You can tell a lot about a culture from their views on and how they enforce modesty. It is reflected in the garments people wear, but also in their laws and values. It could represent one’s faith, a history of colonisation, or a struggle for freedom and equality. In this statement, I will mostly be focusing on modesty in dress.
In India, the saree is a traditional form of dress for women, and originally it was worn over bare breasts. However, this offended the British sense of morality, and so they introduced the blouse to the saree which is still worn to this day. Like in the myth of the Garden of Eden, not being appropriately clothed was seen as a trait of the unenlightened, a sign of barbarism. This perception of the locals fostered a sense of superiority among the colonizers and reinforced the belief that they were saving the locals by transforming them from being primitive to civilised.
Interestingly, it can be said that the opposite is true now. Many people who think of themselves as modern, free from the prejudices of past decades, are opposed to modest dressing. They believe it to be a symbol of outdated ideas of the patriarchy, and viewing the cultures that still hold onto these values as backwards, and that women living in these places need to be saved.
One of these places is Iran, which was once a place where women dressed in western clothes, but now has mandatory veiling laws for women who are not allowed to go in public without their Hijab. Mahsa Amini is a woman who did not comply with this law and was arrested by morality police and beaten, which eventually led to her death. This sparked outrage, with Iranian women coming together to protest, conducting self unveiling and hijab burnings in solidarity despite the threat of police violence.
On the other extreme, the controversial French hijab ban looks at this issue from a realist standpoint. They see these garments as not only a security threat but also a religious symbol which goes against their secular values, believing that their national identity as citizens of France should come above their religious identities, and so people should not be allowed to wear their religious attire in public. Muslim women however argue that they do not understand the intersectional and cultural reasons for veiling themselves.
From a Marxist perspective, modesty, or even immodesty, could just be another marketing tactic to profit off women’s bodies. By co-opting feminist movements and commodifying values on both sides, the bourgeoisie is able to exploit women for their own gain while framing it as empowerment.
Social constructivists might believe that modesty is just a construct created to police women’s bodies. Standards of dress are always changing depending on time and place; a knee-length dress might be seen as prudish in this day and age, but go back to a few centuries ago and it would have been the town scandal. And who decided that male nipples are perfectly chaste, but women’s nipples are suddenly inherently sexual? See the “free the nipple” movement which opposed the double standards of how men are allowed to go shirtless publicly while women are not.
There’s many intersectional ways to look at this issue, but at its core it is a feminist one, especially because ideas around modesty are almost always applied to women exclusively. Like many other issues, not every feminist would agree on the same solution or answer.
First wave feminists largely followed the cultural norms of modesty at that time, fearing being seen as too radical.
Second wave feminists however fought against modesty, believing it to be tools of the patriarchy, and another way that women had to submit to men. They believed it restricted women’s autonomy and freedom. They conducted bra burnings and wore miniskirts. Many of these ideas went hand in hand with the sexual revolution of the 60s that believed in the sexual liberation of women.
Third wave feminists saw being immodest as empowering, as it was a sign of body positivity, self expression, and sexual freedom, also seen in the celebration of sex work. However, they also believed that modesty was ultimately a woman’s choice, whether it was to wear a bikini or a burka. In fact, veiling could be seen as a feminist statement. They believed women should not be judged by what they choose to wear, and ultimately being able to choose was the most important thing.
Fourth wave feminists continue these ideas but with a new emphasis on intersectionality and critiques of capitalism.
Radical feminists however reject the hyper-sexualisation of women because it objectifies women for male consumption and pleasure, and that it just plays into the male gaze. They might believe in body neutrality instead of body positivity, believing it is more important to decenter women’s appearance.
An argument against choice feminism is that any choice made under patriarchy is a choice affected by years of conditioning, pressure, and coercion from society. Can you really make a choice true to yourself when the other option is disappointing your family, being seen as a prude, or being told that you will suffer eternally in hell?
The brief states that I should include a set of conclusions, but the truth is I don’t have an answer. Yes, it is a construct, but we do live in a society, where ideas and values manifest in very real ways. As a designer and a feminist, I am ever fascinated by the politics of clothing. I do design feminine clothes, and I do design in conventionally “flattering” silhouettes. I wonder how societal conventions have shaped my taste. Unfortunately, I do not and will never know the answer. Under patriarchy, women are denied even the illusion of autonomy over their choices.