As a girl, I was raised to think that I was morally obligated to cover my body, so that I didn't tempt members of the opposite sex to sin with my supple curves. As a teenager and young adult, newly on my own, I did everything I could to flout the rules I had grown up with, including wearing my fair share of tube tops and mini shorts.
As an adult, I still think that the tripe I was taught about my moral responsibility to cover up to avoid attracting the gaze of men, and thus tempting them, is ridiculous. However, I keep finding myself drawn to the concept of modesty. It is a strange experience for me; I am an avowed feminist, and a part of me is deeply committed to the idea that women ought to be free to wear whatever their heart desires. In fact, I wholly believe this is true. However, I am beginning to think that there is a deeper principle behind all of this squabble we hear over whether women should wear leggings as pants.
Obviously, because women are sovereign beings with the capacity for moral judgement, logical thought, and self-determination they are capable of deciding whether they want to wear leggings as pants or not, just as men are. Honestly, this is a very uninteresting question to me. What really caught my interest is the question of whether modesty really matters. My body is not a sexual object; me dressing one way or another does not make it one. So, does the way I dress matter? It is hard for me to say that it doesn't. Some people make arguments for modesty saying that the way we dress shows what type of person we are, but I think that is really the other side of the coin to the misogynistic claim that women in mini skirts "deserve" rape.
Yet, despite the failings of the typical explanations, something draws me to the question.
The philosopher Jaques Derrida touches on this question in his book, "The Gift of Death". It is an excellent book that I would absolutely recommend. In it, he discusses the mystery of that which is hidden. There is something about a thing that is covered that preserves the value of it. We pity those who are left without clothes; they seem to be missing an essential element of humanity. Regardless of what your opinion is about the veracity of the Bible, it is noteworthy that among the first things Adam and Eve do after their fall is cover themselves. There was not yet even a possibility of objectification. Yet, they felt this call toward being covered. This call did not come from God - at least not directly - as they had not yet talked to him after their fall. So where does this impulse come from?
For Derrida, this impulse to conceal oneself is linked to our drive to maintain our individuality in a sea of "Others". By hiding what is essentially "us" we are able to prevent it from being sullied by each Other's interpretation of it. We protect what we value the most. Thus, we cover ourselves, that is to say, we dress modestly. This is slightly different than avoiding immodesty to prevent other's thoughts, at least in my mind. In Derrida's view, the point of covering is that we recognize the value and uniqueness of what is covered, not that we are acting in self-defense against vicious or malicious thoughts of others.
I must admit, this view holds some sway for me. Perhaps my burgeoning sense of femininity (a topic for at least one other post), and my realization of the value of it, is what is turning my mind toward the question of modesty. It is definitely not a question I have any sort of authoritative answer to.
