A guest piece by Melynda Huskey
I’ve been much afflicted on the subject of plain dress for the last several months, thanks to Thomas Clarkson. Clarkson, a British Abolitionist and close, even fond, observer of Friends, wrote a three-volume disquisition on Quaker testimonies, culture, and behavior (in 1811, if my memory serves me). There’s a lot in Clarkson to think about, but his section on Quaker garb was particularly interesting to me. Not because I intend to take up a green apron any time soon (did you know that was a badge of Quaker womanhood for nearly two centuries?), but because he provides what a present-day anthropologist would describe as a functionalist analysis of the meaning of plain dress: it served as a badge of membership, keeping its wearers peculiar and in visible communion with one another, while communicating a core value of the tradition.
When I was a kid, I yearned for plain dress like the kids in Obadiah’s family wore. I loved the idea of a Quaker uniform and couldn’t imagine why we didn’t still have one. Whenever I asked my mom about it, she would patiently explain that an outward conformity in plain dress called attention to itself as much as any worldly outfit did, and that Quakers should dress as plainly as was suitable and possible to their work in the world. It made sense, but I was still sorry.
And now, at nearly 40, after 35 years of balancing my convictions and my world, I’m still hankering after a truly distinctive and Quakerly plainness. What isn’t any clearer to me is what that might look like now.
After all, what are the options? According to my partner, the distinctive elements of contemporary Quaker garb are high-water pants for Friends over 40 and grimy hands and feet for Friends under 40. This obviously jaundiced view aside, there doesn’t seem to be much to distinguish Friends from, say, Methodists, Unitarians, or members of the local food co-op. A little denim, a little khaki, some suede sport mocs, some sandals and funky socks, batik and chunky jewelry. It’s not obviously worldly, but it’s not set apart, either. There is no testimony in our current dress.
On the other hand, anything too visibly a costume obviously isn’t right; I can’t appropriate the Mennonite dress-and-prayer-cap, for example. And my heart rises up against the whole range of “modest” clothing presently available – floral prairie dresses and pinafores, sailor dresses, denim jumpers, and head coverings – all with nursing apertures and maternity inserts, and marketed by companies with terrifying names like “Daddy’s Little Princess,” “King’s Daughters,” and “Lilies of the Field.” No Prairie Madonna drag for me. No messy, time-consuming, attention-requiring long hair; no endless supply of tights and nylons and slips; no cold legs in the winter snow and ice. No squeezing myself into a gender ideology which was foreign to Friends from the very beginning.
It seems to me that contemporary plain dress ought to be distinctive without being theatrical; it should be practical and self-effacing. It should be produced under non-exploitive conditions. It should be the same every day, without variation introduced for the sake of variation, and suitable for every occasion It should be tidy and well-kept – Quakers were once known for the scrupulous neatness of their attire and their homes. And it should communicate clearly that we are called and set apart.
But what garments they might be that would accomplish that, I cannot say. I’m stymied. Friends, share your light.
*Note from Martin Kelley:* I’m starting to collect stories from other Friends and fellow-religious on issues like plain dress, the testimonies and faith renewal. This is part of that project.
Hi Melynda: I certainly understand worrying about what our style might transmit to the world; I’ve edited my wardrobe because of people’s unexpected comments. Plain dress is trickier for women, with the whole politics of patriarchy and feminism to deal with. That said, nursing apertures can be very convenient and the King’s Daughters have made some very nice clothes for Julie.
Your post focuses on plain dress as a kind of identifiable uniform, which is certainly one function it can play. But you didn’t talk about the whole obedience issue. Here’s a scenario for you: What if the spirit of Christ came down and told you to wear something really really dorky, something so prairie that it would make historical reinactors blush? What if all Quaker women banded together to declare the denim jumper our twenty-first century plain dress uniform? Would you wear it?
Where’s the line between individuality and corporate witness and between obedience and embarrasment? I’m really asking, I’m not sure myself! I do know I don’t want a uniform that people don unconsciously, that the last thing we need is another way to be outwardly righteous but inwardly false.
I don’t know how I ended up on this page, but became interested in your column and the replies because being from a Chasidic Jewish family, we have always dressed modestly and simply (though we women do dress up for weddings). We consider vanity as something that reduces the attention we can give to G‑d. Clothes are not for attracting and should not embarrass others by showing-off our own wealth or fashion knowledge— but should be clean and neat, and modest. Some men do adopt the same dress as their Rabbi as a show of respect but most just wear black and white. Women can wear colors but should still focus on modesty not style. But we never consider uniform dress which would simply stress our differences: who afforded better fabric or tailoring, who had a difficulty with fitting the style (ala the infamous bridesmaid dresses in modern society), who had more of each item, etc. Without a uniform, each can buy or make what they like and can afford and what fits well while focusing on modesty and functionality. When we pray, we must read the prayer aloud, not reciting by heart or silently. This means we are forced to be conscious of every word — an overt declaration of our faith with every syllable — but we’re not robots, just reciting the same memorized prayer. Clothing is similar. Modesty, yes, which shows our shared faith. But we’re each created as an individual within that shared faith. Anyway, I found the subject you discuss very interesting even though I am not of your faith or even Christian.
Hi Reva, however you found an almost-20 year old post but I’m glad you did. There are a lot of cultures that have adopted plain dress independently. I like your description of a plain style that also maintains some individuality. That seems like a good balance!
Martin, your question about obedience is a profound one. I hope with all my heart that if Christ said to me, “Put on your sailor dress and follow me,” that I wouldn’t think twice before I donned the garb. And if, through some discernment process that was faithful to the leadings of the Spirit, denim jumpers became the green aprons of the 21st century, I’d put on my jumper along with the sisters with a humble heart and even rejoice in it.
In fact, that would make things a lot easier, wouldn’t it? What’s missing in my own reflections on this subject is the corporate discernment that might keep me honest: my singular decisions about what clothes I wear simply cannot reflect a shared testimony of the Society. And that’s what I want to find in not just plain dress, but in every testimony as we enact them: my light – augmented, clarified, reflected, corrected – in a community that’s seeking to be faithful to the Spirit in every way. Not a stale historicism, not a notional flitting from fad to fad, but a dynamic traditionalism that is grounded in a stable, flexible, intelligent understanding of God’s revealed will.
I surely didn’t mean to offend Julie – or anyone – with my comments about “The King’s Daughters.” I just can’t picture a website selling white shirts and black pants that would call itself “The King’s Sons” or “Jesus’s Little Princes,” and I think the infantilizing and historicizing impulses of those businesses speaks to the ways in which plain dress is loaded for 21st century women.
The plain dress of 18th- and 19th-century women Friends was reasonably contemporary, if not fashionable – and it updated itself (slowly and carefully)in response to changing fashions. It also addressed issues of justice. In putting aside all my jewelry (not that there was much!), I am faithful to a scriptural mandate to avoid those adornments, but I am also mindful of the destruction of the natural world and the exploitation of miners and other workers that is required to produce such jewelry. (Nevertheless, I still wear my wedding band!)
Plain clothing ought, at the very least, to be produced without exploiting others – so the simplicity and cheapness of Walmart and many other mass-produced clothes is out. I may have to spend more, have less, and take much more care with it. It should reflect contemporary clothing, be practical for what I do, and give a silent but omni-present testimony. And it should also free me from thinking about what I’ve got on all the time.
It may come down to khakis and plain tee-shirts, socks and plain shoes – and a gray dress for funerals, weddings, school programs, and other festal occasions.
At least, that’s where I seem to be headed. I notice that, although I am burdened on this subject, I have not received a leading that I have any clarity about. In fact, I’m using this conversation as a kind of impromptu Clearness Committee. Thanks!
Love,
Melynda
Hey Melynda,
Just a thought: What if we were to turn this whole thing on its head? What I mean is, what if we were to assume that God wanted us to dress plainly and modestly, unless we heard a direct call from Him to the contrary? If it was me, I’d want to err on the side of caution, dress plainly/modestly, and truly “experiment” with this hunch. Then, if it became clear to me that this was completely wrong after a fair period of time, I could go back to my old ways. But it seems to me that we could look at this whole thing from the other way around. Just a thought.
Julie
I started plain dressing quietly, without fanfare. Actually even I didn’t realize at first that my desire to clear out my wardrobe of ratty jeans, etc., might be theologically significant. It was only after I spent a week with some conscious plain dressers at the 2002 FGC Gathering that I was able to name this impulse. For the first month, the dress was just black pants. I was testing the leading by doing it. Only one person really seemed to notice until the suspenders came on (for men this is really all you need to have “the look”).
One thing I noticed as I started plain dressing was that a lot more Quakers do it than I had realized. Most don’t call it that, but it’s obvious that the tradition lives on in our collective subconsciousness once you know the clues to look for. Some of it is more than a little embarrasing. I may not wear a denim jumper but I did start wearing a rather-dorky Tilley hat after realizing this is part of an underground, often unconscious, plain dress uniform (I still cringe when a certain type of sixty-something sees me and cries “Is that a Tilley hat! I have a Tilley hat! I love my Tilley hat!”)
I don’t think the final “uniform” is important (as I understand, for much of our history we didn’t have specific dress codes; I want to see Clarkson’s account as I think he was probably referring to a particular class/moment). What matters is the wrestling between the Spirit, tradition and our own self-will. This work stretches our discernment muscles & gets us ready to hear God’s call in other arenas.
Hello,
My husband and I ( former Catholics) were heavily convicted some 8 yrs ago to go to a local Quaker church and eventually we did and while there the Lord opened our eyes and gave us understanding of the Scriptures and we were saved. We grew quickly in the Word and began to feel the church wasn’t very Biblical, so we ended up visiting some 50 churches before the Lord led us back to our original Quaker church. My husband has acknowledged recently the call to preach and our pastor is encouraging. Anyhow, we have been moving toward Plain living for 3- 4 yrs now. I do dress modestly, cover my head, and he wears a beard (the dress is only a part of what Plain living is about for us). We don’t believe in mandating dress codes, but there needs to be some standards, though we should not infringe on the Holy Spirit’s territory in this regard. But the revealing clothing of many people who say they are christians cannot possibly be the result of communication with God! And we feel a sort of need to call the Quakers back to the Old Paths; the paths steeped in Scripture ( you will agree, I am sure, that Biblical illiteracy is rampant. Noone seems to have time and that HAS to change for people to grow in the Lord.). My husband has been very moved by the testimonies of Fox, though he and I do not agree with him on everything. Our appearance seems to be a part of this overall witness, but exactly what it is to be we have not figured out totally! I would prefer to be identified with other Anabaptist groups, but for now I wear simple skirts, shirts, and kerchiefs. I am not dowdy, but neat and presentable. But I am very interested in cape dresses and aprons. I do have a couple of bonnet type coverings coming which are not at all like the Amish or Menno’s. I am glad to find this site, and I had not found much on Quaker clothing. I had found some evidence a while back that the Mennonites got their clothing ideas from the Quakers. I do think the Conner Prairie site has some interesting info on early QuakerIndiana settlers.
Blessings!
Joanie
Hi Melynda ~ I’m fairly new to Quakerism, having become convinced about two years ago. A plain and simple life was but one thing that drew me to Friends, and I’ve struggled with the issues you write about ever since. I feel the need for modest dress and a cover, but when I have tried to adopt some of what seems to be “out there,” I’ve ended up feeling like a fraud or a pseudo-Mennonite. That seems to violate everything Friends stand for, so like many others, I’m at a loss for what to do. But I’ll be following others’ comments eagerly. Blessings to you ~ Anita
Have you seen the photo of Jane on her headcovering page of the Plain Jane website.
I think she looks beautiful, simple, modest and somehow very Quaker in what she is wearing. I my self wear mostly denim jumpers, a turtleneck and a small matching kerchief because that is the type of Modest dress that my husband prefers.
Mary-in-Philly
http://www.quakerjane.com/spirit.friends/plain_dress-caps.html
Melinda,
I found your article here very serendipitously. I am not a member of any church (although I am a Deist), and have been dressing ‘plain’ for most of my life, albeit without a particular plan to do so. I arrived at this simply because I didn’t like contemporary clothing as I was growing up (the very awkward transitional period between the late 1960s/early 70s), and it has gotten only very marginally better since then. As a result, I’ve adopted a sort of uniform for daily wear — primarily solid colors, nothing that can’t be worn for many, many years. I also, rather unfortunately for a shy and modest girl, had a figure that attracted the wrong kind of attention. Dressing plainly as much as possible helped me keep my dignity then, and now, as I approach 50 (I am 48). It’s ageless.
This particular passage resonated with me: “And my heart rises up against the whole range of “modest” clothing presently available — floral prairie dresses and pinafores, sailor dresses, denim jumpers, and head coverings — all with nursing apertures and maternity inserts, and marketed by companies with terrifying names like “Daddy’s Little Princess,” “King’s Daughters,” and “Lilies of the Field.” ”
While I don’t entirely know your reasons for disquiet with this, I wonder if they are the same as mine? I very strongly believe in a woman’s identity that is not necessarily enmeshed with her family connections or reproductive status; nor one that is subservient to or subject to any will but her own conscience. I am worried that if I express further interest in any sort of plain community, I would be seen there as a third-class person because I have consciously chosen to not have children, and consider men to be my equal. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Otherwise — my dislike of ugly, contemporary clothing has led me to a lifelong, fascinating hobby — reproducing historical clothing. A busy life (full time, self-supporting work, doing all work and as much maintenance as possible on a 98-year-old home by myself) precludes dressing as prettily (plainly) as I’d like much of the time — but plain dress and simple living remain very close to my heart.
If anyone could provide me with further information, I would be very grateful. Many thanks. TudorLdy@aol.com
I too feel drawn to more simplicity and plainness in living. I greatly admire those who can wear the more historical clothing, because it’s lovely and has much that’s of value today. Cape dresses, for example, could be updated for office wear. For me, though, the purely historical dress would be a costume, not a conviction, so I find myself drawn to what the quakerjane website refers to as modern plain attire. Also, I’ve reached the age where I simply look better and healthier with almost no makeup. I work full time, am of managerial rank, so that will affect my choice of what to wear to send the message I’m trying to send. I feel that I’ve embarked on a promising journey by stopping to think about these things. Since I don’t come from a religious background like a Quaker, I’m wondering if this is perhaps a spiritual leading. I understand that a lot of women from diverse backgrounds are feeling similar promptings. Thank you for your website.
I, too, have been a plain dresser intermittently, for 36 years. I love the prairie look, but it’s not practical. I end up stepping on my skirts when I stand up after having bent down, and I almost fall over. I do all my yard work myself, which requires a lot of kneeling, bending, pushing a mower, reaching, heavy lifting, etc., as we all know, and must wear pants for this. Also, no one in my neighborhood dresses plainly (suburbia), and if I were to wear dresses exclusively, I’d probably get beat up. So, would that be suffering for the name of Christ or suffering unnecessarily for being an oddball? No one in my church dresses in the prairie style, either. I first was introduced to plain dressing while briefly being involved in a small Christian cult in the early ’70s. I guess the desire to dress that way never left me. I do think that many times dresses are far more modest around the hip area than pants could ever be. That is, if all you are doing is sitting, standing and walking. And snug fitting pants on us middle aged women are most unflattering. Wearing a skirt can hide many figure imperfections and prevent men from staring. Curiously, hardly any women in our large town ever wears skirts or dresses. It’s almost exclusively pants, at all times of the day. How did we women make the crossover into excluding skirts, dresses and jumpers from our wardrobes? I think it must have crept into our culture very slowly and subtly. Simple dressing, wearing khakis, jeans and simple shirts without jewelry can end up looking unisex or gender-confused. I don’t want to do that, either! Without a doubt, we have 2 legs, the same as men, and pants are comfortable and convenient. So, I too am not sure just how to dress simply, modestly and femininely while wearing pants, little make up and no jewelry. If the weather’s not too hot, I try to wear an open long blouse over a t‑top, to provide some modesty over the hips, but I think wearing dresses exclusively would make me an easy target for harassment, no matter what our pop culture says about “tolerance”!
Communion Dress is worn by people all over the world. It’s for holy occasions. When young kids wear the communication dress they look adorable.