Mrs Françoise Thibaut gives us here her reflections on the uniform, its evolution, its meaning over the ages according to the profession, the corporation, the social class concerned by its wearing. These reflections will take on a particular meaning for the readers of the Cahiers, most of whom come from the military world and are therefore primarily concerned!

The uniform is uniform. It informs and disinforms.

The uniform uniform disinforms about the intimate, about the individual wearer, who is no more than a wearer of clothes indicating a function. Moreover, it is possible to conceive of this standardization as an attack on identity or, on the contrary, as a protection of the most secret of individuality. The uniform in itself implies that all wearers of the same distinctive envelope will be treated in the same way and/or perform identical tasks. This envelope thus renders its bearers indistinct. The uniform serves to be indistinguishable and hinders any individualization. On the other hand, the uniform informs of a function - "the habit makes the monk" -, it is a devastating medium of formidable efficiency; one is dressed for what one does: a tool for instant visual identification, it is a simplifier of social relations, a hierarchical and functional tool; it doesn't matter what is inside the distinctive envelope, as long as the role indicated by the uniform is fulfilled.

The uniform may have begun his fine career at the Tower of Babel. The Bible does not say so, but it is almost obvious: in the bustling multitude, and then the jargon of different languages, the only way to find one's way around was to dress the carriers as carriers, the stonecutters as stonecutters, the slaves as slaves, their guards as guards. Already three thousand years before the beginnings of Indo-European civilization, the emperors of northern China dressed the literate as literate, imposing long robes shackled to prevent them from riding and doing anything other than thinking and practicing calligraphy. A complex hierarchy of hairstyles and clothing made it possible to distinguish the different servants of the state. The leather apron also distinguished the ceramist and the blacksmith: even far from the fire, these craftsmen had to be dressed in leather so that, in case of emergency, they could be easily found. Closer to home, the purple colour of the toga indicated the deliberative and senatorial function in Rome, and the wives of Roman senators were required to wear a single headdress to distinguish them wherever they were. Forgetting this obligation was heavily sanctioned.

The uniform "obliges" and "liberates"; it is the most effective business card; it avoids any explanation and even the declension of an identity. No more speeches, no more worries about foreign languages and mysterious patois. To wear the habit or the distinctive signs of one's social role avoids any other justification. The function exists as soon as the uniform appears: the nurse brings with him the hospital, the religious his chapel, the soldier his bivouac or his barracks. The distinction made by the uniform can also be either valorising or devaluing, an indication of rank, hierarchy, classification: any person at fault is at fault (sometimes very conspicuous), his guard as a guard. The presence of two uniforms together automatically indicates the hierarchy: the one who must submit and the one who commands. But it also "obliges": woe to him whose attitude does not correspond to what is expected of the uniform...

The apogee of the system is in the "mass uniform" for two reasons: because it completely depersonalizes those who wear it, and because it makes the fortune of those who provide it. With the patriotic conscription in the name of the national state, the French Republic invented the "garment factory" and thus the first mass production: one of the first manifestations of the first industrial revolution was the introduction of military uniforms. One of the first manifestations of the first industrial revolution was the introduction of military uniforms. Before then, by virtue of the personalization of commands and the private origin of the workforce, warlords equipped their men themselves, with officers most often equipping themselves at their own expense. The rich equipped themselves richly, not always uniformly; the poor went "anyhow" or in rags (a word derived from the Dutch word guet meaning rascal), hence the difficulty of distinguishing warriors from thieves, for lack of clear references. Even the king equipped his troops himself. The first uniform that unified our modern history is the Crusader's tunic: in the human chaos and unpredictable reversals of the Holy Land, the Cross over the coat of arms is an identity. The conscription of the elective Republic comes much later and indicates a clear identification, also calls for the facilitation of sanctions for inappropriate behaviour; any indelicacy committed by a uniform is immutable.The accuser has a clear indicator (which may also incite him to silence); but, in principle, the uniform protects both the authority and the victim. The hierarchical system is embodied in the uniform and its distinguishing features, as is the system of sanctions.

On the pilgrimage routes to Santiago de Compostela, the pilgrim could be distinguished by his pilgrim's headgear, his headdress, his staff and his shell...He was recognizable from afar. Likewise the religious, the itinerant regulars and beggars, and the seculars, who were freer outside the offices, but were also obliged to wear the distinctive signs of their function, the dress or the long jacket with flaps. In these long centuries of parsimonious culture, often restrained by the elite, and of almost general illiteracy, clothing indicates not only the function but also the social belonging: clothing of low or high nobility, the dark attire of the bourgeoisie, the domestic livery. Just like the signs in shops, clothing reveals occupation, income level, sometimes even age and rank in the activity: the number of ribbons on hats, buttons, braids, buckles on shoes - the very wearing of shoes in these times when so many people go barefoot or at best in clogs -, the right to the sword or hat, to the bicorn or tricorn, to the fur collar, to the lapels trimmed with ermine or coypu. In the more humble roles this also plays a role: there are different categories of needy people, which can be easily identified. By rescuing them, we also help the institution that protects them. The uniform of the boarding schools unifies the children, forming indistinct blue, black or grey masses. Madame de Maintenon always put her "jeunes filles de saint Cyr" in uniform in order to erase the differences in fortune, distinguishing their class only by the colours of their aprons. There are also good and bad pupils, those wearing the white or red ribbon of excellence, the medium pale blue, the green of mediocrity or the infamous hairdo of the moron.

The Vatican is concerned to protect Christians from spiritual or temporal evils which could lead them astray: in 1215 the Lateran Council imposed the wearing of distinctive signs on Muslims (green) and Jews (yellow) present in Christian lands, as well as on lepers (black) and prostitutes (red). The cape, mantle, hat, apron, lapels and ribbons took on a social and distinctive meaning, belonging to a strategy of order, social and health prevention. The French Revolution thought it was doing well in the autumn of 1791, by three successive decrees, when the "Jews of the Pope" - those of the Avignonnais and Comtat Venaissin - were intimidated with to renounce the yellow cape, ribbons and aprons decorated with yellow bands indicating their belonging, so that they would be, like the Protestants, "French like the others". This brutal abandonment seemed frightening to them, because these distinctive signs adopted since Clement VI constituted their "armour" in their movements, their trade and the practice of their morals. The brutality of the order of abolition triggered riots and demonstrations in and around Carpentras, a "war of ribbons and aprons". which did not end until 1807 following the Imperial Edict of "francisation" of the former Papal States. Equally brutal and unexpected was, around 1751 under Charles XII in the Kingdom of Sweden, the "war of wigs and caps" between the nobility (the wigs) and the third (the caps) for the abolition of feudal privileges and rights, the origin of modern Nordic parliamentarism.

Religion, war and education are often linked by the uniforms worn by all societies, as the three sectors of activitys also represent a mentality, a cultural, political and mental "belonging" as well as a practical "belonging" which engenders its defence or propagation (propagatio fide). The North American writer Alison Lurie reminds us that "the uniform is a costume totally determined by others", evoking the symbolic and signalling role of clothing, its meaning of integration and social function: Work clothing does not correspond to a personal choice or instinct: it indicates "action in the group" and is designed to "keep people in their place" in a relationship of efficiency, hierarchy and order. It helps to make a task easier to accomplish and to make it not only appropriate but also valued and recognized. This is a matter of course for the military "role": in the field, in combat, in the din and smoke, you have to be able to spot the leader, see where the men in the unit are, know who needs to be protected or eliminated. This is valid for classic, land combat, but it also concerns the more technical corps engaged within the units in action in which the men do not necessarily know each other. The uniform and its insignia allow instant visual identification in situations where speed is essential.

Nowadays, most of the time, one assumes the uniform of one's function only in the period of time in which one accomplishes it: the maître d' and the waiter wear their dark outfits and bow ties in their establishment, the foreman his overalls in his dressing room, as do the receptionist, the nurse, the teacher. No more professional spotting along the streets: no more Gabin as a spahi in the Orange bistros, Jean Chevrier as an aviator looking for his beauty towards the Pont des Arts, no more red pompoms on the boulevards... The soldier, who has become functional and no longer part of the social body, only wears the uniform in his quarters or in specific circumstances. The firefighter is not a firefighter all the time, nor the dentist, nor the judge: the most spectacular feature of contemporary urban wandering is its anonymity. The street is no longer a social spectacle: it is an anonymous river of indistinct people whose freedom consists precisely in not being signalled or spotted.

The planetary, asexual and global uniform is now voluntary: It's "the jeans" whether blue, black , washed, dark, blackened, stoned, washed, washed, cut, elegant , slouchy, scratched, salvaged, digital, wide or narrow, clean or dirty, poor or chic. At first utilitarian, uniform of the workers, metalworkers, lumberjacks, Klondike or Yukkon gold diggers for its robustness and ease of maintenance, then, after a few years of use, it became a popular choice for the Klondike and the Yukkon.After the Second World War, a sign of rebellion and rebellious youth, the "jeans" now enveloped all social classes, all ages and all activities. A favourite outfit of travellers and tourists, they are commonplace in schools and universities, tolerated in offices, accepted in banks and common in shops. It is the uniform of the non-uniformed. A leisure garment for executives, soldiers and judges, a common companion for all the young people of the world, it is worn alongside the sari, the boubou, the burka, and equips Christians and Muslims alike, Palestinians and Israelis alike.... He is the one you put on when you leave your working clothes. It is part of the libertarian panoply, a sign of progressive evolution and modernity, whereas in fact it is a major sign of the uniformity of the masses, of the indistinction of individuals. Its western liberal symbolism was so strong in the 60s and 70s in the USSR that it was for a time banned there, giving rise to a flourishing parallel market, whereas at the beginning it was more the uniform of the comrade-worker. The astonishing destiny of a professional uniform that has been hijacked to become the reference point for a dissident individualization. Nowadays, whoever dons it, whether he is a general or the pasha of a nuclear sea monster, becomes perfectly anonymous, indeterminate, abandons his stripes, can become a student in his head again through this "Nîmes climber".

"We are what we wear": this very concise social definition of clothing sums up fairly well the complex perception of clothing in which - in fact - we evolve: the "non-significant uniform clothing" is a protector of intimacy and personality, origins and activities; it also, indirectly, causes a loss of identity. Depending on the context, the circumstances, the political state one is in, it can be an advantage or a disadvantage. In France, military uniforms completely deserted the streets after the Algerian war in order to "avoid any provocation".... For an individual, going from uniform to jeans in one day means "going from voluntary spotting to programmed anonymity": Putting on the signal uniform in the morning and abandoning it in the evening and putting on the uniform of "undifferentiated uniformity". means a significant intellectualization of one's own life and a true understanding of the "right to intimacy and privacy" as expressed in French law.

Finally, "to be educated" is in part to have allowed oneself to be indoctrinated to dress "in conformity": you don't play football in a suit jacket, you don't go to your office tower in a diving suit... However, the expansion of sports and leisure activities is leading the city to copy the stadiums. Manufacturers have understood this: when will the military start wearing tracksuits? Forty years ago, the American actor Dustin Hoffmann came to social gatherings in tuxedos and trainers and was a pioneer... From the early 1980s, he was a pioneer.From kindergarten to daycare, children learn that uniforms are an extraordinarily effective means of communication and help them find their way around, even if they are beginners: the assistant in the pink coat who helps with peeing, the municipal policeman who makes the street crossing safe, the fireman with his fire extinguisher are undoubtedly the first representations, for a child, of the hierarchy and social security. The uniform, in the child's imagination, is almost always prestigious and saves inextricable situations, except perhaps for Tintin with his golf trousers (now replaced by jeans) and his little blue sweater; but he is backed by Captain Haddock, the archetypal Sunflower and Snowy, inevitably a dog. As you grow up, you can get a taste of uniformity in the scouts, in uniform schools or on the stadiums in team sports.

Surrounded by people dressed as we are, we develop a double feeling: internally, that of belonging and the power of the group; externally, that of difference. For this reason, all authoritarian regimes, whatever they may be, impose on their people, and in particular on their youth - from the Duce to Mao - the wearing of identical clothes and "civilian" uniforms. According to Marx, in "Capital"the individual is only a "cog" of the great community project: he is "in" the uniformed mass and is defined by it, which is the strength of the system, which is embodied in the proletarian uniform. But, no doubt, in his head, is man always different from his neighbour?

In today's global world, the use of uniforms is most important in the services: waiters, cooks, drivers, hostesses, attendants of all kinds, guards and flight crews wear uniforms that define their function. It is widely used in the tourism and transport-related professions, many of them because of language difficulties and the need to provide a fast and perfect service. The uniform defines the service, and therefore the work of the person wearing it: a captain in a jogging suit would be uncomfortable. The uniform serves to erase individuality, contributes to the depersonalization of the person performing a function. In aircraft, cabin attendants, who sometimes face a great deal of aggression from passengers, commonly say that their uniforms serve as "armour" and that dissatisfaction or anxiety is not directed at them but at the company they serve. There is, moreover, a paradox in that recent laws, at the same time, tend to impose greater individual responsibility in certain administrative functions, obliging the civil servant or service actor (rarely in uniform) to make his or her identity known by means of a badge, registration or a rider placed on his or her desk. The local authority official, postal worker or bank officer may - to a certain extent - dress as they wish, but they are obliged to display a sign of recognition for the user indicating their rank and function: it is thus a sort of minimalist uniform allowing functional and hierarchical identification.

The uniform thus functions as a sort of beacon. It meets a social need: to locate the uniform or the badge bearer is a necessity to find the person who must be the right person to talk to and to reThe uniform will solve the problem, indicate the way or the procedure, whether it is the doctor in a smock, the hotel linen cupboard or the policeman at the crossroads. Do our societies in danger of falling into disrepair need uniforms on the streets again? Have our elected presidents gained by wearing the anonymous full jacket (sometimes badly cut) from which they now often lose their jackets to make them look modern? Where is the First Republic's "representative on mission" jackets?

By becoming more professional, the army - especially the land forces - became a "public security service". This is the criticism that the military makes of terrorists or civilians of unspecified guerrillas: they shoot them in the back and don't wear uniforms. In principle, uniforms indicate that everyone has their place in a society and that that society is more or less in order or on the right track. That, at least, is the way it should be. In crisis situations, the appearance of uniforms should indicate a return to normality, a reestablishment of justice, the hope of restoring order, relief, calm... and not the noise and fury perpetrated more and more without uniforms. We are still far from this ideal, and thinking about this aspect of things is not useless...

Doctor in law and political science, Mrs Françoise Thibaut is professor emeritus of universities, corresponding member of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. She has taught international law and procedure at the Saint-Cyr Coëtquidan Schools and at the Gendarmerie College in Melun. She also writes thrillers for entertainment, while continuing to collaborate with several foreign journals and universities. In particular, she is the author of "Métier militaire et enrôlement du citoyen", an analysis of the recent transition from conscription to a professional army.