A subtle diplomatic jab, or just really cheap suits?
By Cathy Horyn
It's not easy to identify what made people so uncomfortable about seeing members of the British Royal Navy in grimly fitting suits provided courtesy of the Iranian government. But fashion, whenever it pops up like Waldo in the middle of a political or diplomatic event, has a funny way of becoming a primary source of our anxiety.
Last week, as Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, was drawing attention for her trip to Syria - and her leaf-print head scarf - blogs and newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic were buzzing about the British crew's Tehran-issued clothes. There was the widely vented opinion that the shapeless three-button suits (some with a vest) were not just ugly and cheap, but had an ugly purpose: to humiliate the British government. Without their uniforms, the 14 men and one woman were neither military personnel nor political prisoners - not obviously, at least.
Alerted to the cheesy uniformity of the photo-op, with the seamen sporting open-neck shirts in the style of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, The Guardian in London saw propaganda, and then allowed (half facetiously?) that the guys looked like ushers at a wedding.
It's amazing the amount of tantalizing mischief that people will see in a picture of clothing, and I must say I am a little surprised, given the retro fit of the suits, that someone didn't see a connection to the drifters near the Grassy Knoll.
Responding to the Guardian article, one reader said the suits were evidence of the demise of the tailoring craft - news, I am sure, to Savile Row. More helpfully, another reader reminded men never to button their jackets over a vest and "never, ever button the top button of the jacket."
In a crisis, fashion produces a crisis of its own, and I can imagine how someone, riveted by the simple-mindedness of a fashion faux pas, might - oops! - overlook the fact that maybe the seamen were in the wrong place when the Iranians detained them. For that reason, I prefer to assume that most people are innocent about fashion, or, anyway, don't put a lot of thought into what they wear.
Beyond the demerit of moralizing, there is a danger in reading too much into the fashion choices of a person, particularly a public figure.
...
Yet, even as we allow that the British servicemen were innocent of fashion, and put on the clothes as a matter of course to replace the pajamas they had most recently been kept in, there is something disturbing about their appearance. It is doubtful that the Iranian government went to the trouble of outfitting 14 men in suits and shirts, however unflattering, if they did not mean to make some kind of a political statement.
Having never been to that part of the Middle East, I am in no position to comment on a double standard that permits people to wear one kind of fashion in their homes and another in public. But it seems to me that the plain if not poor cut of the suits was meant as a rebuke to flashy Western tastes. An English banker, in his bespoke suit, might react in horror, but couldn't that be the point?
Perhaps the root of the criticism of the British seamen is generational rather than sartorial. Couldn't they have just said no to the clothes and the goody bags? Or are they so used to wearing fashion and sports logos and other symbols that subtly co-opt their identity that they saw no distinction, much less harm, in putting on suits offered by their captors?
While we can only surmise that these young people had other concerns on their minds - genuine danger, for example - it has been suggested that older generations, born before the age of the goody bag, would have at least thought twice about what was being offered to them and might have displayed some contempt or resistance. And there is absolutely no trace of that in most of the faces in the photos. They seem, in fact, almost too pleased with their new clothes.
Pertinent Links:
1) A subtle diplomatic jab, or just really cheap suits?
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment