Clearly you are correct in this matter. The uniform exists to send a message of "order" and "discipline" and a not so veiled "threat" to opponents.

Just as the suit & tie sends a message that the wearer "buys-into" much of the status-quo of established western culture.

And. the Hijab informs us that the females who wear them are conforming to established moral practices of Islam.

The cover of a book tells us something about its contents.

Nature uses the same method. Human males grow facial hair to accentuate the jaw-line making them seem "more masculine" while human females have no hair on their faces, but a lot on their heads, which makes their jawline appear relatively much smaller and therefor more "feminine" and less of the threat to males.

I may know nothing about you, but if I can tell from a distance that you are an adult male, I can adjust my behavior accordingly.

How we act is who we are. And the things we choose to wear tells us something about the wearer.

Yes, I think that dress codes reflect the underlying social structure of a society or group. Some societies are organized hierarchically - such as aristocratic societies or the military - and the dress code in those societies are intended to reflect the relative social status of the wearer with respect to others in the group. It serves to reinforce the hierarchy by ensuring that everyone not only knows their own place, but can also tell at a glance the status of the stranger approaching them and how they should behave.

Democratic societies based on the principle of equality reject hierarchical forms of organization in favour of a horizontal arrangement. If everyone is "equal," everyone should dress "equally." Hence jeans become the standard dress code of the modern liberal. This is beginning to filter into more traditional institutions like the workplace or the school, where a quick glance will not be sufficient to distinguish the supervisor from the employee, the professor from the student.

The same applies to male and female dress codes, which in traditional societies were distinct. Pants as an acceptable everyday clothing option for women didn't truly catch on until the mid-20th century.

The school uniform debate is an interesting case in point. Traditionally favoured by private and parochial institutions, the school uniform in the past was often associated with prestige. Today, the debate rages on. Proponents say that school uniforms create a "level playing field" that reduces socioeconomic disparities, while opponents argue that school uniforms infringe upon students' rights to express their individuality.

Dear Barry Turner,

I remembered a fragment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWvK3px7PQI . There are such words: "красиво идут, ... интеллигенция ... (they are coming beautifully, ... intelligentsia ...). We can also say that the beautiful black uniform of the SS troops during Hitler's times have been causing a similar horror. In my vision, the military uniform of Wehrmacht officers was a million times better than today's military uniform of the Bundeswehr troops. The same goes for military music. I often listen to Nazi military marches to cheer up. Because it is really beautiful music. However, in this music as well as in military uniforms there is an ideology and it is important to understand this.

I think there's another angle. In deliberately hierarchical institutions, such as police and military, it is important for members of the institution to know instantly what another member's position is. For example, what unit they are attached to, and/or whether one should be expected to take orders from this potentially unknown person, or not.

This matters in certain scenarios more than others. For instance, in times of war, when soldiers might be separated from their own unit. Or when they are assigned to a different unit. Or when they are on travel. Any time you are not in your familiar surroundings, where you know everyone. Which is frequent, in the military. People are always moved around.

The school uniform is different, in terms of its goal. In this case, it is more to normalize everyone's status. In a sense, the opposite of what military uniforms are intended for. And, the kids typically hate it. Especially the girls, typically hate it. (I know, because we have a daughter who attended parochial school, in elementary school. I thought the girls' uniform was cute. But the girls, all of them, couldn't wait until they could graduate, and wear their own clothes. I think there was generally less passion in the boys, to quit wearing the uniform.)

My brother told me an interesting story about when he was in the Army (Royal Engineers)

He was training in the United States and stationed at a US Army Camp in the Mid West. He noticed that every time he and his colleagues went onto the mess hall that they were looked at warily by some of the American troops in there and assumed it was some form of xenophobia.

When later talking to an American colleague he was told that it was not that at all. His unit wore berets, as is common in the British Army. The US soldiers he has encountered were in fact national Guardsmen who had mistaken the berets to mean they were special forces and were familiar with the formidable reputation of such soldiers.

Maroon berets of course are the hallmark of the Paratrooper and they are designed to set them apart from 'ordinary' infantrymen. This creates a myth, very useful in combat of tenacity and aggression exceeding that of other soldiers.

Paratroopers often wear distinctive uniforms. In WW2 the US Airborne forces wore a clearly distinctive uniform and so did the German fallschirmjager and British Airborne troops.

It is a harkback to the colourful plumes and coats of arms worn by knights on the battlefield.

I nagree with Denise Morel

And currently, a new "uniform" - the face mask - is being touted by leaders around the world, and is considered part of the new "social etiquette" that signifies responsible citizenship based on mutual trust and concern: "I'll protect you, on the assumption that you will protect me."

Then we find certain anomalies, such as the case of the government of Quebec in Canada. Only two years ago, the government passed a law to foster the "religious neutrality of the State," part of which banned the wearing of religious face coverings by anyone delivering or receiving a public service (including, for example, government employees, nurses and doctors, teachers, and police officers). The stated purpose of the law was for "identification, security and communication" reasons.

A significant minority of citizens objected to the law as biased or Islamophobic, arguing that the "real" purpose was to specifically ban Muslim women from wearing niqabs, burqas, or any other religious face coverings, a practice that was seen by secularists as an affront to gender equality. The debate thus became one between religious rights vs. women's rights. However, the Supreme Court finally upheld the law.

Two years later, the same premier and the same government are now urging all citizens to show their "solidarity" by wearing face masks at all times when they are out in public. What was once considered a security threat has now become a security measure! The turnaround has not escaped the notice of those who objected to the law in the first place.

Delving deeper, there will also be differences between different societies in this respect. In some societies, notably Prussia/Germany, the army was the highest status occupation, so the uniform held a particular social cachet, not to mention sexual attractiveness for the social climbers. But in 19th century Britain and France as well (I believe) the army was the last employment resort of the misfit, and so I wonder if it sent out different social signals?

Barry Turner

RE: "This form of non-verbal communication is as old as the mesolithic"

I am really intrigued by this aspect of your question. The idea that uniforms could have existed in the stone age is very interesting. Do you have any links or other sources that you can direct me to?

The archeological finds at Star Carr include a shamanic headdress made out of antlers with holes situated to allow them be worn, presumable by some form of strap.

This indicates a stylised form dress, that while it may not be uniform in the sense of military uniforms it is clearly designed to indicate the wearer has rank of some description.

Like a modern priest in a clerical collar we can assume that the wearing of symbolic, i.e. non functional apparel is a form of communication.

As mentioned by Paul, above, the wearing of indicators of social rank is common in all societies, modern, ancient and prehistoric.

Barry Turner It occurred to me after I posted my answer that members of a stone-age tribe might be distinguishable from members of other tribes because they wore skins from certain animals that happened to be more prevalent in their hunting territory than those of other tribes, which could also result in the advent of totems. So a mesolithic tribe's wearing a distinctive type of animal skin could indeed be tantamount to wearing a proto-uniform. Difficult to verify, though....