School Uniform: It's Different for Girls

School uniforms have long been a symbol of class and privilege as well as being mechanisms for surveillance and discipline (Meadmore and Symes 1996). A recent study of dress code policies in one American state concluded that the policies reproduced the ‘white, heterosexual male norm’ (Edwards and Marshall 2018). In Discipline and Punish, Foucault focused on the ways that power is exercised over individual bodies. His concept of ‘docile bodies’ is particularly relevant in relation to school uniform policies. Schools are an important place for the construction of social norms and practices, including norms relating to gender expression and identity. In the context of school uniforms children will receive negative reactions to dress that does not fit what is expected of them (Graham et al. 2017). Happel (2013) describes the wearing of skirts as a part of ‘ritualized girling’ where girls take part in a symbolic performance of gender.

The origins of the school uniform come from a masculine, upper-class mode of dress. Girls’ uniforms can be classed into ‘quasi-masculine’ that are focused on promoting discipline and confidence, or ‘feminized uniforms’ that promote physical/emotional training in nurturing (Craik 2013). Even today girls’ uniforms contain ‘strange male traits’ - there are contradictions between some aspects of girls’ uniforms and what is considered feminine in the wider world (Okely 1993, cited in Craik 2003). Okely refers to two sets of attributes instilled in girls through this method: the ‘masculine’ traits of discipline and leadership as well as emotional attributes of self-control and self-negation. Craik describes ‘body techniques’ through uniforms that create and inscribe a series of oppositional values: ‘discipline versus spontaneity; group identity/conformity versus individuality/expressiveness; formality versus informality; compulsion versus choice; sexuality versus sexuality; and sexual versus sexual perversion’ (2003:130). Azzarito (2010) discusses the ‘constrained physicality’ of girls who learn to take up limited space and monitor their physical actions.

A key theme in the literature on gender and school dress codes is that of banning that which is deemed inappropriate or immodest which has particular implications for the governing of female bodies (Pomerantz 2007, Raby 2008). This presentation will include findings from a content analysis of the school uniform policies and school handbooks of all state secondary schools in Scotland (n=418) to show how school uniform policies make school different for girls.

References
Azzarito, L. (2010). Future Girls, transcendent femininities and new pedagogies: toward girls' hybrid bodies? Sport, Education and Society, 15(3), pp.261-275.
Craik, J. (2003). The Cultural Politics of the Uniform. Fashion Theory, 7(2), pp.127-147.
Edwards, T. and Marshall, C. (2018). Undressing policy: a critical analysis of North Carolina
(USA) public school dress codes. Gender and Education, pp.1-19.
Happel, A. (2013). Ritualized girling: school uniforms and the compulsory performance of gender. Journal of Gender Studies, 22(1), pp.92-96.
McLaren, M. (2002). Feminism, Foucault, and embodied subjectivity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Meadmore, D. and Symes, C. (1996). Of Uniform Appearance: a symbol of school discipline
and governmentality. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 17(2), pp.209-225.
Pomerantz, S. (2007). Cleavage in a Tank Top: Bodily Prohibition and the Discourses of School Dress Codes. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53(4), pp.371-386.
Raby, R. (2008). Polite, Well-dressed and on Time: Secondary School Conduct Codes and the Production of Docile Citizens. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 42(1), pp.71-91.