“The medium is the message” is the famous catch phrase of the Canadian Communication theorist, Marshall McCluhan, and the title of the first chapter in his 1964 book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. He contended that how a message is delivered strongly affects its impact and therefore transmission should be the main focus of attention.
Two channels of delivery are of paramount importance: clothes and occasion. Their interplay is the subject of Caroline Weber’s award-winning book, Queen of Fashion. What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution, which scrutinizes the politics of public image and costume.
Jacinda Ardern, a Communications graduate, became an undisputed expert on appearance and message during her premiership. Her keen awareness of how to use clothing to create empathy with particular groups was demonstrated during the Christchurch terror attack – including the ultimate sign of cult power, namely when a dress code or item is widely copied by the general public.Against
this background, the Prime Minister’s
outfit for the coronation of King Charles III
merits comment. So, why is clothing
politically important and
capable of generating messages, whether clear or deliberately
obscure (noting the that
several MPs struggle to
explain co-governance with any clarity)?
The expression “clothes maketh the
man” has been attributed to Mark Twain . But in fact,
this author was inspired by
Shakespeare’s Hamlet when Polonius says “apparel
oft proclaims the man.“ This suggests a deeper link where garments
serve to indicate character and
intention. This view is
documented by fact. Men - especially political leaders - in
expensive suits are likely
to command confidence, women
in elegant dresses are deemed goddesses,
IT geeks clad in a uniform of T-shirts, jeans and sneakers attain rock star status. For special occasions, people
go all-out to strike the right balance between being “dressed to kill” (and perhaps stealing the limelight from
rivals ) and choosing overly casual attire which
might offend their hosts
and confirm their own cluelessness about
protocol. Some never hit the right note
and so even A-listers with a D-grade
fashion sense can be brutally relegated to the
ignominious “ worst dressed list” for
their unfortunate choices.
Moreover, certain
garments become legendary and instantly
recognized - random examples being Joseph’s Coat of Many Colours in the Book of
Genesis and Lady Diana Spencer’s 1981 wedding dress
designed by David Emanuel to
resemble a gigantic meringue. Sartorial
transformation is an indispensable component
not only of social advancement (think
Pygmalion) but also of disguise (The
Scarlet Pimpernel). Clothes can certainly
convey opinions and intent more
strongly than words.
Choosing the right outfit becomes a real challenge when attending star-studded global events where the fashionistas are out in force. Celebrities of all stripes – royalty, politics, show business and sport - mingle on the world stage watched by huge media audiences who dissect every detail of their appearance. Like gladiators in Ancient Rome, they receive the thumbs up or down from the demanding public. Success leads to increased face recognition and often major financial gain but failure means being consigned to the rubbish heap of the badly dressed. The Devil Wears Prada documents the cut throat world of fashion where the A-list relies on stellar wardrobes to define personality and status .
And so to the political nature of apparel. The recent coronation of Charles
III, watched by some 400 million TV viewers worldwide and countless
social media followers, offered endless examples of
dress code power, as well as a
unique occasion to pass one’s political message. From the main royal actors to the ranks of handpicked guests, everyone understood this opportunity
and planned their outfits accordingly. Penny Mordaunt, Leader
of the House of Commons and possible future Prime Minister went for a vaguely
medieval look but made sure to wear comfortable shoes to cope with holding the heavy
sword of state for two hours. Ritchie
McCaw and Chris Luxon opted for morning suits as did several of the
former British Prime Ministers
and American music royalty, Lionel Ritchie; Jill Biden took care to dress in
Democrat blue; Princess Anne’s hat featured a large bobbing red feather which prevented
a clear view of Prince Harry in his smart Dior suit .
Regarding
protocol , the regalia of the principal Royals
sent a clear message to their peers: crowns were worn only by the King (the King Edward model from 1661) and
the Queen (the Queen Mary remodeled version
without the famous koh-i-noor diamond to
avoid possible diplomatic conflict with
India). The Princess of Wales and the Duchess of Edinburgh did not wear formal tiaras (despite the vast stock available). The
strict dress code for guests was morning
or lounge suits, military uniform, formal day or national dress.
The New
Zealand Delegation entered Westminster Abbey led by Dame Cindy Kiro whose
korowai reflected her high office and her ancestry. Following was the Right
Honourable Christopher Hipkins wearing a lounge suit and a korowai. At last count, the Prime Minister has not
declared Maori lineage - though this seems to be a flexible detail today. Was his apparel a clear message to the global audience and especially to New Zealand tele viewers?
The
coronation offered a unique
occasion for political messaging for
three reasons:
- First, who was the Prime Minister
actually representing ? Presumably, he
wished to convey that he was the leader of New Zealand in its entire
diversity. In this case, he might
have considered wearing his lounge suit
- unadorned by specific insignia. After all, according to Stats NZ, the 2018 Census
data recorded over 160 ethnic groups
with more than 100 people living in New Zealand , thus documenting the truly
multicultural composition of the
population.
- Secondly, the right balance of high office and personal ancestry was assured by the presence and apparel of the Governor-General.
- Thirdly, and most unfortunately, this apparel could lead to the conclusion that that New Zealand has already - somehow and at some time - officially moved from democracy to ethnocracy. That is to say, the superior status of one group of the population has already been officially decided. Onlookers might even assume New Zealand had held a formal referendum which is the normal legal and constitutional way to decide such critical matters.
Anthony Albanese and
Justin Trudeau, both
supporting special privilege
for specific groups of the Australian and Canadian populations to
advance the UNDRIP Declaration ,
wore business suits but without any distinctive regalia. Mr
Hipkins gave a different message with his korowai which is a ceremonial garment of exceptional cultural status and significance . Probably
the Maori caucus and John Tamihere
fully approved of his garb and may have even told him what to wear. But all other New Zealanders were given
serious food for thought.
The NZ
Prime Minister passed his message to the whole world. Since 2020, the Labour Party has been rapidly transforming New Zealand’s governance and replacing its democracy. The Te Pati Maori party has already stated
its stringent demands to complete this
process from 2023 onwards with full support from the radical Greens. All are determined to achieve this objective without any clear and
open legal consultation process with the people of New Zealand as required by law. In so
doing, they have deeply insulted many
citizens in the 83% group who are
fully committed to equality - and
who now
should wake up very fast
as their democracy is threatened. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s cloak spoke volumes.
Dr Kearney, a dual NZ
and French citizen, was a UN civil servant in senior and director posts for 30
years. This is a personal comment.
5 comments:
"Princess Anne’s hat featured a large bobbing red feather which prevented a clear view of Prince Harry in his smart Dior suit" - I have heard (allegedly) that this was done on purpose, by The Royal Family, to reduce the exposure of "Harry" on TV, that would have/could have/ might have - enhanced His & that "Wonderful Wife" of His, constant exposure to the World, that might have/could have/ would have - added further financial gain, to pay for that (allegedly) very expensive Home in Montecito, in The State of California, United States of America - or was to to add to their collective expense of "flying everywhere"?? - when they "do follow the Green pathway of lowering World carbon issues"???!!.
For such an excellent article, it is a pity that the rest of NZ will not get to read this.
Brilliant article. The PM is representing a House of Parliament that has become a circus complete with clowns in cowboy hats and painted faces. The idea of appropriate dress has been superseded with freedom of expression suitable to a pre-schoolers playground. The korowai resembles the angel wings children love pinning on their backs. Some women have blue dribble dripping down their chins. Unlike the rest of us Maori prayers and hymns are often imposed on a secular House. All of these things have a place in New Zealand society but not in gatherings that should be representative of the unity of the spectrum of cultures we otherwise enjoy.
Waititi would have conveyed NZ trajectory and developments more clearly.
Is that the author under the silly black floppy hat at the start of the article?
I was in Europe at the time of the Coronation and watched several commentaries including Canadian, BBC, Indian TV. No mention of Chris Hipkins as he walked into the Abbey. I don't think anyone even knew who he was, let alone whether he wore a Maori cloaak
Post a Comment