When Hillary Clinton announced her official statement of candidacy for the presidential race a week ago, along came a slew of commentary and criticism about her fashion choices. The role of fashion in politics seems trivial and should hardly ever be the focus of a campaign or in choosing the right candidate for the job. However, as Clinton has proven after recieving unwanted feedback on her appearance shows fashion in politics, particularly for women, is important—but not for the reasons one might think.
Primarily, it is valuable because it is a reflection of the values we hold as a society as well as representation of what we expect from women in power.
Political campaigns are ideally governed by policy and ideas, but in the age of media are based on image and presentation. It is indeed unfair that when women are involved in politics, it seems what they wear is analyzed and critiqued at levels exceeding their male counterparts.
In the world of women, the obsession with gendered fashion stems from the expectation for women to construct their identities based on carefully calculated appearances. Clinton understands the power of appearances and has her famous “power” pantsuits crafted by Carolina Herrera and Oscar de la Renta. At the State of the Union Address in 1998 at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton wore a vibrant pink suit reminiscent of what Jackie Kennedy wore at the time of her husband’s assassination. The symbolism behind this fashion choice is more than meets the eye. “In America, it [pink] reads as the color of a martyred wife; and of a survivor,” stated Leandra Medine in a “Man Repeller: Why We Care What Hillary Clinton Wears.”
Clothes are a political maneuver. Understanding fashion choices can help us avoid being subtly manipulated by them.
Women throughout the ages have harnessed political power based on attire. Pharaoh Hatshepsut in ancient Egypt wore men’s garb in public, including a false beard. Katherine Langley, a congresswoman from Kentucky, rocked the boat and received ample criticism in the 1920s when she donned a conspicuous blue dress trimmed with red in the House of Representatives. Hillary Clinton has made the pantsuit iconic and representative of women in power. Michelle Obama has challenged the expected dress code of the first lady with her bold outfits.
The shift from Hatshepsut to Michelle Obama’s “fashion diplomacy,” shows an alteration, however small, toward a stronger value placed on femininity in positions of power. Michelle Obama’s more modern and feminine choices, with the cut and shapes of her clothes as well as the color, are fashion choices that have been talked about, praised and highly sought after. Some say that this “fashion diplomacy” has helped to break down skin-color boundaries in places like India because of the extensive spectrum of Michelle Obama’s fandom.
Men in politics wear basically the same, or what looks like the same, suit every day. They wear a tie that is chosen to represent a tone they wish to convey, yet not be distracting. Women are expected to do the same with what they wear, but they must seem put-together, accessible and even fashionable, choosing from an array of styles and colors. This is quite a request of our women in politics, but many female politicians are wonderful role models who help women pinpoint how to dress for success and power.
Fashion in politics is not a trivial thing to brush under the rug. It must be talked about because gender bias is so prevalent in the “men’s club” of politics. Hillary Clinton is bringing back the power of strategy right down to the pleats in her pantsuit.
