1media/BlackSweatpants.jpgmedia/BlackSweatpants_CloseUp.jpg2019-05-24T04:23:45-07:00Embodying casual as an academic1It's not just that the clothes are casual, but that they belong in the category of athleisure, signaling that I'm more interested in the appearance of fitness, sexual attractiveness, and the imperative to endlessly discipline the (female) body than I am in the life of the mind.plain2019-06-05T01:16:56-07:00Insofar as “the ‘look good, feel good’ transformational logic of consumer culture” (Featherstone, 2010, p. 202) applies to academic culture, women’s professional dress is supposed to impress more than express. By contrast, despite luxury brands like Lululemon or Sweaty Betty, athleisure apparel seems designed to express while it is the wearer’s body that impresses, and only if normatively feminine—that is, thin, symmetrical, able-bodied, unmarked by deviant signifiers like tattoos that contradict the health and fitness connotations of activewear.
Athleisure clothes are often made from stretchy or drapey breathable materials and range from skintight to loose-fitting, with utilitarian elements such as moisture wicking, quick drying, or muscle compression. Such garments afford the fibromyalgic high levels of comfort, particularly with looser articles, and control over affective dysfunction, as with muscle-compressing yoga leggings that can help stabilize and increase circulation in fatigued muscles. That said, activewear and athleisure constitute “lazy dressing,” conveying the kind of inattentiveness to body image that women academics are supposed to ward against (Brown, 2017; Zwicker, 2009).
Fitness regimes are visually signaled, whether one works out or not, through the clothes themselves, and selecting such clothes for professional settings suggests that the wearer sees them as professional; this is especially problematic in a field that views the mind as preeminent, since activewear is professional in fields dominated by physical exertion or recreation. “Academic femininities,” or modes of aesthetic self-presentation required to demonstrate intellectual prowess without relinquishing the conventional markers of femininity that academic culture (Donaghue, 2017, p. 232) are further complicated by “sporting femininities,” or plural expressions of gendered, raced, and queered subjectivities in sport, fitness, and physical activity settings as well as wider society (Toffoletti et al., 2018, p. 2).
Sporting femininities are suffused with fashion sensibility and class consciousness, circulating images of health and wellness embedded in white, middle-class, heteronormative female sex appeal. While I own secondhand luxury brands of professional clothes, from Theory to Tory Burch, my athleisure comes primarily from Uniqlo and consists of black sweatpants, muscle compression leggings, and moisture wicking shirts, more casual than trendy, and difficult to disguise as formal or smart casual attire. Looking “appropriate” in athleisure also necessitates a normatively attractive body type. Loose-fitting garments might dematerialize the physical body, but looser workout tops reveal sports bra, back, ribs. Form-fitting yoga pants accentuate the parts of the female body that professional academic clothes strive to hide.
The core problem of embodying sporting femininities in the academic profession is that it doesn’t pair well with the complex business of embodying academic femininities, not least because of its corporeal emphasis. Dressing somberly and professionally imbues an air of formality and decorum to the wearer, signaling leadership and approachability, which is especially important for younger women professors. Yoga pants and sneakers can’t compare with pantsuits and sensible shoes. However, academic femininities should mean that “women in the professoriate be recognized as women, in the full variety of aesthetic presentations that they may choose” (Donaghue, 2017, p. 239), opening critical space for looks that combine normative feminine markers with alternative femininities.
