'Leopard in Kitten Heels: the Politics of Theresa May's Sartorial Choices'
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Evans, R. (2019) 'Leopard in kitten heels: the politics of Theresa May’s sartorial choices’, Clothing Cultures, 6 (2), pp. 199-213. This article was first published on 11 May 2020. Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1386/cc_00012_1 ResearchSPAce http://researchspace.bathspa.ac.uk/ This pre-published version is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Your access and use of this document is based on your acceptance of the ResearchSPAce Metadata and Data Policies, as well as applicable law:- https://researchspace.bathspa.ac.uk/policies.html Unless you accept the terms of these Policies in full, you do not have permission to download this document. This cover sheet may not be removed from the document. Please scroll down to view the document. RACHEL EVANS Bath Spa University Leopard in Kitten Heels: The politics of Theresa May’s sartorial choices ABSTRACT This article discusses the clothing choices of Theresa May as a female Member of Parliament (MP) and as the second woman Prime Minster of Great Britain. A Conservative MP since 1997 with a conservative background growing up a Vicar’s daughter and grammar school education, Mrs May’s sartorial choices have evolved to conform with an understanding of female MP’s as proxy men and to reflect British national dress as defined by tradition. However, within this conservative persona a discordant note is struck by her choice of shoes. Not always neutral, in this article her choice of fabric is examined as a form of ‘everyday resistance’. Compromised as these choices are, her choice of leopard print kitten heels is suggested as a form of subaltern resistance. KEYWORDS Everyday resistance, heels, gender politics, Theresa May, leopard print Contributor Details Rachel Evans is Senior Lecturer at Bath Spa University teaching Historical and Critical Studies. A design historian, her research interests centre on everyday material culture, with a particular interest in reading against the grain of accepted understandings of design history. Recent research has considered Agatha Christies’ Marple as fan fiction, Muriel Cooper’s use of white space in the design of Learning From Las Vegas and the use of novel pedagogical methods in the Britain Can Make It Exhibition Design Quiz of 1946. Contact details: [email protected] Postal address: Bath School of Design, Sion Hill Campus, Bath Spa University, BA1 5SF. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5594-1866 Page 1 of 17 Leopard in Kitten Heels: The politics of Theresa May’s sartorial choices “Fashion is a site where politicized embodiment emerges in response to various local, national and global influences, and where power is both formative and transformative” (Shinko 2016: 45) What does it matter what clothes a politician wears? What do the sartorial choices they make mean? Why do Jeremy Corbyn’s sandals make him unfit to lead a country? Mark Twain’s observation that ‘Clothes make the Man. Naked people have little or no influence in society’ (Merle 1927), states the long-held Western view that clothes are essential to civilisation. Once the preserve of Royalty, the role of projecting a visual statement of the body politic has devolved to democratically-elected bodies such as the House of Commons (Behnke 2016). Clothes became markers of political beliefs, and could literally mean life or death in turbulent times such as the English and French Revolutions (Parkins 2002). While in everyday life clothes are no longer so acutely important, for today’s politicians they are an important source of asserting and maintaining authority and a means of widening their appeal to the voting public. Place Figure 1 here, quarter page image. Figure 1: Theresa May announcing her premiership in Downing Street, 13th May 2016. Image Gareth Fuller/PA This paper considers the choices that Theresa May made in her role as British Prime Minister, with a particular focus on the outfit she wore on 13th July 2016 (figure 1), the day she accepted Queen Elizabeth II’s appointment to form the Government and became the second, female to be Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Head of the British Government. All professionals have choices about the clothes and accessories they wear and there are a variety of pressures that come into play in balancing those choices. For a Head of Government these include issues of projecting national identity, religious considerations, supporting national designers and adhering to dress codes. By exploring Theresa May’s sartorial choices as Prime Minister and in particular her choice of shoes, this paper seeks to investigate the politics of dress in projecting a visual image of a Head of Government and in her day-to-day job within the House of Commons. The discussion first examines the role of ideology and dress in European political life after the English Civil War (1642-1651) and most importantly the French Revolution of 1789. Drawing on the work of Behnke and Parkins this paper considers the implications this has for female politicians. Secondly, the contemporary political concern with projecting a national identity is discussed, and how Theresa May’s outfit on 13th July addressed these ideas. The third section attends in detail to May’s choice of kitten heels and leopard print for the feet of a British Prime Minister and then, drawing on the work of Vinthagen and Johanssen, considers the possibility of their mobilisation as a form of ‘everyday resistance’. The Ideology of Political Dress As expounded by Behnke and Parkins, alongside the rise of elected governments in Europe ran the change in male clothing known as ‘The Great Male Renunciation’ (Flugel 1930), that saw a polarisation in male and female clothing in terms of visual extravagance. This moment also encompassed a mapping of eighteenth century French concerns over the political activities of sexually licentious women, embodied by the French Queen Marie Antoinette, onto women in general and established a suspicion of women who wish to enter politics. The polarisation of sartorial codes means that it is the role of a ruler’s female consort rather than the ruler himself to display appropriate elegance and/or extravagance in their clothing. An exemplary example of this in Western politics is Barak and Michelle Obama’s wardrobes during his terms as American President (2008-2016). Accepting that in the majority of situations leadership has either been exclusively male or is still understood as a masculine preserve, then female politicians find themselves in a double bind. Following Behnke’s discussion of the symbolic form of Michelle Obama’s clothing choices as First Lady it can be seen that Western female heads of state carry the burden of representing the nation sartorially, whilst rejecting feminine dress and adopting ‘The Great Male Renunciation’ (Behnke 2016). In Britain the adoption of a more modest masculinity can be traced to the reign of Charles II after the Restoration of 1688. To distance himself from dangerous associations with the French court, Charles II introduced a distinctly English form of dress known as the ‘vest’ that has transformed into the three piece suit of male dress of today. To show his disdain for this innovation Louis XIV had his servants all dressed in the new vest. This modest masculinity, and the consequent political legitimacy, aligned the display of luxury with femininity and so reinforced the exclusion of women from politics (Parkins 2002) Women in politics face far greater commentary on their sartorial taste than their male counterparts and each female politician has to develop her own response to this scrutiny. Theresa May’s contemporary, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, resolutely refuses to discuss her clothes and has adopted a uniform of jacket and trousers with little variation. In contrast, May answers questions on her clothing choices, asked for a year’s subscription to Vogue as her luxury item when she was interviewed on Desert Island Discs (BBC 2014) and commented at the Women of the World conference in 2015 I like clothes and I like shoes. One of the challenges for women in the workplace is to be ourselves, and I say you can be clever and like clothes. You can have a career and like clothes. (Conti 2016) Within the Western tradition of the primacy of self-expression, the dominant clothing system is understood as fitting to the body. The Feminist ideological stance that women are entitled to wear what they want, also plays into the range of choices Western female politicians have available to experiment within (Marzel and Stiebel 2014). However, this personal expression must always be balanced against the need to not appear feminine, to not be morally lax, to not be Marie Antoinette. This is a dividing line that can be transgressed all too easily and without warning creating a backlash of commentary. Theresa May’s leather trousers worn for a Sunday Times magazine interview and photo shoot (Mills 2016) shortly after becoming Prime Minister were a step too far for her British audience. For May the visible extravagance of her £995 trousers, made from a material that is associated with fetishism (Bolton 2004), moved too close to the female pole, back to Marie Antoinette, out of touch with the populace and away from the plain tailored silhouette that represents “public virtue” through “modest masculinity” (Parkins 2002). National identity in dress The contemporary importance of dress as a statement of political beliefs, famously mobilised by Ghandi’s adoption of the dhoti, is more easily seen in the dress choices of politicians from former colonial nations than in countries that dress in the Western tradition. However, consideration of these dress imperatives can give us clues as to Theresa May’s clothing choices.