Dress to Impress: Employer Regulation of Gay and Lesbian Appearance
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| DOI | 10.1177/a010360 |
| Author | P L Skidmore |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
DRESS TO IMPRESS: EMPLOYER
REGULATION OF GAY AND
LESBIAN APPEARANCE
PAUL SKIDMORE
University of Bristol, UK
ABSTRACT
This article looks at the role of dress and appearance as a key signifier of gender and
sexuality as mediated through the workplace. It explores the sex and sexuality of jobs
and organisations, before considering ideas of gay and lesbian performances, noting
the role of appearance/clothing in these strategies. Legal discourses which have his-
torically targeted clothing as regulatory target are also problematised, questioning
why clothing should be such a central theme. Modern legal discourses are also inter-
rogated, questioning how legal systems can and should control employers’ use of
dress codes. Case studies from English and German law are used to examine how legal
discourses also contribute to the heterosexual construction of the workplace. In con-
clusion it is argued that in addressing the conjunctions of clothing/work/sex/sexu-
ality, without overplaying the role of law, there is nevertheless a need to explore its
discursive function, and its role in erasing gay and lesbian experience.
INTRODUCTION
THE SCHEME OF THIS essay is to consider first the gender and sexu-
ality of organisations, understanding organisations as a locus for their
production. This leads on to a discussion of clothing, its meanings, its
role in production of genders and sexualities and its particular place in lesbian
and gay history. Clothing as a target for regulatory discourses is then ex-
amined. The argument proceeds to try to knit these strands of clothing, regu-
lation, sexualities and genders into a discussion of the workplace, to
understand the complex processes at stake there. The focus then moves to an
explicit legal one, theorising contemporary employer dress codes in a legal
framework, illustrated by the use of two case studies – examining the case law
and legal doctrine developed in both the United Kingdom and in Germany.
SOCIAL &LEGAL STUDIES 0964 6639 (199912) 8:4 Copyright © 1999
SAGE Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi,
Vol. 8(4), 509–529; 010360
04 Skidmore (jl/d) 28/10/99 1:58 pm Page 509
The choice of Germany as case study can be explained by its apparent con-
trast in legal terms with the UK. On the surface it has a well-developed
system of constitutional rights and also has a statutory framework of com-
prehensive collective and individual employment rights, both of which are
lacking in the UK. Furthermore it has a rich history with regard to lesbian
and gay issues, not yet discussed in English language literature.
The argument I seek to develop here is that theories of organisation in
addressing the (re)production of workplace heterosexuality need to consider
further two aspects: namely the semiotic codes woven into clothing (as
discussed by McDowell, 1995, 1997) and the role of legal discourses in vali-
dating employer practices. Based on my analysis of the two case studies, I
also am hesitant as to the strategic possibilities for using law as a technique
to widen the opportunities for greater divergence in gender performance(s)
in the workplace.
GENDER, SEXUALITY AND ORGANISATIONS
The workplace is a key site for the (re)production, construction, utilisation and
concealment of sexualities. This is not to argue that persons are ‘pre-sexual’ or
have a ‘natural’ sexuality before entering the workplace, but rather that work,
as it has come to be understood since the Industrial Revolution, is a significant
set of practices through which sexuality and gender are mediated.
Following Butler (1990, 1991, 1993), I see both sex and gender as discur-
sive constructs (1990: 6–7) and sexuality as a matter of performance (1990:
31). Thus the ‘male’/‘female’ binary is no more stable than that of
homo/heterosexuality. Thus to question and problematise sex and gender is
also to problematise sexuality and vice versa. Thus in the course of this article
I intend to treat questions of sex, gender and sexuality as intrinsically linked.
As has often been argued, sex, gender and sexuality emerge as a product of
power relations. The configurations of power relations in the workplace are
particularly interesting and complex, confirming its pre-eminent position for
theorising issues of gender and sexuality. The complex power dynamics are
twofold (Collins, 1986): first a worker is subject to the market power of his/her
employer – i.e. the arbitrary power of the employer to exploit the value of
his/her worker’s labour, paying a fixed price (in wages) for the value of her
work which can bring the employer handsome rewards. Secondly, the worker
is subject to the bureaucratic power of the work organisation in which s/he
works. Many, but not all, work organisations are organised around hierarchi-
cal principles meaning that most workers have a manager or line manager who
can control and discipline them but who is not in law their employer.
The extent to which this network of power relations we call the workplace
not only produces patterns of gender and sexuality, but also relies upon them
in constituting itself has only recently been fully realised. While feminist
writers have for many years sought to problematise the gendering of jobs
which leads to occupational segregation (e.g. Beechey, 1987; Walby, 1988a,
510 SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 8(4)
04 Skidmore (jl/d) 28/10/99 1:58 pm Page 510
To continue reading
Request your trial