Manners and dress codes are not comfortable topics of discussion these days. Many would say they are trivial. Interestingly, those who deny any importance to codes of behaviour and dress are those who go out of their way to break them. Is that what the Prime Minister did when she
hosted a banquet for the Queen this week?
Somebody, presumably on the Prime Minister's authority, dispensed with grace before the meal and the host herself had surprised the gathering by ignoring the dress code laid down on her invitation: long dress, black tie/decorations. She gave as the reason for the absence of grace that New Zealand was a "secular society" and guests could say their grace if they wished. As for her attire, she let that speak for itself.
And it did. Indeed, it spoke more truly than her excuse for neglecting a religious tradition. No society is simply "secular"; all have religious rituals that mean little or nothing to many of their people, who nevertheless observe them when the company or an occasion is accustomed to it.
Those who cannot bring themselves to observe the ritual are not making a statement about society but rather about themselves. So it is with clothing.
Few of us want to explain - perhaps even to ourselves - why we act and dress the way we do. Clothing is one of the most powerful forms of personal expression, and not always an entirely conscious one. People dress for different occasions in whatever way they feel comfortable. The vast majority feel more comfortable conforming to the style and standard expected in the circumstances.
But there will be those who cannot bring themselves to conform in some situations and they are not necessarily giving deliberate offence. They may be obeying some imperative of their own identity. Much as they may wish it were otherwise, they simply cannot bring themselves to act or dress in a style that is "not me".
If they are less honest, they might pretend that how they look is unimportant to them, and that it should not matter to anybody else. That is a common pose these days, which does not fool anybody. Those who affect a certain carelessness often work harder at it than those who simply put on the suit of the day.
And no matter how much or little dress matters to the wearer, it certainly has meaning for those whom he or she meets or serves or works with. Clothing is a statement not only of personal identity but of the person's attitude to his or her position, role, workmates, companions, clients and performance. That is why commercial organisations take a reasonable interest in their representatives' dress.
In so doing they may run foul of fashion, the fly in the ointment of dress codes. Fashion often challenges tradition, conventions, dignity and, as schools are finding these days, of decency. Fashion brings change and it will be a dull world without that.
But fashion has standards of its own. It is not enough to be unconventional or outrageous. It must be appealing enough to set a new convention.
This is not a particularly formal society, still less a religious one. But formality and a modicum of religious ceremony should not be beyond the abilities of anybody in public life. When it proves to be so, we are entitled to take note. It can tell us something about the people we have put in power and, while the insight might not be startling, it is always valuable.
The Prime Minister is adept in performing most of the demands of her position, but there is a ceremonial dimension that she seems unable or unwilling to attempt. Perhaps it is simply not her. It is not so very serious, but it is sad.
Manners and dress codes are not comfortable topics of discussion these days. Many would say they are trivial. Interestingly, those who deny any importance to codes of behaviour and dress are those who go out of their way to break them. Is that what the Prime Minister did when she
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.