Another reason for sumptuary laws was to protect a nation's manufacturing sector. Laws in England, for example, that initially prohibited the wearing of any silk were amended to prohibit the wearing of Italian silk. "What is distinctive is that the shift from the discourses of luxury to protectionism moved imperceptibly: it is only at the end of the process that it is apparent that the sumptuary context has entirely disappeared from the legal norm to be replaced by discourses of economic and national interest" (Hunt, 418). As Hurlock (297) points out, "during the 16th century [...] velvet caps, made from material coming from Italy and France, were the stylish headgear for men. To encourage home production, England passed a law compelling all persons over six years of age, except those of high position, to wear woolen caps, made in England, on Sundays and all holy days. This law remained in effect for twenty-six years and was very powerful in building up the English woolen industry." Protectionism accounts for many of the world's more recent dress sumptuary laws. In the U.S. it is illegal, for example, to purchase goods, such as clothing, from Cuba. In fact, the election of many political officials in the U.S. (particularly those living in major textile states such as South Carolina) has been secured by the romantic credo "Buy American." In other recent cases, restrictions on dress have served to express political belief systems. Only forty years ago, Mao Tse-tung prescribed clothing (the famous "Mao jacket") for his "cultural revolutionaries," erasing all visible signs of class, and with it individuality, and personal expression. Who knows what our political climate will be tomorrow, so make the most of your freedom while you have it, and express yourself! Bibliography: -Baldwin, Frances E. Sumptuary
Legislation and Personal Regulation in England. Johns Hopkins
University Studies in Historical and Political Science, vol. 44.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1926. |
