Uniforms on the social front

[Note: I had intended to write a little bit more, but didnt appropriate enough time. This focuses only on the Dussel reading, but I hope we can talk about the Fine readings as well.]
Okay, so knowing that my posting would be read today, I rewrote it and made a deeper analysis. I wanted to make the most of our time.
I will start by looking at the Dussel reading on uniforms. I will attempt to point out the important parts within this article, while simultaneously putting them beside past readings we have already done. My goal is to start a discussion about Dussel and the other readings, rather then limit the discussion to the readings I bring up. Within Dussel I will talk about the uniform as a sign which can be read. This will go into Berger and Luckman’ construction of a socially legible forms. Following will be Vygotsky and the need socially transferred meaning of uniforms. Finally, I will look at Freire and his duality between the oppressed and oppressor and mirror it to the need for a docile body.
Following, I will look at the Fine book and point out a couple ideas that can be compared against Dussel’s main points. I am particularly interested in the various interpretations of a uniform, in the form of social signs, and the associated consequences. My focus will be on race and class as a uniform. This will follow the subjects of a controller in relation to docile bodies, surveillance as a mode of control, suppression of freedoms to express, and dynamics between a cultured self and an institutionalized self. Ready?
Dussel goes in-depth in analyzing the background of the uniform. In short, Dussel explains the coming about of uniforms and their implementation to schools. Dussel explains the fiscal associations with providing uniforms to poor students, and the debt that is associated. She continues on explaining the cultural associations connected to certain forms of clothing, such as a monk and their belief in god. Dussel explains that uniforms were initially implemented over concerns of health and cleanliness. Cleanliness, in the 18th century, was an identifier for social class, therefore the uniform became a tool to identify social class as well as forcing certain identifiers upon people. The military, she explains, followed by implementing uniforms, so as to create a unified image of a soldier. A representative of the state. The soldier, a perfect example of discipline and power, became the place for uniforms to be considered alongside the body. In Dussel’s words, the body problemitized the uniform.
The body problemitizing the uniform is an interesting idea. In articulating my interest, I need to state the obvious, then I will continue with points from Dussel. One normally conceives a piece of clothing as a means for fulfilling a “natural" need for protecting human beings. In the case of the soldier, the uniform is a tool used in society, to present a source of authority and power. Power in this sense, representing the reach of the military itself. The idea that the body problematizes the uniform states that the uniform is itself a technology that shapes not only the person who wears it, but also the people it (the uniform) comes in contact with. This is the ‘mode of control’ that Dussel talks about.
The uniform exists as a technology of control based on the socially constructed meaning associated with it (Berger and Luckman!!!). The uniform exists as a sign, just as I mentioned cleanliness represented class. A socially constructed sign.
Going back to a past thought about children’s school uniforms. The school uniforms given as charity from the Christian Brothers, that Dussel talks about, is form of control upon the students. The poor students, who are indebted to the providers of the uniforms, are placed under the rule of those providers. As subjects of a ruling class, the students are “normalized" and become targets and representatives of the uniform. This seems convoluted and difficult to express, but as a subject of charity, the students are subject to the rules of those “generous" donors. This may not have been Dussel’s exact point, so I would be interested to hear your points.
Continuing on the cleanliness factor associated with unifroms, I wanted to point out the social inclusivity that follows. When one is clean, another is dirty. This social hierarchy that follows creates the implicit economy of power. Those who can stay clean are deemed higher then those who are not. A structure of power, through uniforms, is created.
Maybe this is a stretch, but these signs of the uniform’s significance (in a soldier or monk) or the state of the uniform’s meaning (such as cleanliness) must be learned through social interaction. This learning is reminicent of Vygotsky’s explaination of the learning process. The idea that the meaning of signs must be learned and agreed upon is another expression of power. To learn or not to learn is a choice.
The uniform is only effective when applied to a docile body. Just as the soldier’s bodily needs problemitized the uniform, the uniform must be applied to bodies that are willing to submit to its application. As a result, Dussel says the uniform turns the body into a site of regulation. This resonated to me with Freire’s oppressed and oppressor idea. To explain the uniform’s controling mechanism, I applied Freire. If there is a need for a docile body, then there must be a subject controling the docile body. If the uniform has meaning, there must be someone creating the meaning.





Teaching
Attempts at breaking the patterns
Of mice of men (viewing social relations outside of identity), school board
student->educational system
“gentrification in academic blood”
race, class as uniform
“safety zone” (assumed criminality)
subject to control (surveillance),
docile body (surveillance again)
freedom to express self(clothing/poetry)/feel im powered (gender)
excluded from opportunity (inclusiveness),
Target of environmental danger (cultured self vs institutionalized)
Foucault(power retreats and finds new forms to apply itself)-Alan Hunt(one form of social displacement is replaced by another)
represent group (exclusive), humiliate, property of another class
Internet