A Schoolgirl’s Take on Uniforms
Picture school uniforms today and a sea of crisp, unwrinkled shirts, formal pants, matching ties, and pearl-white socks paired with spotless black shoes come to mind — but, they haven’t always looked this way. The idea of uniforms has evolved immensely over time, and so has its impact. According to an article published by the BBC, the Christ’s Hospital boarding school in the UK was one of the first institutes to introduce school uniforms in the 16th century, as it took in “fatherless children and other poor children” from the church and educated them as a form of charity. The citizens of London provided the students with clothes — primarily a blue long coat, which led to their uniform adapting into blue cloaks — reminiscent of the cassocks worn by clergy along with yellow stockings. This concept originated as a way to create a sense of equality, solidarity, and consistency amongst students of the same school. Educational institutes tend to represent diversity in its truest form, since they comprise children of different ages, genders, races, socioeconomic classes, etc. Hence, uniforms were said to have been founded to bridge the gap between these differences as they mandated each student to look identical, encouraging students to practice discipline.
The implementation of school uniforms seems to be correlated with improved order, social cohesion, and safety. Those in favor of uniforms often suggest that they keep students focused on their education instead of their attire, and create a level playing field since the less wealthy are not marked out by their lack of labels and brands. Such consequences appear to help schools create a more inclusive learning environment by preventing peer pressure and bullying from taking place. Many parents actually display agreement with the fact that uniforms allow for money and time to be saved while ensuring the students’ physical and mental presence in school. In fact, a study conducted by a couple of researchers from the University of Nevada, Reno College of Education examined opinions of students from three middle schools in the Washoe County School District during the first-year implementation of a uniform policy at the schools. Their research findings showcased that even though 90% of the students weren’t in favor of uniforms, several perceived benefits to wearing them were recorded, including a fall in discipline deferrals, gang involvement, and bullying. The results also suggested a perceived rise in safety, ease of school-going, confidence, and self-esteem within students. These perceptions of a school uniform, however, are heavily dependent upon the social and economic contexts of a child, and so, can vary.
Over the years though, the concept of a uniform became progressively less as a way to maintain equality and more as a way to foster toxic societal norms. Individuals often use clothes and accessories as a form of personal expression, to parade their individuality and revel in it. But since uniforms require each person to look the same, it leaves no scope for each one’s uniqueness to be appreciated. A couple of particularly pressing issues arise due to the compulsion of uniforms in schools. Firstly, they impose societal standards of masculinity and femininity on children from a young age, promoting the conventional gendered dressing style. Boys are usually required to wear trousers, belts, closed-toe shoes and have their shirts tucked in at all times. This manner of dressing is commonly associated with the appearance of a professional businessman, which feeds a stereotype into the minds of young boys, teaching them that masculinity is gained through business success. On the other hand, girls are frequently required to wear skirts that are seen as a symbol of femininity as they constrict movement and propel specific ways of behaving. Such necessitation of stereotypical dressing may make students who want to clothe across gender feel unaccepted. This causes feelings of shame and insecurity, making school a prejudiced space.
Secondly, uniforms are said to nurture and foster female sexualization. Most schools around the globe compel a uniform, but the dress code goes way beyond just that. Students, usually only ones with female-presenting bodies — are not allowed to “expose” their shoulders, back, cleavage, midriff, and legs. Such behavior is considered “immodest” and “brazen” even though the aforementioned body parts are not inherently sexual like the human genitalia, which means that they have been given a sexual connotation by society over the years. Young girls are called out for going against the dress code even if their skirt is just half an inch above what it “should” be, whereas boys can be shirtless, and they still won’t face the consequences girls do. Many schools claim that they “enforce these dress codes to create a distraction-free zone for male students and staff, and to prevent female students from gaining unwarranted attention.” This logic shifts all the responsibility onto the female and highlights a broader social view expedited by society — harassment is inevitable if females dress in a “provocative” way. Women are expected to dress “appropriately” if they don’t want lingering eyes and hands on their bodies because “men will be men,” and they can’t help it when their eyes and hands wander. Therefore, the idea that girls need to cover up for their safety is planted into children’s minds from a young age, instead of teaching them to hold each other accountable and educating them on what they can and can’t do.
It should be noted that all the faculty members and people who further such misogynistic ideologies are grown adults, who sexualize the bodies of young children. This blatant sexualization can be attributed to the deep-rooted pedophilic tendencies ingrained in people. Taking the example of the stereotypical notion of the ‘Japanese schoolgirl’ — let’s discuss how the schoolgirl was fetishized. The media has portrayed and continues to portray school girls in a very eroticized manner, but this oversexualization dates back to the 1960s through 1990s, where it stemmed from the Japonisme of the West. The Japanese press usually has fanservice for men and is what elicited the inception of the uniform fetish. A Japanese newspaper titled ‘Asahi Shinbun’ threw light upon the concept of on enjo-kosai, which translates to compensated dating in English. Enjo-kosai was said to involve older middle-aged salarymen taking out underaged girls and remunerating them for their time. It was discovered that girls who wore school uniforms earned more money than girls who didn’t. Western media caught a whiff of this and immediately began broadcasting the scandal. Those stories were what ultimately led to the misrepresentation of the Japanese schoolgirl as equivalent to underaged sex and a Lolita complex virus.
In conclusion, uniforms indeed play a critical role in the impact schools have on children and their mental and emotional well-being. It is essential to note that the said impact can be both positive and negative. Most schools pride themselves in celebrating each child but how can we even pretend that they encourage divergent creativity, unique passions, and distinctive personalities when children are expected to wear school uniforms; have we forgotten what “uniform” means?
— — —
Writer: Sparsh Shah
Editor: Arushi R. V.
