Appearance Without a Verdict

Society is happy to make appearance both a personal duty and grounds for a verdict. A person is invited to “be themselves”, and then their clothes, body and grooming are read as a full report on their character.

Grooming, health, clothes, posture, facial expression, voice and the ability not to apologise for your own presence often matter more than what you were born with.

Hygiene is basic infrastructure, not an aesthetic position. Useful habits really are easier to lock in early: teeth, skin, clothes, sleep, regular medical care.

A change of appearance is no proof of unhappiness. People change their hair, their style and their tattoos out of curiosity, belonging, pleasure or a wish to mark a new stage. Sometimes it really is an attempt to regain a sense of control. One sign is not enough for a diagnosis.

The ability to be liked develops with practice, but cosmetics, clothes and other aids do not automatically get in the way of that. They are part of communication too. The problem arises if without them the person considers himself unfit to be seen.

Provocative or sexual clothing is no reliable indicator of either intelligence or intentions. It does affect the kind of attention a person receives, but responsibility for inappropriate behaviour stays with whoever behaves that way.

An outward image works as a filter, but the filter is imprecise. It attracts some, repels others and generates expectations. So it is worth choosing it not out of fear of other people’s judgement but with an understanding of the context.

Professionals, incidentally, sometimes take part in Eurovision. They simply know in advance that they have come to a contest.

Clothing works as a statement about where the person has come to. At an interview at a bank a suit does not prove competence, but it says the candidate understands the rules of the place; in a workshop the same suit says he does not. The error alone is rarely worth a rejection — it merely adds work for the interviewer, who now has to establish what would otherwise have been clear from the doorway. Some people will not do that work.

It does not follow that the signal must be sent the same way everywhere. It follows that it is sent in any case, including the case of complete indifference to the subject. Then its content is determined not by the person but by whoever is looking.