that swooned over the cut of the Carabinieri jib, also noted briefly that the New York Police Department was presented with conceptual uniforms from designer Halston. As implausible as it might seem to have police wearing haute couture on duty — they are walking a beat, after all, not the catwalk — the Halston design did include utilitarian considerations such as an early version of cargo pants.
The idea of an overdressed patrol officer might be utilitarian unto itself. It has been explained to me by many police officers that the way they present their uniform has meaning that is recognized by the public. The Los Angeles Police Department, for example, emphasizes the fit and finish of their uniforms and considers it a vital visual deterrent. Maybe “La Bella Figura” is its own type of body armor.
Public Perception of Police Uniforms
Since the original blue “Bobbie” style uniforms of the NYPD, the public has had strong reactions to police uniforms. Nineteenth century police officers complained about their new uniforms, claiming that they were confused for horsemen and bell hops. More recently, the BDU-style uniforms of police tactical units have been seen as examples of policing that has become too martial, with aggressive tactics that match their look.
In 1968, in reaction to civilian tension with the police, the Menlo Park Police Department switched their officers from typical blue paramilitary-style uniforms to a blazer and tie combination for both men and women. Initially, this change appeared to spark a decline in violence between civilians and police, a success that led other departments throughout the United States to change to the Hogwarts look. Eight years later, the positive effects of the blazer experiment seemed to diminish, and Menlo Park returned to their original uniforms.
Researchers during the same period examined the effects of police uniforms on civilians. The most notable, which is described in many a Psych 101 class, was conducted by Leonard Brickman in 1974. Brickman’s experiments had actors dress in either police-style uniforms, milkman uniforms, or civilian attire and issue instructions to unknowing strangers at a bus stop in Brooklyn. These experiments indicated that civilians were more compliant when the actor was dressed like a police officer. [iii] Personally, I cannot decide what impresses me more — the findings of this experiment or the courage of the actors to give orders to Brooklynites.
Other research from the same period spoke to the internal effects of the uniform. The notorious Stanford Prison Experiment, placed students in simulated jailor and prisoner roles. The experiment, intended to last two weeks, ended after six days when the jailors exhibited sadistic behavior. Philip Zambardo, the architect of the experiment, attributed some of the sadism to “deindividuation” of the jailors, which described how their donning of uniforms stripped the students of individual will and replaced it with a pernicious group ethos.[iv]
Conclusion
When researchers examine the question raised at the beginning of this article, they too seem to find that with police, the uniform makes the person and vice-versa. At its most extreme, maybe the definition of uniform, implying a congruence of purpose and image, can be warped into something more sinister. Maybe, the uniform in these cases separates the officers from the public they serve.
I offer that when we put on our uniforms, we should not wear those clothes as a shield. Instead, we should be mindful of the symbolism that was imparted on us when we first earned those clothes, and that badge. The uniform is supposed to represent authority that is given from the public to us, and is renewed from the sacrifices our colleagues have made while wearing it.
For more from Operation Swagger Back take a look at our other articles:
Welcome to Operation Swagger Back
Why Have Police Been Vilified?
On social media? Follow us!
Medium.com: Operation Swagger Back
Twitter: @OpSwaggerback
Email: OperationSwaggerBack@gmail.com
[i] Johnson, Richard, “Psychological Influence of the Police Uniform,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Vol 70 -3, March 2001 Pg:27 https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=187661
[ii] ibid
[iii] Brickman, Leonard, “The Social Power of the Uniform,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Volume 4–1, 1974, pgs. 47–61
[iv] Zimbardo, Philip G, “The human choice: individualtion, reason and order versus deindividuation, impulse and chaos.” Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
