In The Language of Clothes, Alison Lurie
explores how we use clothes as an unspoken language that can identify us within
a group, or as Shabana Mir contends, can exclude us in the case of the hijab.
This phenomenon can certainly be seen on campus, for example the popularity of
pastel shorts and boat shoes sends a message, as these items are commonly signifiers
of “preppy” culture. However, there is surprisingly few, if any, religious
attire on campus.
Hamilton is
a pretty secular campus, yet I struggle to think of even one example of
religious wear beyond the occasional necklace. Is this just a result of every
single student being that secular, or has the campus culture changed those that
might otherwise dress religiously? A Jewish friend of mine attends a liberal arts school, which has a similar campus atmosphere as Hamilton.
Throughout his life, even in high school, he wore a yarmulke.
However, within only a few weeks into college he shed it for a more secular,
less “unique” look. According to him, he felt awkward meeting new people with
it on as he felt immediately judged, a very similar experience brought up by
Mir on the hijab. To fit in and be
socially accepted, he felt the need to change the way in which he expresses his
religious beliefs. As Lurie puts it: “Apart from the chameleon, man is the only
animal who can change his skin to suit his background. Indeed, if he is to
function successfully he must do so” (209). If people who commonly wear
religious garb feel isolated and pressured to change, do the rest of us have a
responsibility to be more welcoming? Is it even possible to do so, or is this
exclusionary effect just a universal result of a secular environment that can’t
be helped?
No comments:
Post a Comment