The Mediatization of Female Political Figures: Women in Power in Vanessa Friedman’s Writing

Introduction

​

Stig Hjarvard defines mediatization as “the process whereby society to an increasing degree is submitted to, or becomes dependent on, the media and their logic” (quoted in Rocamora 2017, 508). The notion that the media have become an increasingly important part of how institutions and agents shape and act, as well as their practices and experiences, underpins studies of mediatization (Rocamora 2017, 507). When the society, as Nick Couldry puts it, has been “saturated with media” (quoted in Rocamora 2017, 507), which means that the society cannot be thought of in isolation from media, politics have also become mediatized. In the words of Gianpietro Mazzoleni and Winfried Shulz (1999), politics “has lost its autonomy, has become dependent in its central functions on mass media, and it is continuously shaped by interactions with mass media” (quoted in Campus 2013, 22). The media cannot cover all political events; they must select which ones to cover and how to present them; thus, the media focus on those features that grab the audience’s attention, where personal factor appears more appealing (Campus 2013, 22).  As a result, politicians' dress codes and fashion choices become an important part of media coverage.

​

Though covering what politicians are wearing is important as the power dressing can be a metaphor of political personality or even political agenda, the portrayal of political figures could not be seen as gender-neutral (Campus 2013, 23). While male political figures conform to the “traditional middle-class male dress” that “signals the privileged access to the sources of economic and political power in industrial and postindustrial society” (as quoted in Campus 2013, 84), there is no predefined dress code for women leaders, and thus their dresses are more diverse and have complex symbolic meanings (Campus 2013, 84). The media tended to overemphasize the appearance and dress of female politicians at the expense of more important aspects of their political identity and character (Campus 2013, 23). Moreover, in the words of Vanessa Friedman (2020a), “fashion has been used as a tool to dismiss women; to associate them with frivolity rather than serious subjects — the superficial rather than the stuff of governance.” 

​

As women, and women who spend time and energy thinking about what message and identity their clothing conveys, women leaders are increasingly looking at fashion and clothing as a strategy and a weapon. In the public arena, the fashion choices of female politicians can influence not only their own careers, but also other women's perceptions of fashion and fashion practices. With an unprecedented number of women entering the political arena, especially with Kamala Harris becoming the first female vice president in U.S. history, there is an urgent need to recognize how fashion and style can be used as a communication tool to convey substance and empower women. Focusing on how fashion journalism and criticism cover the style and dress of female political figures helps to recognize the role of fashion in politics and empowerment, further contributing to reducing the potential of fashion as a weapon of diminishment. Moreover, citing Rocamora’s 2009 argument that “statements about femininity in the field of fashion are not particular to this field but more generally inform discourses on women in today’s society” (quoted in Granata 2018, 565), Granata (2018) claims that fashion media is closely intertwined with discourses regarding fashion, women, and femininity, and fashion criticism is crucial in the construction of femininity, and fashion critics play a role of “negotiating shifting gender roles and redefining femininity”. Therefore, it is important to explore how female fashion critics cover women in power, and how their writings contribute to the construction of femininity and the legitimization of fashion and women in mass media, and eventually, to informing women in general.

​

This research conducted a textual analysis on Vanessa Friedman’s fashion criticism on the fashion choices of Kamala Harris, the first female Vice President of the United States, and Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Vanessa Friedman has been the fashion director and chief fashion critic for New York Times since 2014, her work has reached and influenced many people. Prior to joining New York Times, she was the inaugural fashion editor at Financial Times, and before that, she worked as a fashion features director at InStyle UK from 2000 to 2002. She also regularly contributes to Vogue, New Yorker, Vanity Fair, etc.

​

Unpicking Friedman’s Writing

​

Reflection and Contextualization

​

Fashion writing, according to Sandra Miller and Peter McNeil, can never be true “criticism” as it places too much emphasis on reporting rather than reflection, which limits its critical potential (cited in Jones 2021, 35). Despite featuring the fashion and attire of female political figures, Vanessa Friedman rarely attempts to provide a comprehensive picture of clothing, using only a few descriptive words or sentences to convey essential information to readers. For example, in the article “Kamala Harris Goes Beyond the White Pantsuit”, Friedman (2020b) uses only “a double-breasted, broad-shouldered jacket with slightly flared trousers” to describe Ms. Harris’s outfit. The omission of portrayal is, of course, a result of the mediatization of politics in terms of the development of digital media; readers usually know the information of politicians’ clothes before they read fashion criticism, and even if they do not, they can tell from the accompanying photographs, so there is no need for massive depictions. Friedman typically focuses on one or two aspects of the outfit. In “Kamala Harris in a White Suit, Dressing for History” (2020c), “Nancy Pelosi and the Persistent White Pantsuit” (2019a), and “Nancy Pelosi’s Coat Catches Fire” (2018), she emphasizes the color; and in “The Many Masks of Nancy Pelosi” (2020d) and “Nancy Pelosi Went Dark for the House Debates. Her Pin Shined” (2019b), she pays attention to Ms. Pelosi’s masks and pin.

​

The omission of descriptive reporting and the focuses on details allow Friedman to devote to the reflection on the symbolic meaning of clothing. Relating Ms. Harris’s white suit to women’s struggle of breaking ceilings, uniforms of working women, as well as Margret Thatcher’s power dressing, Friedman claims that choosing to wear a white suit was “deliberate”, and “was not fashion. It was politics. It was for posterity” (2020c). In depicting Ms. Pelosi’s pin, Friedman believes that the pin is her “power pin”, which is “a symbol of the office she holds” (2019b). In Friedman’s writings, clothing is not just clothing; she links the fashion choices of female political figures to their own positions, to the struggles of women more generally, and sometimes to the political commitments of female politicians. Friedman states that Ms. Pelosi’s mask “suggests a commitment to consciously choosing a mask every single day that, more than simply demonstrating good mask habits, civic awareness and solicitude for those around her, or even support for small businesses, demands attention” (2020d), and that Ms. Harris’s choice of rewearing clothes she already owned is in accordance with her mission, which calls for a focus on climate change (2021a). 

​

Such connections are prevalent in Friedman’s work. She gives context for these symbolically significant clothing. Citing Bourdieu’s 2010 critique that journalists “cannot do what would be necessary to make events … really understandable, that is, they cannot reinsert them in a network of relevant relationships …”, Jones (2021, 38) argues that fashion journalism lacks the ability to contextualize fashion within a broader socio-economic and political context. Connecting a specific garment or details to a greater cultural or historical context, Friedman contextualizes the fashion choices of women in power, and brings the presentation of their dress and socio-cultural references together. When writing about Ms. Harris' visit to Southeast Asia wearing only “dark pantsuits in navy, gray and black”, Friedman places her choice against the backdrop of the evacuation from Afghanistan and the Delta variant of the Covid-19 threatening the world, saying it reflects the current gloomy state of the world (2021a). That Ms. Pelosi chose to wear a mask as part of an ensemble reminds her of how the Slovakian president Zuzana Caputova and French President Emmanuel Macron have worn masks as part of their attire (2020d). For Friedman, the choices of women leaders are not only relevant to the present, but they are examined from the perspective of a broader historical, cultural, and socio-political background as well. In four consecutive paragraphs beginning with “the same sort of”, linking Ms. Pelosi's white suit to Hillary Clinton, Tulsi Gabbard, Melania Trump, and the vast number of women who want to elect the first female president, Friedman proves her point that wearing a white suit:

​

has become a statement in itself, layered in meaning and nuance; loaded with history — recent and long-ago; an unspoken nod to justice in the face of power. And it is increasingly wheeled out, remorselessly even, by those who wear it in times of high drama and national attention.

(2019a)

 

Friedman has underlined in various pieces that the clothing worn by female leaders transcends the garment and becomes a "symbol." By relating the dress and fashion of women leaders to broader social, political, cultural, and historical contexts, particularly the struggle of ordinary women for power, Friedman’s work transcends the conventional media focus on fashion and the stereotypical portrayal of women leaders to the various messages conveyed evoked by the clothing of women in power. She creates strong women who are concerned with both fashion and political ambition, thus legitimizing women’s fashion choices.

​

Self-Reflexive 

​

Maurice Berger argues in his 1998 book The Crisis of Criticism, “the strongest criticism uses language and rhetoric not merely for descriptive or evaluative purposes but as a means of inspiration, provocation, emotional connection, and experimentation” (quoted in Jones 2021, 35). Connecting female politicians’ fashion choices with ordinary women’s daily experiences and their fashion choices, Friedman’s works invite the readers to be more self-reflexive about their relation to fashion and power. She believes politicians have turned the clothing issue into a “teachable moment” (2021b). For example, by writing Ms. Harris’s “decisions impact not just herself, but those who come after her and will learn from her example” (2021a), Friedman suggests that women leaders’ clothing will become the standard and model for ordinary women. She also suggested that Ms. Harris’s and Dr. Biden’s acts of rewearing clothes from their wardrobe could evoke individual action and concern for sustainability, while wearing American designers could focus attention on the fashion industry and its importance to the U.S. economy (2021b).

​

In addition to the content itself, Friedman uses different tones and expressions to evoke an emotional connection with the reader. Friedman frequently employs the pronoun “we” to refer to herself, her readers, and even all of mankind, therefore transforming her personal experience and perspective into a universal experience, eliciting empathy and reflection in her readers. She frequently uses colloquial expressions，such as “Beige! Oh my god! Oh my god!” (2021a), “I know, I know. You’re thinking: not again!” (2019a), and “all about self-expression! and — yes — fashion!” (2020d). Rhetorical questions also frequently appear in her articles, and sometimes make a stronger and more direct point than declarative sentences. For instance, she writes, “why simply don a face mask when you can also use it to make a political point?” to suggest the information Ms. Pelosi’s masks convey (2020d). 

​

Newsworthiness

​

Borrowing insights from theories of agenda-setting and framing, this paper argues that Vanessa Friedman’s writing assists us in comprehending and communicating about particular outfits, styles, and fashion choices of women in power in particular contexts. Agenda-setting has been attributed to the notion that “the media doesn’t tell us what to think, but what to think about” (quoted in Lascity 2021, 102). And Entman’s article in 1993 defines that:

​

To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described.

(quoted in Lascity 2021, 106)

​

By framing specific outfits or details, Friedman’s writing helps readers determine “what to think about”, influencing the audience in the politician's mediatization. She understands that part of her job role as a fashion critic is “to help readers understand how fashion is being used to communicate, in the same way Andrew Ross Sorkin helps us understand economic policy” (2019c).

​

In her article “Why We Cover What Politicians Wear”, Friedman emphasizes the importance of clothes for both male and female politicians as a communication tool for influencing and shaping public opinion and effectively advancing the executive agenda (2020a). While Friedman covers male politicians’ attire as well, she notes that there are always more opportunities to write about female dress due to its diversity. She argues, however, that broader fashion choices should be a boon to women, not a problem. Women politicians should not give up their ability to utilize dress as a tactic just to be taken seriously. Friedman argues that “the more we recognize the role clothes play in life and politics, the more we are all willing to talk about it, the more we normalize it, the less potential it has as a weapon in any situation” (2020a).

​

Robb Young (2011) claims that many people still consider dressing masculinely as a valid and efficient way for women to acquire political power. Friedman reconstructs the image of female political figures in her article, thereby redefining femininity. In response to a reader's question about the New York Times article mentioning that Ms. Pelosi wore hot pink, Friedman notes that as a result of the political occasion's significance, pink shifted from a color associated with delicate femininity to one associated with power (2019c). Additionally, she stated that Ms. Pelosi's white suit distinguished her from the crowd of black suits, “announcing her unapologetic femininity, and renouncing the idea that any woman would have to dress like a man to be a leader, ever again” (2019a).

​

Friedman does not reject the relevance of clothes and fashion for female politicians; instead, she reconstructs the image of women in power and their relationship with fashion and dress by interpreting the symbolic meaning and significance of their attire. Friedman has aided in the definition of new femininity and legitimized women’s fashion choices by re-establishing what readers should focus on when examining the attire of female political figures. Friedman's work may also have an effect on women in general, given the “transformative power” of the media (quoted in Rocamora 2017, 507)

​

Conclusion 

​

The media has grown in importance as a component of the social process, and politics has been gradually mediatized. However, media coverage of politicians is not always gender-neutral, and the media frequently exaggerates the clothes and appearance of female political figures, omitting more significant aspects. Considering the significance of fashion media in navigating shifting gender roles and redefining femininity, this article undertook a textual analysis of fashion criticism by New York Times chief fashion critic Vanessa Friedman about outfits of Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi. By re-framing what to focus on, contextualizing attires of women in power, examining the symbolism of clothing, and encouraging readers to be self-reflective, Friedman’s work provides opportunities to (re)consider how fashion and fashion media contribute to the construction and legitimization of women in power in mass media, as well as opportunities to (re)consider how fashion and fashion media inform and empower women in general. 

​

If gender plays a significant role in defining the nature and scope of contemporary democratic leadership, one key issue is the relationship between female leaders and the media (Campus 2013, 1). Fashion has historically been associated with women and femininity, and has been considered frivolous. In the mediatization of politics, some media coverage’s emphasis on the association between women and fashion and omission of other aspects not only work against women in politics, but also work against the legitimization of fashion in mass media. Examining how female fashion critics interpret the clothing and fashion of female political figures and their symbolic meanings can assit in countering stereotypes of female leaders. Associating fashion with power, in turn, can legitimize fashion and empower women. ▪︎

​

References