Every once in a while, a discussion pops up about "professional" attire. No, it's not about a tool belt for a carpenter or a plumber. Nor is it about a wrist guard for an archer. It isn't even about a pocket protector (talk about "old school" -- not many still remember those) or a slide-rule holder (😊) for an engineer. What is usually referred to has nothing directly to do with a profession. It is attire of an expected nature. Although it goes by many synonyms and euphemisms, it is a uniform.
A uniform is created to make a group of people "obvious" members of that group. There are uniforms for military service -- usually separate variants for casual, workday, use as opposed to formal, "dress", occasions. There are uniforms for special positions such as a "door person" who guards the entrances of higher-income dwellers. The clothing for a particular social status will vary -- more often for women than for men but for both. The expected clothing for a "man of means" of the 1800s would be quite different from that of a "dress for success" male of the 2000s. However, between 1950 and 1960 there would be very little change -- perhaps a change in button, lapel, or overlap in the ubiquitous dress suit.
Of later years, the mode is less obvious and meant for more "discerning" tastes. A CEO may wear a $500 t-shirt which only those "in the know" who recognize specific fabric and brands would easily notice. This offers a blend of impression -- part of the general people while also being able to be slotted into an upper-level echelon. Friends (Quakers) of the 1700s and 1800s sometimes did this. The religion emphasized "plain" clothing so the general styles would be similar for all people within the Meeting. However, that plain grey apparel -- when examined closely -- might vary with the wealthier wearing grey silk while the poorer wore grey homespun cotton. Unless immersed within the customs of the group at the time, it can seem quite amusing. But it did matter.
Uniforms work in two ways -- for external recognition and for self-reinforcement within a group. A school uniform will be mandated to be of a particular style, material, and pattern which is expected to create both a recognition of people of the group as well as a homogeneity. Yet, somehow, little additions such as lapel pins, brooches, belt buckles, and such still sneak in to create small subgroups.
What happens if you don't wear the "appropriate" uniform? Most of the time, you will be treated as if you don't belong. The exact reaction can range from being ignored to having the police come to check your "credentials". The more exclusive that a group is, the less forgiving they are of members not adhering to their standards -- or for others trying to appear to be part of that group without the credentials for membership.
There seems to be a general urge for people to want to be recognized as part of a group. As long as that urge exists, there will be uniforms. Those outside those groups may not like the uniforms or may be envious of the uniforms but they will, consciously or unconsciously, tend to band together with their own uniforms that indicate NOT being part of the original groups. The result of avoiding the uniforms ends up being a situation of a different uniform.
