Chiara Settineri

Mad Men: Gender, Work, and American Culture VMS 290

Prof. Lamm

December 18, 2017

Outsider Outfits: Fashion and Difference in Mad Men

AMC’s hit show Mad Men (2007-2015), created by Matthew Weiner, has been widely, critically praised for its stylistic aesthetic and meticulous attention to detail and accuracy.

Developing costumes on a show centered around facades, Mad Men’s costume designer Janie

Bryant intentionally and artfully crafts the exteriors of the characters and uses clothing pieces that are both true to the era and to the personalities of the characters on the show. Every ensemble reflects the feelings, aspirations, and identities of the individuals who bear them. In this paper, I argue that Mad Men specifically utilizes fashion to emphasize its theme of “the other,” using Helen Bishop, Peggy Olson, and Michael Ginsberg as sites of exploration. As a divorced, economically independent mother, a single working woman, and a Jewish copywriter, respectively, each of these characters represents a departure from the status quo of New York in the 60s. Their separation from the cultural norm is highlighted through their personal style, as each of them refuses to abide by the standards of dress in their own particular ways. Their different tastes not only indicate their distance from the other characters, but also express what exactly differentiates them; their clothing choices expose the ways in which the characters defy expectations placed on them, contributing to their characterization within the show. Helen,

Peggy, and Michael participate in a society which champions homogeneity, but each of them subtly rebel against the norms through their clothing—causing enough disruption to create real change in the spheres they inhabit.

The Codes of Dress Within this elite New York society of the 1960s, there are tacit standards of dress, which the majority of the characters on Mad Men exemplify. Depending on the environment, characters abide by certain rules of style. In the office, the men are expected to exude composure, representing the wealth of the upper middle class in solid, dull-colored suits, crisp white button- downs, and sleek ties. In her book The Fashion File (2010), centered on style advice and inspiration, Janie Bryant writes that the tailored suit, especially as she styles it in Mad Men, indicates “poise and power” (138). This style may be seen on all the powerful male executives and copywriters who work at Sterling Cooper Draper Price without exception; Don, arguably the most powerful man at SCDP, specifically emphasizes this point as he puts on this uniform in order to assimilate into the status quo and reject his “otherness.” His use of the structured suit is central to his façade, as Don’s success is largely due to his acquisition of another man’s identity, which allowed him to escape the poverty of his youth and begin anew. He essentially uses the business suit as a disguise—covering up his true self, the small-minded, rural Dick Whitman he once was to embody the identity of Don Draper, an intimidating, brooding, and cosmopolitan creative director.

Don, fearful of being exposed for his false identity, is hyper-aware of the power produced by the suit. As the reservoir of fresh, white button-downs kept in his desk drawer proves, Don understands the significance of performing authority and identity through wardrobe. His use of clothing as a tool to mask a fractured identity is discussed by Jim Hansen in his essay “Mod

Men” (2013). In the essay, Hansen compares Don to the “dandy” archetype and the well-known characters of Dorian Gray and Roger Thornhill to emphasize the way in which Don uses style to

“manipulate surfaces,” as he “knows that he is not an entirely unified subject” (146). As Hansen notes, Don consciously “reshap[es] his image” in order to erect a façade of a single identity which he does not actually have; instead of displaying his difference, he keeps it hidden behind “‘empty suits’” (159). Don attempts “to project the image of an urbane, empowered, masculine sophisticate, while he remains a construct of pure style, an imagined man” (154-155). Clearly,

Don is aware of the rules of style (especially in the office) and follows them in order to accomplish his goal of assimilation within the upper middle class, where he is a newcomer.

Meanwhile, in the suburbs, housewives sport the “New Look” fashion, wearing bright dresses that emphasize their domesticity. The New Look was meant to reintroduce soft and feminine hourglass shapes into fashion, after women were forced back into the domestic sphere after WWII. Mabel Rosenheck discusses this style in her essay, “Swing Skirts and Swinging

Singles: Mad Men, Fashion, and Cultural Memory” (2013), where she analyzes the costumes of the women in the show and reveals how they reflect their place in society. Rosenheck uses Betty

Draper, the quintessential happy housewife heroine described by Betty Friedan in The Feminine

Mystique, to emphasize the New Look of suburban housewives as well as their functions within society in general during the 60s. She describes New Look style, which was “introduced by

Christian Dior on Paris runways in 1947,” and states that it “highlight[ed] the female form with a structured bodice, fitted waistline, and voluminous skirt” (167). The wholly impractical yet extravagant items of clothing of the New Look express the traditional role of women as prize items for their husbands; confined by layers of restricting undergarments and wrapped up in copious amounts of tulle and chiffon, suburban housewives were morphed into presents by the

New Look, which lacked any true functionality. These restrictive qualities of the style parallel the restrictive gender roles of the period, when women were largely confined to the domestic sphere.

After describing these norms, the ways in which Helen, Peggy, and Michael veer from them become more obvious. Though these characters are presented in the spheres described above, they choose not to ascribe to the codes of dress followed by their counterparts. This choice visually portrays their deeper “otherness,” as each character paves their own path rather than conforming to the limited options offered to them.

Helen Bishop: Wearing the Pants

The wardrobe of Helen Bishop contrasts sharply with the The New Look fashion described earlier. As a new member of the neighborhood in the show’s first season, Helen is just beginning to understand the dynamics of the suburb. Usually clad in neutrals and conservative silhouettes, Helen’s style does not follow the rules of the New Look which embrace the female body in bright colors and hourglass shapes. Adrian Jones discusses this in “All About Betty:

Selling the Suburban Housewife in Mad Men.” In his essay, Jones focuses on Betty Draper as he

“seeks to examine the representation of Betty as the model WASP suburban housewife, a symbolic role sold to housewives by advertisers” (145). Jones emphasizes three episodes of the show— “Ladies Room,” “Marriage of Figaro,” and “Shoot”—to examine the experience of the suburban housewives of the 60s. The explicit contrast between the model housewives and newcomer Helen Bishop is presented in his discussion of “Marriage of Figaro,” where he emphasizes the way Helen, as a divorced working mother, threatens the status quo.

In “Marriage of Figaro,” Helen and the rest of the mothers and fathers in the neighborhood attend Sally’s birthday party at the Draper home, though Helen is the only single person present. Disapproving of both her outfit and her lifestyle, the housewives scrutinize Helen as she walks through the house; as Jones explains, “wearing a candy-striped shirt, off-the- shoulder cardigan and form-fitting slacks, Helen is visually differentiated from the other housewives, who are uniformly attired in party dresses” (Jones 153). Even the husbands pick up on the tension amongst the housewives and Helen, with one saying that “those hens are gonna peck her to death” (“Marriage of Figaro”). Helen is evidently the odd one out, as the only single mother; the concept of balancing both work and domestic responsibilities is foreign to the rest of the party-goers. As Jones writes, “Helen Bishop represents an intrusion and potential threat to motherhood and the integrity of the family unit by demonstrating an alien economic imperative”

(153). Helen especially functions as a threat to Betty and her lifestyle, as Betty is the woman on the show who embodies the New Look the most. This idea is underscored by a scene between

Helen and Don during Sally’s party: Betty catches them outside looking over the children while they are engrossed in conversation, separate from the adults who are inside. Though nothing happens between Helen and Don, the circumstance still informs Betty’s perception of Helen as a threat.

Separating Helen from the stereotypical suburban mother of the era, fashion is utilized as an indicator of difference, especially in this episode. Her wardrobe choices represent a departure from the 60s family dynamic in which women held a limited role, functioning solely within the domestic sphere. The use of fashion to reflect these limitations is expressed in “Fragments of a

Fashionable Discourse” (1994). In this essay, Kaja Silverman explores the history of fashion, specifically highlighting the way elaborate, flashy clothing was once considered masculine rather than feminine and tracking this shift throughout time. Silverman’s argument surrounding the intimate connection between clothing and the historical production of gender highlights fashion’s influence on identity. She cites Quentin Bell’s writing which suggests that the “the greater lavishness of female clothing [served as] the obligatory demonstration of the bourgeois woman’s financial dependence upon her husband” (184). This idea directly relates to the New Look style as a symbol of wealth, luxury, leisure, and classic femininity, which Helen Bishop does not participate in, as a single, working mother of two. The other women simply can’t “imagine worrying about money at [that] point in [their] lives,” as Betty’s friend Francine states (“Ladies

Room”). Helen’s atypical financial independence is underscored by her simple and subdued style which rejects the lavishness of the New Look in favor of functionality and affordability. Helen Bishop’s existence within Mad Men and her introduction of more traditionally masculine color palettes and silhouettes significantly contribute to the plot of the show, challenging the norms of femininity by presenting other lifestyle possibilities to characters

(particularly the women characters) that have been raised to strictly abide by the ideal of the

American nuclear family. Her presentation of greater options for women does not mean that everyone accepts them. In fact, one of the housewives neglects to even acknowledge Helen on her way out of the party—proof that Helen’s life choices are not embraced or even recognized as viable by fellow women at the time (“Marriage of Figaro”). Clothed in muted colors and more modern styles, Helen is differentiated from her housewife counterparts and labelled as the

“other,” representing a threat to the traditional narratives of femininity and family.

Peggy Olson: Dressing for the Old Boys’ Club

A character who more significantly challenges the gender imperatives expressed through clothing is Peggy Olson, an ambitious yet modest single working woman. As one of the primary characters on the show, Peggy is introduced as Don’s new secretary in the first episode, “Smoke

Gets in Your Eyes.” Styled in mustards and browns, Peggy refuses to command the male gaze with eye-catching hues in the way her female counterparts are comfortable doing. Highly professional from the beginning, she would rather be appreciated for her talents than her physical attributes. Due to her creativity and work ethic, she soon becomes the agency’s first female copywriter, infiltrating the strictly male world of Madison Avenue advertising. Though she constantly faces sexism, Peggy perseveres, eventually becoming an essential component of

Sterling Cooper & Partners (as the agency is called after its merger with a competing ad agency).

Success comes at a price for Peggy, though, as she must negotiate her femininity and “learn to speak the language” of the men, as coworker Joan Holloway advises, in order to be taken seriously (“Maidenform”). Peggy uses style to insert herself into the male sphere and exude certain masculine qualities, wearing neckties and less fitted styles in contrast to the other women in the office. As the sole female copywriter, Peggy is very obviously an outsider of the “old boys’ club” in which her male counterparts thrive. In order to wield power, she feels as though she must act more like a man, increasingly performing masculinity through her assertive attitude and her personal style as she becomes more successful as a copywriter.

Peggy is aware of the singularity of her situation, as female copywriters were few and far between in the early 60s and, therefore, uses her appearance to alter the way she is perceived in the office. In “Swing Sets and Swinging Singles,” Rosenheck emphasizes Peggy’s way of utilizing style to gain respect in the workplace. She writes, “Peggy is consistently clothed in collared shirts and dresses with pussy bows at the neck. Despite her haircut and her evolving silhouette, ‘she still can’t relinquish her necktie’” (177). This quotation encapsulates Peggy’s attempts at performing masculinity in the office through her clothing in order to conquer the sexism of the workplace. Peggy portrays aspects of masculinity which the other women at SCDP do not; her higher status in the office is visually exemplified by the contrast between her more masculine style and that of her female coworkers—virtually all of whom are secretaries (a traditionally female occupation).

Peggy’s style and color palette especially reflect masculine qualities in scenes were she must present copy or exert authority. In The Fashion File, Bryant writes that “Peggy’s clothes telegraph her go-getter spirit” and that the words “‘ambition’ and ‘complexity’ drive [her] parochial plaids and pleats,” clearly indicating the influence of Peggy’s role as a working woman in the way she is styled (1,3). For example, in “The Color Blue,” Peggy wears a plaid grey and brown dress with a modest hemline and a tiered ruffle neck accent to a meeting with Don. In this meeting, she and Paul Kinsey are presenting copy for a telegram company. The muted tones, which are traditionally associated with male clothing, and the conservative style of the dress Peggy wears reinforce her attempts at highlighting her skills and professionalism instead of her body. Bryant emphasizes this performance of masculinity by dressing Don and Paul in the exact same color scheme, equalizing the three of them within the space of Don’s office. They are also seated in the same horizontal line, which contributes to this sense of equality. Because of

Peggy’s strategy of deflecting the male gaze, her coworkers value her based on the quality of her work rather than her appearance. In the scene, her pitch about the unique permanence of the telegraph, as opposed to the fleeting quality of a phone call, impresses both Don and Paul. Paul actually reacts with blatant shock, saying, “My God,” with eyes wide open, as he knows she came up with the idea on the spot. Peggy is able to succeed in this scene and in the company in general because of her way of expertly foregrounding her talents over her body so that her male counterparts do not discredit her ideas due to her gender.

Further proof of this performance of qualities associated with masculinity through clothing may be seen by Joan’s own subtle change in wardrobe choices after she becomes partner at the firm. In “Commissions and Fees,” the episode after Joan’s promotion to partner, she wears a navy blue dress with red accents and a small, red bow detail. Though the dress is slim-fitted, remaining true to Joan’s personal style, the color is much more subdued than the bright jewel tones Joan sported while she led the secretarial pool. Joan’s shift in color palette after she earns a partnership is also evident later in the episode, as she dons another neutral- colored dress—this time a black one with pumpkin-hued embroidery and a large ribbon tied into a bow at the neckline (“Commissions and Fees”). The prevalence of her use of bows and scarves after she becomes partner may also be interpreted as a negotiation of femininity and masculinity, as these accessories are reminiscent of the male tie but also of gift-wrapping (reiterating the idea of women as displays and presents, reflected in the New Look). Nevertheless, the fact that Joan did not wear these accessories prior to her being in this position suggests that the bows and neck ties are meant to reflect a feminized performance of masculinity—as Peggy’s use of these pieces does.

Peggy’s attempt at balancing this femininity and masculinity is what makes her style nuanced, specifically in the early seasons; “there is equal pressure on her to be—and by extension, to appear and to dress—both more feminine and more masculine,” as Rosenheck writes in her essay (176). Because Peggy was raised in a strict, Catholic environment, much of her clothing reinforces an image of her as naïve and innocent—in her early copywriting days, at least. Consistently clad in checkered prints and high pony tails throughout the early part of the series, she resembles a school girl, yet complains that she isn’t taken seriously by her male counterparts. Joan informs her to “stop dressing like a little girl,” advising her to flaunt her womanhood and sexuality (“Maidenform”). Although Peggy largely continues to abide by her own tactics, there are moments where she follows Joan’s advice, notably at the end of the episode “Maidenform.”

Intent on being included in all aspects of business, Peggy arrives at a strip club where her fellow copywriters and the account men are showing the businessmen from Maidenform a good time. On this occasion, she compromises her usual style in order to command the male gaze—a reflection of her frustration due to the way she is so frequently glossed over.

Uncharacteristically, she wears bright red lipstick and her hair down while sporting a revealing bright blue cocktail dress and shining jewelry, imitating Joan’s usual styling. This switching up of strategies reveals the extent Peggy is willing to go in order to be involved in all aspects of business; she, along with many ambitious career women, just wants to be granted entry into the exclusive, male-dominated corporate world. In this way, Peggy momentarily relinquishes what sets her apart from the rest of the women in the workplace, performing hyper-femininity rather than her usual subtle masculinity. This change in strategy is further emphasized by the way Peggy ends up perched on a client’s lap, conforming to the way the women in that environment are meant to act around men.

Evidently, Peggy is willing to try different methods of self-presentation to be included in the inner workings of the office, though under most circumstances she does stay true to her more subdued, masculine clothing choices. Peggy is able to succeed using this tactic, and therefore, she rarely strays from it; unlike the rest of the women in the office, she is comfortable deflecting the male gaze, as she knows it will result in her advancement within the world of advertising.

Michael Ginsberg: Mismatching Unapologetically

Though fashion is commonly associated with women, Peggy’s male coworker Michael

Ginsberg also exhibits his difference through his untraditional clothing choices. As the first and only Jewish copywriter at SCDP, Michael disrupts the office environment, bringing in a new perspective along with a bold, new form of dress. Unlike his counterparts who wear the dull, structured suits described earlier, Michael is often styled wearing contrasting prints, bright colors, and baggy shirts (even short sleeves in some scenes). His unapologetic personal style reflects his personality and its connection to his ethnicity, as he is unafraid of being loud and opinionated in the office. Though his extroversion may indicate that he is comfortable in the workplace, Michael has had to deal with anti-Semitism in the post-WWII environment, as evidenced by his outbreak when he exclaims to his boss, Jim Cutler: “You're a fascist because you love business and you hate everything else: freedom, blacks, Jews!” (“A Tale of Two

Cities”). Michael knows that Anglo-Saxon Americans, including those he works with, have a history of oppressing Jews, which makes his expressive choices of clothing even more of an act of rebellion.

When Michael Ginsberg is introduced in “Tea Leaves,” Peggy is interviewing him for a position as a copywriter. He wears his usual mix of prints and colors, wearing a plaid sports coat over a white and blue-dotted button-down and jeans, finished off with a tie containing various patterns itself. Though most people would dress formally and professionally for a job interview to offer a composed first impression, Michael Ginsberg unabashedly expresses his true personality and individuality from the start. He is totally aware of his “otherness” and embraces it through his loud fashion taste. As proof, in the episode, Peggy tells him he’s “like everyone else” after he lists the advantages of having him as an employee, and he responds “I’ve never been accused of that,” clearly acknowledging his difference (“Tea Leaves”). Michael is unlike any other character displayed on Mad Men before—not solely because he is Jewish, but because he refuses to conform to the status quo. His character functions as evidence of an individual being able to achieve success without compromising his identity.

Michael is clearly rejecting the tailored presentation of masculinity Don exemplifies.

Instead of Don’s simple suit and black tie, Michael is more comfortable presenting himself in a loose cardigan and patterned shirt. Silverman’s “Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse” helps us understand what Michael is rebelling against, as she writes that “masculine clothing [during the

18th century] became a harmonizing and homogenizing force” (185). As opposed to women’s fashion, men’s fashion is much more restricting, “ha[ving been] given a very small margin to variation” (191). This idea underscores Michael and his uniqueness: the homogenizing masculine clothing in Mad Men is the suit, yet Michael Ginsberg refuses to assimilate by not adopting this uniform. Michael defies the norms of style that have existed since the 18th century, which expresses the significance of his presence within the show—his employment at SCDP is evidence of progress after WWII. As the first Jewish copywriter, he represents the movement away from the anti-Semitism of ages past and the embrace of diversity and its benefits, especially in business. Michael’s nontraditional style parallels his nontraditional perspective and personality. Michael’s free-reined sense of fashion also, unfortunately, foreshadows his demise. In the show’s final season, he experiences a mental breakdown due to a new computer that has been installed in the office. He claims that the constant humming causes men to do unnatural things, including supposed homoerotic thoughts and actions. The overwhelming, busy patterns on

Michael’s usual ensembles underscore the way his mind is overwhelmed by his paranoia. His state of insanity may indicate how hard it has been for him to deflect racism and his personal history as an orphan. Constantly on edge, Michael reacts more sensitively to situations than his coworkers, largely due to his troubled past, having been born in a concentration camp and placed into an orphanage until the age of 5. The confusion he has about his identity—he even calls himself a Martian—is mirrored in the way he dresses himself; consistently covered in a mesh of colors and prints, Michael Ginsberg expresses the chaos in his mind through his clothing.

Conclusion

As these characters demonstrate, style works as a mirror—it is a reflection of identity and a site for people to negotiate their differences in a homogenized world. If fashion were purely surface-level, then these arguments would be meaningless. Though fashion can be considered inherently superficial, dressing does involve choices (whether subconscious or conscious) and these choices reveal one’s true sense of self; “in Mad Men…stylistic surfaces determine identity”

(Hansen 154). The idea of deeper meaning found within surfaces pervades the show— “it is a show about how deep the surface is” (Hansen 146). Helen, Peggy, and Michael exhibit the nuance of their personalities by visually differentiating themselves through their surfaces— namely their wardrobe.

Each of these characters’ “otherness” represents progress, at its core. Their style is all about trading the traditional for the modern, which parallels the revolutionary time period in which the show takes place. The 60s were notoriously a time of emerging philosophies and of rebellion from social constructs, usually involving drugs, as the show references in sparse scenes throughout the series. During this period, many people questioned the norms they had adopted during their lives and attempted to free themselves from these confines (as Roger Sterling’s daughter is seen doing). The clothing of the 60s reflected this sentiment, as hemlines were getting shorter, silhouettes looser, and colors louder. Though the show does not essentialize the era or center itself on the revolutionary aspects of the time, Helen Bishop, Peggy Olson, and

Michael Ginsberg each represent a subtle resistance to the norm, in the spirit of the 60s, as made explicit in the way they harness their appearance.

Works Cited

“A Tale of Two Cities.” Mad Men. Dir. John Slattery and Matthew Weiner. AMC. June. 2013.

Television.

Bryant, Janie, and Monica Corcoran. Harel. The Fashion File: Advice, Tips and Inspiration from

the Costume Designer of Mad Men. Grand Central Life & Style, 2010.

Hansen, Jim. “Mod Men.” Mad Men, Mad World: Sex, Politics, Style, and the 1960s, Duke

University Press, 2013, pp. 145-160.

Jones, Adrian. “All About Betty: Selling the Suburban Housewife in Mad Men.” Lucky Strikes

and a Three Martini Lunch: Thinking About Television’s Mad Men, Cambridge Scholars

Pub., 2012, pp. 144–158.

“Ladies Room.” Mad Men. Dir. Alan Taylor and Matthew Weiner. AMC. July. 2007. Television.

“Marriage of Figaro.” Mad Men. Dir. Ed Bianchi, Matthew Weiner, and Tom Palmer. AMC.

Aug. 2007. Television.

“Maidenform.” Mad Men. Dir. Phil Abraham, Matthew Weiner, and Robin Veith. AMC. Aug.

2008. Television. Rosenheck, Mabel. “Swing Skirts and Swinging Singles: Mad Men, Fashion, and Cultural

Memory.” Mad Men, Mad World: Sex, Politics, Style, and the 1960s, Duke

University Press, 2013, pp. 161-180.

Silverman, Kaja. “Fragments of a Fashionable Discourse.” On Fashion, Rutgers University

Press, 1994, pp. 183-195.

“Tea Leaves.” Mad Men. Dir. Jon Hamm, Matthew Weiner, and Erin Levy. AMC. Apr. 2012.

Television.

“The Color Blue.” Mad Men. Dir. Michael Uppendahl, Matthew Weiner, and Kater Gordon.

AMC. Oct. 2009. Television.