Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In November 2022, the administrators at Bulawayo Polytechnic College instituted a new dress code at its campus, sparking public outrage. This college dress code reinvigorated debates on the age-old questions of morality and rights. On one hand, there is a strong belief that the implementation of dress codes may lead to the violation of students’ rights and self-expression. On the other hand, others contend that ‘revealing’ dresses may disrupt teaching and learning. This article uses this Bulawayo Polytechnic ‘moment’ to explore the discourses and debates surrounding dress codes in higher education institutions. Drawing upon Foucault’s theorisation on discourse, discipline and governmentality, we consider school dress codes as technologies of power. Data were collected from college students. At the core of these debates on choices of clothes are issues of policing and disciplining female bodies, rape culture, body shaming, victim-blaming and surveillance.

Keywords

Power discourse dress code higher education Zimbabwe

Introduction and context

A dress code is a set of rules that indicate the approved manner of dress (Fayokun et al., 2009: 59). In a memo dated 15 November 2022, the Bulawayo Polytechnic listed 15 items of clothing that were banned from its campus. These included ripped jeans; sleeveless tops and dresses; string tops and string dresses; blouses or tops that reveal the stomach; off-shoulder tops and dresses; tops and dresses that reveal breast cleavages; and tops and dresses with open backs, biker and bum shorts. Furthermore, skin tights and other tight-fitting garments, skirts, shorts and dresses that are 5 cm above the knees were banned. The memo also added to the list see-through garments, caps in class and in offices for everyone, and no headgear for male students in classes and in offices, except for religious reasons; dropping off of trousers and shorts, vents that are more than 5 cm above the knee and slippers. This sparked outrage as the bulk of the banned clothing related to women. In 2021, another higher education institution, Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University (ZEGU) made headlines after the banning of miniskirts and other similar clothing at its campus.

These incidents should be understood against the deeply patriarchal nature of Zimbabwean society. The presumption that women are inferior to men still exists in the modern gender order in Zimbabwe, despite the fact that patriarchal traditions date back to precolonial times (Tshuma 2020; Ndlovu 2020). The structures of women’s subordination in the household and social arenas are negotiated, challenged and modified over time, therefore it is crucial to recognise that the gender order is not only static but fluid and subject to diverse challenges. In the contemporary social order, neoliberal principles of individual choice within a consumerist environment have shaped the construction (and understanding thereof) of gendered identities. This has presented a paradox for women; as they try to assert themselves as free-thinking individuals seizing all opportunities offered to them, they are met with resistance.

One illustration of this dichotomy is provided by Zimbabwean women who face backlash for attempting to demonstrate their independence, whether it be sexual or otherwise, through their clothing choices. For instance, Mapuranga’s (2020: 35) study on sexuality, dress and public spaces in Harare (Zimbabwe) demonstrates how Pentecostalism and other religious traditions are ‘stirring patriarchal notions that tend to be violent and restrictive of women’s expression of their sexuality through dress’. In their study on street harassment of female university students in Zimbabwe, Mawere and Moyo (2019) add that women are commonly subjected to abuse for wearing miniskirts in places such as bus terminuses. Touts have subjected women to horrendous treatment under the rubric of holding the ‘Zimbabwean culture in high esteem’ (Nehanda Radio, 2014). The so-called ‘under-dressed’ women were stigmatised and labelled as ‘unrespectable’ (Hungwe, 2006: 42). In response to such harassment, the Katswe Sistahood women’s rights advocacy group organised a ‘Mini-Skirt March’ in October 2014 to protest the harassment that women face in public. There were a variety of responses to this; the most notable came from Grace Mugabe, the first lady at the time, who condemned women who wore miniskirts and equated their wearing with an intentional invitation for men to rape them: ‘If you walk around wearing mini-skirts displaying your thighs and inviting men to drool over you, then you want to complain when you have been raped? It’s unfortunate because it will be your fault’ (Mhlanga, 2015). Thus, in a society where they are expected to remain on the periphery and not in public places on their own terms, some Zimbabwean women are resisting the patriarchal logics expressed by people like Mugabe and arguably demonstrating a fresh awareness of their rights by dressing subversively in public settings.

While a liberal feminist identity guarantees women a certain amount of freedom of choice, at the same time, her behaviour is strictly regulated to conform to old patriarchal norms of dressing appropriately, always covering one’s legs and hands – practices that McFadden (2005), paradoxically, refers to as ‘artefacts of colonial (Victorian) manufacture’ (p. 6). This newly discovered political reconfiguration of sexuality as a sphere of rights does not, however, preclude the possibility of patriarchal resistance – often violent – opposing women’s admission into public places that represent claims to citizenship, such as those associated with education, property rights, political office and even the streets. In a research examining how sex has come to be discursively structured in public discourse, Posel (2004) finds that ‘discursively, the imagery of sex as freedom, as the symbol of a virile new lease on life, jostles with that of sex as peril, sex as death’ (p. 62). She aims to demonstrate how the emergence of a new black middle class in post-apartheid South Africa, as well as their consumerist and global cultural tastes, has made sex a space where these newly discovered freedoms are made manifest. Similar to this, in other African regions, the growth of middle-class women pushing the women’s movement assumes a modern culture and identity in their cultures where they progressively reject crippling traditional assumptions of a ‘real’ identity for an African woman, presenting new ways of being feminine in the process (Tshuma et al., 2022; McFadden, 2005). This would arguably include the freedom to dress in any way that one feels comfortable, but the dress code memo issued by Bulawayo Polytechnic seemingly infringes on those rights. This study therefore analyses the memo using critical discourse analysis (CDA) and the corresponding responses to it by employing interviews with selected students.

Literature review

Our research is focused on dress codes in institutions of higher learning specifically, but we found that little research exists in this particular demographic. Most of the literature focuses on schools and we find this literature relevant for framing our concerns with dress code policing at Bulawayo Polytechnic. What students are wearing has become a major issue in schools (Gilbert, 1999). School dress codes were first introduced in the United States with the intent to mitigate inequalities, protect students from gang violence and instil discipline (Edwards and Marshall, 2020). Fashion trends seem to be leaning towards the ‘extreme’ and ‘obscene’ (Gilbert, 1999: 3). As a result, some schools are banning the wearing of certain categories of clothes (Gilbert, 1999). The arguments for school dress codes include promoting an ‘effective climate for learning’, increasing campus ‘safety and security’ and fostering ‘school unity and pride’ (Gilbert, 1999: 4). The justification for dress code policies is that they strengthen discipline and moral values (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023). Concerning learners’ safety, the assumption is that authorities can recognise intruders in school premises (Wilken and Van Aardt, 2012).

In addition, schools tend to link dressing to ‘sexual behaviour, associated risks and presumed morality’ (Edwards and Marshall, 2020: 3). There is hence an assumption that dress codes protect students from sexual harassment (Siziba et al., 2021; Msimanga et al., 2023; Edwards and Marshall, 2020). Within the implementation of school dress codes, there is a tension between free expression and the need to maintain a safe learning environment (Matsilele, 2021; Edwards and Marshall, 2020). Dress codes are also associated with public image. Members of a profession reinforce their public image through attire (Msimanga et al., 2022; Gurung et al., 2018; Lang, 1986). Thus, the ‘most powerful image a profession can project to the public is through its dress’ (Lang, 1986: 277). Gurung et al. (2018) argue that a client’s perception of a business is affected by the ways in which the company’s employees are dressed. Furthermore, dress codes have racial connotations. The dress codes tend to be implemented inequitably and are also ‘conceived of and written in racially coded language’ (Edwards and Marshall, 2020: 5). In the United States, dress codes banning clothing were associated with African-American gangs rather than clothing linked to white supremacist groups (Edwards and Marshall, 2020). Within this discourse, ‘gang violence’ tends to be associated with violence committed by ethnic minorities rather than violence instigated by white students (Edwards and Marshall, 2020). The style of dressing of African-Americans tends to be seen as ‘threatening’ and potentially part of a dangerous ‘gang’ culture (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023: 3). Other studies demonstrate that dress codes reproduce ‘binary, heteronormative gender roles’ (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023: 3).

Despite these efforts of schools to adopt dress codes (Gilbert, 1999), there is a concern that dress codes are detrimental to student learning (Whitman, 2020). There have been widespread debates concerning the constitutionality of dress code policies (Edwards and Marshall, 2020; Wilken and Van Aardt, 2012). There is an argument that school dress codes ‘infringe on learners’ constitutional rights to self-expression’ (Wilken and Van Aardt, 2012: 159). Dress codes are construed by some people as a violation of the students’ rights to free speech (Gilbert, 1999).

Issues of gender and race are also intertwined within these debates on school dress codes (Edwards and Marshall, 2020). Dress code policies tend to disproportionately affect girls and students of colour by embodying them as ‘sexualized and inferior’ (Whitman, 2020: 1). Thus, dress code rhetoric constitutes ‘performative contradiction’ (Butler, 1997: 84) as it is a source of sexualisation that it seeks to combat (Neville-Shepard, 2019). Edwards and Marshall (2020) add that ‘female students, particularly female students of color, experience gross disciplinary inequities with dress code’ (p. 2). In this regard, female students are treated as objects, while males are assumed to be ‘incapable of controlling their sexual desires’ (Whitman, 2020). Some scholars view dress codes as entrenching victim-blaming as the practice sends a message that female students are to blame for the male gaze (Bates, 2015; Neville-Shepard, 2019; Whitman, 2020).

School dress codes are regarded as a form of oppression as they disproportionately target females and minorities (Whitman, 2020). Thus, dress code policies are meant to regulate the female attire and to ‘discipline the female student body’ (Neville-Shepard, 2019: 1). Girls are usually censured for allegedly disrupting the educational experiences of boys through their dressing (Whitman, 2020). Such arguments are the basis for ‘misogynistic culture’ (Neville-Shepard, 2019: 2). There is an implicit ‘slut-shaming’ of girls through school-sanctioned dress codes (Whitman, 2020: 2). Thus, women are constructed as ‘victim and agent’ or ‘target and temptress’ (Neville-Shepard, 2019: 3). Within this framing, the actual perpetrators ‘fade from view, leaving only a narrative of self-infliction’ (Neville-Shepard, 2019: 3). This misogynistic culture is reinforced through Fayokun et al.’s (2009: 59) shocking remarks in their study on the dress codes at higher learning institutions:

Campuses of higher institutions today have fostered a climate for the display of seductive wears especially by the female. For instance, those who had visited the campuses of institutions of higher learning in recent times had wondered whether they were in an academic community or an enclave of harlots, owing to the provocative and seductive ways in which most of the students, particularly the female clothed themselves to the lecture rooms.

In addition, dress codes convey social meanings about masculinity:

By considering that girls’ clothing can distract boys from their studies is an affront to boys by suggesting that they are weak and unable to control base, animalistic urges. To place the education of boys in the crosshairs of the dress code debate is unfair not only to girls, but it assumes that boys are incapable of controlling sexual desire and therefore need to have temptation locked away from them. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that like all humans, boys have the ability to reflect on their actions, make decisions and apply reason. (Whitman, 2020: 2)

Thus, enforcing dress codes is framed as a way of protecting male students and teachers from ‘temptation’ (Neville-Shepard, 2019: 4). In the same vein, boys and male teachers are constructed as ‘innocent victims of female sexuality’ (Edwards and Marshall, 2020: 6).

There are studies that examine perceptions of students’ dressing codes in higher learning institutions (Fayokun et al., 2009; Saidi et al., 2021). Universities in Africa such as the University of Ibadan, the University of Lagos and Makerere University have prescribed dress codes for their students (Fayokun et al., 2009: 59). Fayokun et al. (2009: 58) argue that ‘indecent dressing’ at university campuses constitute a ‘moral crisis’.

Theory

Whitman (2020) posits that issues of dress codes have largely been ignored in curriculum theory. Based on Aristotle’s concept of virtue, there is a belief that dress codes serve to control behaviour (Whitman, 2020). As such, school dress codes tend to be examined and administered based on Aristotle’s rendition of moral education (Whitman, 2020). However, this study draws upon Michel Foucault’s theorisation on discourse, discipline and governmentality to make sense of school dress codes as technologies of power. The enforcement of school dress code policies can be construed as an exercise of power relations (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023). Foucault’s theorisation on governmentality and discipline provides a useful framework for analysing dress code policies at higher learning institutions. Thus, dress code policies serve as tools to ‘enforce discipline’ (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023: 1). In this regard, school dress codes provide insights into the function and operation of power. Techniques of disciplinary power are concerned with ‘imposing strict rules of behaviour and classifying, hierarchising and surveilling people to that end’ (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023: 2).

Studies on dress codes as technologies of power demonstrate the intersection of bodies and social institutions (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023). Schools are key institutions where power is produced, reproduced and contested (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023). Dress codes are part of the ‘techniques of disciplinary power’ (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023: 2). School dress codes are part of a regime of disciplinary regulations. Through such disciplinary power, students become ‘visible and amenable to surveillance’ (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023: 4). Foucault’s work on governmentality demonstrates the disciplinary tactics deployed to produce, mould and shape subjects in certain ways (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023). Governmentality shows that dress codes serve to make the subjects internalise their control (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023). Through tactics of shaming and the doling out of penalties, the nonconforming bodies are being ‘trained into submission’ (Neville-Shepard, 2019: 4). In essence, Foucault’s work helps us to understand the discipline, control and surveillance of students through dress code policies. It also shapes our understanding of how dress codes provide a site for behaviours to be deemed normal and deviant. Neville-Shepard (2019) argues that ‘dress expectations have long been used to discipline female bodies and marginalize their voices’ (p. 2). At the same time, women tend to be reminded to police their bodies (Neville-Shepard, 2019).

Methodology

This study is informed by a qualitative methodology as its emphasis is on meaning-making practices. Our understanding of qualitative research is underpinned by the idea that ‘meaning is socially constructed by individuals in interacting with their world’ (Merriam, 2002: 3). Qualitative studies are informed by constructionist and interpretivist paradigms (Merriam, 2002; Shava and Nkengbeza, 2020). We used CDA as a method of analysing the dress code policy. CDA is a multidisciplinary and/or transdisciplinary approach to critical social research that typically involves textual analysis. This suggests an overt interest in language as a ‘machine’ that generates and, as a result, constitutes social reality through discourse (Phillips and Jorgensen, 2002: 9). Therefore, language is dialectically tied to power insofar as it indicates power, expresses power and is involved in disputes and challenges to power (Wodak, 2001: 5). However, it is vital to remember that power does not emerge from language; rather, language can be used to dispute and alter conceptions of social reality (Wodak, 2001). CDA is therefore not concerned with language use per se, but rather with the linguistic nature of social behaviours and institutions (Richardson, 2007). With the transformative goal of promoting social justice, CDA aims to reveal hidden power relations (Hart and Cap, 2014; Wodak and Meyer, 2009). This critical viewpoint enables one to examine how gendered lives and experiences are influenced by societal norms that are discursively produced, reproduced, as well as simultaneously negotiated and questioned in an effort to challenge these hegemonic power relations. CDA provides various analytical tools for examining all types of inequality, including the criticism of language that upholds the patriarchal social structure. This can be accomplished by exposing how gendered relations of power are created, upheld and challenged ‘in representations of social practices, in social relationships between people, and in people’s social and personal identities in texts and talk’ (Lazar, 2005: 11) as we do in this text. CDA is useful for exposing gendered inequalities, sexist and patriarchal norms that are being sustained and perpetuated through Bulawayo Polytechnic College dress code. However, we seek to go beyond merely analysing the dress code as a disciplinary practice, and to examine how college students are negotiating and challenging such techniques of disciplinary power. While CDA helps us to unpack how dress codes serve as regimes of disciplinary regulations, qualitative interviews are useful for showing how students are not only internalising but also challenging the dominant power structures.

In seeking to understand how students make sense of the phenomenon of dress codes at universities, we focus on emic perspectives, that is, from the ‘point of view of those who live in it’ (Schwandt, 1998: 221). Qualitative researchers provide a thick description, that is, rich and detailed information about contextual issues (Babbie and Mouton, 2001; Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Shava and Nkengbeza, 2020). Drawing upon a qualitative approach, we utilised semi-structured or in-depth interviews as a method of data collection. Thus, qualitative interviews were held with undergraduate and postgraduate students at the National University of Science and Technology (NUST) in Bulawayo. A total of 15 students participated in this study, and they were drawn from NUST’s various faculties and departments. The participants shared their views on the Bulawayo Polytechnic dress code phenomenon, and wider perspectives about dress codes at higher learning institutions. Both male and female students participated in this study. The interviews were conducted in November and December 2022 at Bulawayo.

Findings and discussion

Our analysis is structured in two ways; first, we use CDA to analyse the Bulawayo Polytechnic dress code. Second, we discuss the findings from our interviews with participants.

A critical discourses analysis of the Bulawayo Polytechnic dress code

Consistent with our concern of unpacking the unequal relations of power, we found Fairclough’s (1995) three-dimensional model of CDA useful for analysing the dress code. This model highlights the interplay between the text, discourse practice and socio-cultural practice bringing forth the often overlooked connections between language, power and discourse (Richardson, 2007). To this end, following Mariwah et al. (2023), we focused on the third level of Fairclough’s (1995) model which constitutes ‘the social and cultural goings-on which the communicative event is part of’ (p. 57), the communicative event referring to the text (dress code). To employ this type of analysis, one must examine the immediate context, as well as the broader institutional practices that surround the communicative event. In addition, it is important to take into account the larger societal or cultural context in which the communication is taking place (Mariwah et al., 2023). Accordingly, through immanent critique, we questioned and challenged features of the dress code regulations that may contribute to either maintaining or challenging prevailing power structures in society. More specifically, we were concerned with how the dress code perpetuates gendered norms and reinforces gender inequality in educational institutions, workplaces, and society as a whole.

The proponents of dress attire employ various discursive strategies to legitimate and rationalise the dominant social order. For instance, the memo states ‘as an institution, we encourage you to be dressed according to your trade’. This is consistent with some of the modes of operation of ideology identified by Thompson (1990). For Thompson (1990: 60), relations of domination can be established and maintained by being represented as just and worthy of support. In this instance, Bulawayo Polytechnic employs rationalisation as a symbolic strategy to legitimate the issuing of the dress code rules. Furthermore, the use of ‘as an institution’ without the agent is a way of concealing the identities of the individuals involved in drafting the regulations. This intentional strategy aims to delete the agents and obscure the patriarchal system that informed the drafting of the regulations, as described by Thompson (1990) in his concept of dissimulation as a form of concealment or obscurement.

The memo also uses modality to stamp authority. For instance, it also reads, ‘if not properly dressed, the student will be asked to correct before accessing any Bulawayo Polytechnic facility and lectures’. The term modality relates to value judgements made by a speaker in connection to the degree of commitment they make to the assertion they make. Modal verbs such as will, must, may, might and should, as well as their negations like will not, must not, could not, should not, and adverbs like certainly, are examples (Richardson, 2007). The modality of choice has an impact on the discursive creation of social ties and knowledge reservoirs (Phillips and Jorgensen, 2002). This is accomplished by truth claims, judgement, hypotheses or views as implied in the kind of dressing that is prohibited in the memo. Those who wear the kind of clothing that has been declared inappropriate for the college are effectively expurgated. To that extent, modality also indicates the existence of a person who is qualified to make specific decisions (Richardson, 2007). In this case, it is the principal who is the signatory of this memo as representing the institution. The memo in itself is top-down, not leaving any space for engagement or negotiation. It provides us with a moment to study the continual process of constructing ‘reality’. If discourses influence how people talk, think and act, and so produce regular consequences of power (Foucault, 1980), then it is feasible to identify and analyse discursive contestations among different groups by determining who talks, with what authority, and what themes are prioritised or avoided.

The memo should therefore be understood within broader social practices. To this end, as stated earlier understanding Foucault’s conceptualisation of the constitution of modern subjects is critical to ‘reading’ the memo critically. The subject is understood as constituted through discursive practices that regulate ways of talking and behaving in any discursive formation. The principal, herself a subject of the institution and its patriarchal underpinnings, is constituted as a subject of patriarchy and therefore submits herself willingly to the rules and regulations of the system.

Furthermore, Foucault’s (2008) concept of governmentality examines how practices of power and knowledge normalise individuals’ behaviour through subtle coercion and surveillance and so ‘disciplines’ subjects to behave in certain ways. In relation to this study, the memo functions as a disciplining technique to discipline women’s bodies in particular as evidenced by how at least 14 of the 15 items listed pertain to women’s dressing. Furthermore, the emphasis on clothing ‘that leave the stomach out’, exposes shoulders, ‘back outs’ and among other things serves to discipline women’s bodies consistently with ideas about ‘traditional’ femininity. It reminds us that inasmuch as women are allowed to enter public spaces (such as education institutions that were previously restricted to women in the colonial era) they may do so but on terms dictated by patriarchy. The body is viewed as an object to be controlled and manipulated in this setting. As a result, a new set of procedures, a nexus of power and knowledge that Foucault refers to as disciplinary technologies, emerges. At this moment, knowledge becomes power, and it serves as a means of surveillance, regulation and discipline (Foucault, 1980). Women’s bodies are therefore a site of discursive contestation, with women trying to assert their independence but with patriarchy dictating how they should always be respectable and morally upright by dressing ‘appropriately’. This traditional patriarchal discourse stands in contrast with a modern liberal one that recognises the freedom of women to be anything they want and exercise freedom in the way they dress. The tension between these discourses as they jostle for dominance is further demonstrated in the responses from interviewees below.

Findings from the qualitative interviews indicate the participants’ diverse interpretations of the Bulawayo Polytechnic College dress code incident. Discourses on culture/tradition and human rights are evoked by participants to defend and challenge the issue of dress codes at tertiary institutions. Moreover, notions of image and reputation were also raised by participants. In addition, participants interpreted the banning of certain dresses as a mechanism of policing female students’ bodies.

On dress codes, image and reputation

One way in which power works to discipline people in society is that it ‘constructs responsible subjects whose moral quality is based on the fact that they rationally assess the costs and benefits of a certain act as opposed to other alternative acts’ (Lemke, 2001). Against this background, some participants argue that college students should dress in a way that enhances their professional image and reputation. Hence, students are argued to first look at the costs associated with dressing ‘professionally’ as they prepare for their future respective workplaces. Such views concur with extant scholarship that links dress codes with reputation and image (Ndlovu and Mlotshwa, 2022; Gurung et al., 2018; Lang, 1986). Participant 1 asserted that:

One should wear how they want to be addressed. So dressing in a way that says you are at a university works for me.

The assumption that there is a correlation between how one dresses and how they are addressed is one of the discursive strategies employed by social actors to control and regulate female bodies. Such narratives are ideological as they tend to reproduce and perpetuate victim-blaming in a society where street harassment of women is rampant (Ndhlovu, 2020).

Thus, some participants justify the imposition of dress codes at tertiary institutions on the basis that they prepare students for the workplace. Participant 2 added that universities should emulate the business world where there is a dress code:

At workplaces, there should be some form of restraint when it comes to dressing where people at institutions such as universities need not to dress anyhow. If workplaces have dress codes, what stops colleges from doing the same although not being too stiff.

The notion of ‘restraint’ is a euphemism for stifling women’s freedom of dressing. To ‘restrain’ women is to police dressing and regulate female bodies. The suggestion that a woman’s image and reputation are tied to her credibility may serve patriarchal tendencies. First, women’s right to dress may be severely restricted. In order to excel in male-dominated workplaces, women may be forced to conform to the conservative norms of dressing. Second, women may be judged according to their clothing choices rather than merit. Within the dominant patriarchal discourse, professionalism is premised on an assumption that a ‘conservative dress-code gives credibility to women’ (Chigudu, 1997: 38). Chigudu (1997) argues that women in the workplace are torn between conforming to the traditional values of organisations and society, and also upholding the ‘feminist ideal that a woman should be free to express her individuality in whatever way she wishes’ (p. 38).

On culture, traditions and morality

Cultural concepts are often evoked in society to influence certain accepted behaviours, and this brings to the fore Foucault’s concept of governmentality. To govern, in this sense, is to ‘structure the possible field of action of others’ (Foucault, 1982) with institutions governing how people can ‘meaningfully talk about, and reason about’ dressing ‘appropriately’ in this case (Burr, 2003: 67). Our findings are showing that culture is being used to provide the ‘possible of action’, that is, the expected and unexpected behaviours within the society. Other participants evoke the discourse on culture to censure or prescribe the dress attire for students. Participant 3 argues that without appropriate standards for dressing, universities will turn into ‘shebeens’ and ‘night clubs’:

While it is wrong to impose certain dress codes and be stiff at it, colleges and their students if left to do as they wish there will be no difference between shebeens and night clubs where people dress scantily and expose more flesh than is necessary.

Participant 3 was very critical of the way students dress at universities. He argued that students were dressing like ‘mermaids’ which was against ‘culture’:

You see them dressing like mermaids going back to the sea. We are a people with a culture and culture has to be dialectical.

Evidently, the discourse on ‘culture’ tends to be evoked by individuals and groups to justify certain acts. Some behaviours are censured on the basis that they are deemed to be against the cultural norms and traditions. The declaration by the participant that ‘we are a people with a culture’ is problematic as it represents culture as static, unsullied, pristine and given. However, culture should be seen as socially constructed, constantly changing and contested. At the core of the debates is the question of how discourses on culture are mobilised and invoked to justify the banning of certain dresses at tertiary institutions. Participant 4 contends that ‘there are people without shame and no value of Ubuntu out there’. In other words, the discourse on Ubuntu is also evoked to prescribe the dress code for university students. Ubuntu is a moral philosophy embedded in African values, traditions and customs (Fourie, 2008; Ndlovu and Sibanda, 2020). As such, students who are deemed to be dressed inappropriately are said to be lacking moral values and Ubuntu. More so, ubuntu is intertwined with Foucault’s work on power because it [ubuntu] has the power to make some sentiments and actions illegitimate for they will not be good for the development of society. In this case, the dress code was meant to discard certain behaviours that are seen as ‘immoral’ and ‘bad for the development of society’.

As such, afrocentric discourses are being evoked to police female bodies. Participant 5 adds that ‘we are borrowing too much from the West who have anointed themselves prefects of the world we abolished it under the pretext of human rights’. Clearly, there is a tension between culture/tradition and Western renditions of human rights. Participant 5 positions himself within Afrocentric discourses and accuses university students of being subjects of Western modernity. In essence, the issue of dress code signals a clash between discourses on Afrocentricity and Western modernity. While discourses on Afrocentricity are mobilised by participant 5, it is noteworthy that he also appropriates and invokes legal discourses by calling for the promulgation of laws that prohibit indecent exposure. The doling out of penalties is one of the tactics of moulding, controlling and disciplining subjects (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023).

Regulating the female attire and disciplining women’s bodies

Some participants reinforce discourses that seek to regulate female attire and discipline women’s bodies. Their views affirm the notion by some scholars that dress codes ‘asymmetrically target girls’ (Edwards and Marshall, 2020: 5). This assertion is attested by participant 6 who finds it problematic for female students to wear skimpy dresses to class:

Some ladies wear skimpy dresses to class, dresses or clothing that they can’t bend to pick up something. It’s fine to say ‘my body, my rules’ but let’s be honest one needs to dress appropriately and according to the set up they are in. Look at universities that have a Law programme and look at how students dress.

The idea that female students should dress ‘appropriately’ suggest how women’s bodies are being disciplined, policed and governed. Through this ‘moral regulation’ (Edwards and Marshall, 2020: 6), girls are viewed as responsible for the ‘moral climate’ of schools (Neville-Shepard, 2019: 4).

Other participants are challenging such dress code policies that regulate female bodies. They argue that the dressing of women should not be used to justify rape and sexual harassment. Foucault argues that people who are presented with information are not docile; instead, ‘power is exercised over free subjects, subjects able to refuse to submit to guidance, to being led, to influence being exercised over their conduct’ (Smart, 2002: xv). Therefore, in the process, ‘there is always prospects of recalcitrance, intransigence and refusal’ (Mills, 2003; Smart, 2002: xv). Participant 7 asserts that:

Women should be allowed to dress however they want without men claiming such clothing pushes them to act immorally on women.

Participant 7 argues that men tend to justify sexual harassment by claiming that they were tempted by the dressing of women. Neville-Shepard (2019: 3) rightly points out that in cases of rape and sexual harassment, the female body tends to be ‘harnessed’ as evidence against the victim. Thus, the female body is construed as a site of ‘sin and virtue’ (Neville-Shepard, 2019: 4). Within this misogynistic culture, women are constructed as temptresses (Msimanga et al., 2021; Neville-Shepard, 2019) who are luring innocent men (Edwards and Marshall, 2020).

Participant 8 adds that the dress code disproportionately targets female students. Thus, it is viewed as biased against women:

The dress code is highly biased considering it limits mostly the girl child whilst boys are only told about dropping pants and caps which leads to the question is the institution perhaps insinuating that the dress code of females is what leads to sexual harassment? Are the males at the institution perhaps looking at their students as potential girlfriends outside the professional teacher-student relationship? Which can therefore justify why they believe dress codes can be provocative.

Through what Foucault terms as ‘techniques of disciplinary power’ (Friedrich and Shanks, 2023: 2), there is surveillance of female students’ bodies. Female students are being disciplined and censured for wearing what is deemed ‘provocative’ and deviant. However, students evoked the discourse of human rights to challenge dress code policies at tertiary institutions.

On discourse on human rights

Within the realm of governing and policing bodies, discourses on human rights are evoked by some participants to challenge the dominant worldviews. Their refusal or challenge to move to discipline female bodies shows that ‘social groups are governed by freedom and choice’ (Foucault, 1982; Lemke, 2001). Participants argue that the enforcement of dress codes is an infringement on students’ right to self-expression:

I don’t think it’s okay to be imposing dress codes on people, more so in colleges. These are no longer medieval times. People should be free to dress in a way they find comfortable to them. People should be free to dress in a way they find comfortable to them. (Participant 8)

While some participants were evoking the notion of ‘culture’ to prescribe dress attire and discipline women’s bodies, other participants are summoning the discourses on human rights to challenge the patriarchal tendencies. One of the participants argues that the imposition of dress codes at universities is retrogressive:

In any case who can define modest dressing without imposing on others a new meaning of modesty? We can’t have such kind of thinking in the 21^st century. It shows that the effects of unemployment are wreaking havoc resulting in people minding what is not their business at all. The way I dress is beyond anyone’s scope. (Participant 9)

The participant argues that the kind of thinking (prescribing dress attire) is incongruent with the values and ideals of the modern world. Terms such as ‘rights’, ‘imposing’ and ‘restrictions’ are used by participants to critique the dress code memo as one of the techniques of disciplining female bodies. Indeed, naming and referential strategies bear the imprints of value judgements (Richardson, 2007: 52). They argue,

I think imposing a dress code is more like an infringement of students’ rights. College students should wear what they are comfortable in. (Participant 10).

I am against imposing a particular dress code especially on college students. What’s the difference now from primary institutions? Bulawayo Poly students should be treated as rational adults hence whatever they put on their bodies is appropriate for them. (Participant 11)

Evidently, the discourse on human rights is being mobilised and used by some participants to challenge the dress code policies. Participant 12 asserts that:

Putting together that dress code restrictions list was unnecessary. It was just too extreme also considering that Bulawayo Poly is a tertiary institution where everyone there is a grown up. Instead of that ridiculous list of restrictions they should have just introduced a uniform that will suit their ‘moral’ standards.

Participants argue that tertiary institutions are for ‘rational adults’ and ‘grown-ups’ and hence must not be regulated on their dressing. Other participants add that universities should be focusing on their mandate, which is teaching and research. The enforcement of dress code policies is construed as majoring on minor issues:

I believe that in the 21^st century, a tertiary institution should be worried more about producing better results and entrepreneurs in all fields not to take action on minor issues like dress codes. In more developed countries, school kids do not even wear a uniform from kindergarten to varsity but they learn and pass in environments where they are wearing shorts. (Participant 13)

In essence, the discourses on human rights are evoked and used to challenge the disciplining of female students’ bodies.

Conclusion

This study investigated the dress code memo issued by Bulawayo Polytechnic and the responses to it. Given the patriarchal nature of Zimbabwean society, it is hardly surprising that the memo came across as prescriptive of how women, to a larger extent than men, should dress. Furthermore, given the crucial significance of Christianity as the major religion in Zimbabwean society, where 90% of the population adheres to it to the point where it has been integrated as a ‘traditional’ cultural value (Ndlovu, 2018; Christiansen, 2007), provides the background to understand why issues of morality remain central in Zimbabwean society. As such we argue that while discourse is moulded by the situations, institutions and social structures in which it functions, it also constitutes these situations, institutions and social structures, as well as the social identities and relationships that their discourse participants share (Tshuma 2021; Hart and Cap, 2014). In other words, discourse generates subjects as well as social reality. This study has demonstrated how the university has become a key arena where traditional gender stereotypes are being reinforced through dress code policies. Foucault’s work on discourse, discipline and governmentality provides lenses for exploring the intersection of dress codes and structures of power. We consider dress codes to be technologies of power and, hence, argue that such policies function as mechanisms to discipline women’s bodies. Furthermore, notions of professionalism, morality and culture tend to be evoked by social actors to regulate female conduct and endorse patriarchal tendencies.

While existing scholarship demonstrates that in Zimbabwe, the female body is being disciplined in the streets (Hungwe, 2006; Mawere and Moyo, 2019), we argue that these disciplinary practices have extended to higher learning institutions. Although these contexts vary, similar gendered, victim-blaming logics at work within them demonstrates the pervasiveness of these sexist discursive formations. Higher learning institutions such as Bulawayo Polytechnic College are implementing strict dress codes that serve to sustain and perpetuate patriarchal tendencies which impact how women are treated in various facets of society. However, such disciplinary practices are not absolute. While there are students who subscribe to gender norms and cultural traditions that seek to justify the surveillance of women’s bodies, others see clothing restrictions as a manifestation of an outdated system seeking to assert and retain control.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Lungile A. Tshuma

Author biographies

Mphathisi Ndlovu is an Associate Professor in the Department of Journalism and Media Studies at the National University of Science and Technology (Zimbabwe). He is also a research fellow at Stellenbosch University (South Africa).

Nonhlanhla Ndlovu is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Journalism and Media Studies at the National University of Science and Technology (Zimbabwe). She is also a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University. Her research interests are in critical textual analysis and issues of identity and social belonging as related to traditional and online media.

Lungile A. Tshuma is an Associate Professor in the Department of Journalism and Media Studies at the National University of Science and Technology (Zimbabwe). He is also a research fellow at the University of Johannesburg in the Department of Communication and Media.

Kwenyukwa Mloyi is a Lecturer in the Department of Insurance and Actuarial at the National University of Science and Technology, Zimbabwe.

George Shava is a Professor and researcher with the National University of Science and Technology, faculty of Science and Technology Education. His research interests are in Higher Education, Quality in Education, Education leadership and Education for sustainable development. George is currently working on several EU funded projects.

References

Babbie

Mouton

(2001) The Practice of Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bates

(2015) How school dress codes shame girls and perpetuate rape culture. Time, 22 May. Available at: www.time.com

Burr

(2003) Social constructionism (2nd edition). London: Routledge.

Butler

(1997) Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. London: Routledge.

Chigudu

(1997) Establishing a feminist culture: the experience of Zimbabwe women’s resource centre and network, gender. Development 5(1): 35–42.

Christiansen

(2007) Mai Mujuru: father of the nation? In: Muchemwa

Muponde

(eds) Manning the Nation: Father Figures in Zimbabwean Literature and Society. Harare, Zimbabwe: Weaver Press, pp.88–101.

Edwards

Marshall

(2020) Undressing policy: a critical analysis of North Carolina (USA) public school dress codes. Gender and Education 32: 732–750.

Fairclough

(1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.

Fayokun

Adedeji

Oyebade

(2009) Moral crisis in higher institutions and the dress code phenomenon. Us-China Education Review 6(2): 58–66.

10.

Foucault

(1980) Power and discourse. In: Gordon

(ed.) Selected Interviews and other Writings 1972–1977. Sussex: Harvest Press, pp.134–145.

11.

Foucault

(1982) The subject and power. Critical Inquiry 8(4): 777–795.

12.

Foucault

(2008) The Birth of Bio-Politics: Lectures at the College de France 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

13.

Fourie

(2008) Ubuntuism as a framework for South African media practice and performance: can it work? Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research 34(1): 53–79.

14.

Friedrich

Shanks

(2023) ‘The prison of the body’: school uniforms between discipline and governmentality. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 44: 16–29.

15.

Gilbert

(1999) We are what we wear: revisiting student dress codes. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal 3(1): 3–18.

16.

Guba

Lincoln

(1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage, pp.105–117.

17.

Gurung

RAR

Brickner

Leet

, et al. (2018) Dressing ‘in code’: clothing rules, propriety, and perceptions. The Journal of Social Psychology 158: 553–557.

18.

Hart

Cap

(2014) Introduction. In: Hart

Cap

(eds) Contemporary Discourse Studies. London: Bloomsbury, pp.1–16.

19.

Hungwe

(2006) Putting them in their place: ‘respectable’ and ‘unrespectable’ women in Zimbabwean gender struggles. Feminist Africa 6: 33–47.

20.

Lang

(1986) The hidden dress code dilemma. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies Issues and Ideas 59(6): 277–279.

21.

Lemke

(2001) ‘The birth of bio-politics’: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society 30(2): 190–207.

22.

Lazar

(2005) Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

23.

Mapuranga

(2020) Moving forward in reverse gear? Sexuality, dress and public spaces in Harare. In: Kaunda

(ed.) Genders, Sexualities, and Spiritualities in African Pentecostalism (Christianity and Renewal – Interdisciplinary Studies). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.35–49.

24.

Mariwah

Ofori

Adjakloe

, et al. (2023) Gender (in) equality in Ghana: a critical discourse analysis of Akan proverbs on masculinity. Journal of Asian and African Studies 58(7): 1156–1172.

25.

Matsilele

(2021) The implications of Covid-19 on institutions of higher learning: A case of Zimbabwe and South Africa. In Motsaathebe

(ed) Education in Africa: Perspectives, Opportunities and Challenges. New York: Nova science Publishers, pp. 93–115.

26.

Mawere

Moyo

(2019) Street harassment experiences of female undergraduate students at a state university in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science 3(7): 106–113.

27.

McFadden

(2005) Becoming postcolonial: African women changing the meaning of citizenship. Meridians 6(1): 1–22.

28.

Merriam

(2002) Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29.

Mhlanga

(2015) First lady condemns mini-skirts. NewsDay, 21 November. Available at: https://www.newsday.co.zw/news/article/97628/first-lady-condemns-mini-skirts

30.

Mills

(2003) Michel Foucault. New York: Routledge.

31.

Msimanga

M J

Tshuma

Matsilele

Jamil

(2023) Contending with Sexual Harassment: A Study of Southern African Female Journalists’ Experiences. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 01968599231210790.

32.

Msimanga

Tshuma

L A

Matsilele

(2022) Journalism pedagogy and ICTs in a time of pandemic: A case study of selected journalism schools in Southern Africa. World of Media. Journal of Russian Media and Journalism Studies 2: 46-63. DOI: 10.30547/worldofmedia.2.2022.4

33.

Msimanga

M J

Tshuma

Ndlovu

(2021) An analysis of Internet memes and discourses on traditional medicines as remedies for COVID-19 in Zimbabwe. In Mpofu

(ed) Digital Humour in the Covid-19 Pandemic: Perspectives from the Global South, London: Palgrave, pp. 101–121.

34.

Ndhlovu

(2020) Examining media discourses on religious rape in Zimbabwe. Feminist Media Studies 20(6): 801–812.

35.

Ndlovu

(2018) New media and Ndebele Hiraeth: Memory, nostalgia and Ndebele Nationalism on selected news websites. African Journalism Studies 39(4): 109–130.

36.

Ndlovu

Mlotshwa

K J

(2022) Zimbabwe: Music, performance, and political lyrics as “cure” for post Bhalagwe1 trauma. In Onyabadi

(ed) Political Messaging in Music and Entertainment Spaces across the Globe. Volume 1. Wilmington: Vernon Press, pp. 279–300.

37.

Ndlovu

(2020) Zimbabwean women online: an investigation of how gendered identities are negotiated in Zimbabwean Women’s Online Spaces. PhD Thesis. Rhodes University

38.

Ndlovu

Sibanda

(2020) Ubuntuism as a foundation of media ethics in Zimbabwe? Journalists’ perspectives and discontents. Communicatio 46(2): 44–63.

39.

Nehanda Radio (2014) Women organise ‘mini skirt march’. Nehanda Radio, 4 October. Available at: https://nehandaradio.com/2014/10/04/women-organise-mini-skirt-march/

40.

Neville-Shepard

(2019) Disciplining the female student body: consequential transference in arguments for school dress codes. Women’s Studies in Communication 42(1): 1–20.

41.

Phillips

Jorgensen

(2002) Discourse Analysis: As Theory and Method. London: Sage.

42.

Posel

(2004) ‘Getting the nation to talk about sex’: reflections on the discursive constitution of sexuality in South Africa since 1994. Agenda 18(62): 53–63.

43.

Richardson

(2007) Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

44.

Saidi

Bujiku

Nyanzira

, et al. (2021) Political and public perceptions of students’ dressing codes in higher learning institutions. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education 12(3): 2265–2274.

45.

Schwandt

(1998) Constructivist, interpretivist approach to human inquiry. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. London: Sage, pp.221–259.

46.

Shava

Nkengbeza

(2020) Qualitative research paradigm: a design for distance education researchers. The Namibia CPD Journal for Educators 5: 237–258.

47.

Siziba

Mpofu

Ndlovu

(2021) The Beginning of an End? Online (and Offline) Popular Resistance against Mugabe’s Strained Legitimacy in the Post-GNU Zimbabwe. African Renaissance 18(4): 31–51.

48.

Smart

(2002) Michel Foucault: Revised Edition. London: Routledge.

49.

Thompson

(1990) Ideology and Modern Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

50.

Tshuma

L A

Ndlovu

(2022) Media discourses on gender in the time of COVID-19 pandemic in Zimbabwe. In Dralega

Napakol

(ed) Health crises and media discourses in Sub-Saharan Africa. Switzerland: Springer Cham, pp. 267–283.

51.

Tshuma

(2020) ZANU–PF women’s league and the (Re) configuration of political power in influencing succession politics in Zimbabwe. In: Omotoso

(ed.) Women’s Political Communication in Africa: Issues and Perspectives. Switzerland: Springer, pp. 61–76.

52.

Tshuma

(2021) Imagining the past in the present through the camera’s lens: photography, archives and the construction of memories on Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

53.

Whitman

(2020) A curricular critique of school dress codes. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 93: 72–77.

54.

Wilken

Van Aardt

(2012) School uniforms: tradition, benefit or predicament? Education as Change 16(1): 159–184.

55.

Wodak

(2001) Preface. Critical discourse analysis in postmodern societies. Folia Linguistica XXXV(1–2): 1–10.

56.

Wodak

Meyer

(eds) (2009) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Dress Policing at Higher Learning Institutions in Zimbabwe: Discourses on the Bulawayo Polytechnic College Dress Code Declaration

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction and context

Literature review

Theory

Methodology

Findings and discussion

A critical discourses analysis of the Bulawayo Polytechnic dress code

On dress codes, image and reputation

On culture, traditions and morality

Regulating the female attire and disciplining women’s bodies

On discourse on human rights

Conclusion

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biographies

References