Food service uniforms and the symbolism(s) of wearing a mask

IF 0.1 Q1 Arts and Humanities Clothing Cultures Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1386/cc_00033_1
H. Akou
{"title":"Food service uniforms and the symbolism(s) of wearing a mask","authors":"H. Akou","doi":"10.1386/cc_00033_1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When the COVID-19 pandemic began, ‘essential workers’ in the United States ‐ including nurses, delivery drivers, grocery clerks and waitresses ‐ bore the brunt of extreme scepticism over public health measures such as lockdowns and wearing facemasks. Conflicting\n messages from the president, the Centers for Disease Control and state and local governments turned mask mandates into political battles. Some businesses chose to require masks for employees and/or customers, but others refused to allow them as part of the uniform. This article focuses on\n a specific category of employees ‐ food service workers, typically women and people of colour ‐ in order to highlight how employers made decisions about masking early in the pandemic and how individual workers were affected by the turmoil. In the United States, employers have\n tremendous power to decide how employees are (and are not) allowed to dress. For many businesses, uniforms are part of the company’s brand identity. When employees at Starbucks wear their iconic green aprons with the Starbucks logo, they embody the company in their interactions with\n customers; changes can be made, but they happen more slowly than changes in mainstream fashion. Testimony at public hearings on mask mandates has revealed deep concerns about religious freedom, government intrusion, scientific knowledge and the cost of medical care (since the United States\n does not have universal healthcare). When businesses decide whether masks should be required, allowed or forbidden as part of the dress code, it is not just a public health decision but a branding decision with short-term and long-term consequences. Even before the pandemic, face coverings\n were largely associated with criminals, political activists (such as Occupy and Antifa) and ultra-conservative Muslims.","PeriodicalId":53824,"journal":{"name":"Clothing Cultures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clothing Cultures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1386/cc_00033_1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, ‘essential workers’ in the United States ‐ including nurses, delivery drivers, grocery clerks and waitresses ‐ bore the brunt of extreme scepticism over public health measures such as lockdowns and wearing facemasks. Conflicting messages from the president, the Centers for Disease Control and state and local governments turned mask mandates into political battles. Some businesses chose to require masks for employees and/or customers, but others refused to allow them as part of the uniform. This article focuses on a specific category of employees ‐ food service workers, typically women and people of colour ‐ in order to highlight how employers made decisions about masking early in the pandemic and how individual workers were affected by the turmoil. In the United States, employers have tremendous power to decide how employees are (and are not) allowed to dress. For many businesses, uniforms are part of the company’s brand identity. When employees at Starbucks wear their iconic green aprons with the Starbucks logo, they embody the company in their interactions with customers; changes can be made, but they happen more slowly than changes in mainstream fashion. Testimony at public hearings on mask mandates has revealed deep concerns about religious freedom, government intrusion, scientific knowledge and the cost of medical care (since the United States does not have universal healthcare). When businesses decide whether masks should be required, allowed or forbidden as part of the dress code, it is not just a public health decision but a branding decision with short-term and long-term consequences. Even before the pandemic, face coverings were largely associated with criminals, political activists (such as Occupy and Antifa) and ultra-conservative Muslims.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
食品服务制服和戴面具的象征意义
当COVID-19大流行开始时,美国的“基本工作者”——包括护士、送货司机、杂货店店员和女服务员——首当其冲地受到了对封锁和戴口罩等公共卫生措施的极端怀疑。总统、疾病控制中心(Centers for Disease Control)以及州和地方政府发出的相互矛盾的信息,把戴口罩的命令变成了政治斗争。一些企业选择要求员工和/或客户佩戴口罩,但另一些企业则拒绝将口罩作为制服的一部分。本文关注的是特定类别的员工——食品服务工人,通常是女性和有色人种——以强调雇主如何在疫情早期做出关于遮盖的决定,以及个体工人如何受到动荡的影响。在美国,雇主有很大的权力来决定员工的穿着。对许多企业来说,制服是公司品牌标识的一部分。当星巴克的员工穿着印有星巴克标志的标志性绿色围裙时,他们在与顾客的互动中体现了公司;改变是可以的,但它们发生的速度比主流时尚的变化要慢。在公开听证会上关于口罩授权的证词显示出对宗教自由、政府干预、科学知识和医疗保健费用(因为美国没有全民医疗保健)的深切关注。当企业决定是否需要、允许或禁止口罩作为着装规范的一部分时,这不仅是一个公共卫生决定,也是一个具有短期和长期影响的品牌决定。甚至在大流行之前,蒙面在很大程度上与罪犯、政治活动家(如占领运动和反法运动)和极端保守的穆斯林联系在一起。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clothing Cultures
Clothing Cultures HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Fashion in Copenhagen films and TV shows Colour matters: An exploratory study of the role of colour in clothing consumption choices Female body dressing: Perceptions and investments in beauty Fashion brand campaigns: Carlos Gil SS21 case study A not so ordinary story of disobedience: The ‘Little White Dress’ as a contemporary manifesto?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1