I wonder if this is one factor why neurodivergent people are attracted to the naturalist community. I find that naturalists are a subculture where the clothing people wear tends to be driven by practical constraints. I.e. when I go out in the field I wear shoes that can get wet, pants that protect me from thorns and don’t snag on them, a long-sleeved shirt so I don’t sunburn, but loose-fitting so that I can stay cool if I’m active in hot weather, and a wide-brimmed hat.
I notice that when I dress this way, people peg me as a “nature person”. The clothing though is driven by practical constraints, not social norms, and if there are any social norms they are formed by the strong practical constraints. Also, the clothing people wear tends to be pretty gender-neutral.
It’s very different from some of the other places I’ve worked where the social norms around clothing are driven by things like social status, such as wearing suits in a management consulting firm. In this case, the clothing might be impractical as you go through your daily life, as some of the garmets are dry-clean only, which is expensive and has environmental impacts, and they’re not as rugged so, for example, they preclude getting down on your hands and knees, going into dirty or dusty spaces, etc. It reminds me of “handicap signaling” in the natural world, like a bird with an impractically long tail that signals to mates its fitness, because of its ability to survive and evade predators even with such a handicap.
And these practical constraints have the effect of creating a social distance between yourself and others in “lower-status” positions, i.e. people like tradesmen, janitors, etc. The more I think of it, the more I find it abhorrent, because it’s supporting a system I not only don’t buy into, but that I think of as actively going against my moral code. I think the clothing norms are part of a system that involves a subtle dehumanization and that facilitates or encourages treating people labeled “lower status” with disdain or disrespect.
Like, to me, a lot of the norms in clothing seem to relate to coercive power relationships, often through a medium of social status: they are about subjugation and control. So for example, a management consulting firm wears suits because they utilize their high social status to extract wealth from the rest of society, such as through exploiting municipal governments, and thus indirectly, the taxpayers, with corrupt deals. Or there are norms for women in many circumstances to be expected to wear high heels and makeup and often other impractical, tight, or restrictive clothing that limits their range of motion, and these seem to me to relate to the subjugation of women in society as a whole, like women viewed as “pretty objects to look at” but not taken seriously as doers, and are made to do extra work just to be seen as “presentable” or “professional” even.
It’s always been bizarre to me the degree to which people tolerate these sorts of setups and social norms, even when they overtly contradict some of the other things we’re taught are supposed values of our society, like the idea that all people are created equal, beliefs in treating all people with respect, etc. I’ve found that, for whatever reasons, autistic people and other neurodivergent people are much more willing to seriously entertain these criticisms, whereas a lot of people don’t take these concerns particularly seriously when I raise them.
The naturalist community has always seemed much more free of these norms. I see less sexism, less bias on the basis of social status, and I see people engaging each other more on the basis of their knowledge and ability and other real, practical matters.
You folks are awesome.