The National Uniform Laws

I went for another run today, and had another “cultural insight.” I have a lot of “cultural insights” during my runs. I know you’ve been awaiting my commentary on this one, though, and for precisely that reason, I’d been trying my best to avoid it. But I can wait no longer . . . Live from Bologna . . . Italian Fashion!

I preface these observations by declaring that, if there’s one person on the planet who should not be making any observations at all about fashion, it’s me. (But I will comment nonetheless.) There is clearly a marked difference between Italians and Americans regarding what it takes to look good, and, probably more importantly, wanting to look good in the first place. But the difference between Italians and me is . . . well, I’m not sure it even qualifies as a difference. It’s more like a different topic altogether.

As a starter, we’ll review the two principal Italian uniforms, and the regulation regarding their use:

Men and boys: Must wear jeans of reasonable tightness. Winter coat is of utmost importance and hence governed more strictly than other accessories. It must be white, brown, or black, and must be down or imitation down. The compartments containing the down must be horizontally segmented, and the jacket should be reasonably “puffy.” It should have a hood, a faux belt, and – this is very important – a furry collar. Shoes should be trendy. Cap should be of the 1930s newsboy style. Large sunglasses (“facial” style) recommended.

Women and girls: Tight jeans for the casual look and short skirt for the classy look. Nice shirt. Obligatory scarf, ideally one of extraordinary length and complicated-issimo wrapping. Winter coat, similar to that worn by men, should be white, brown, or black, and must be down or imitation down. Compartments again must be horizontally segmented and should be reasonably “puffy.” The hood, faux belt, and furry collar obligatory for men are optional for women, but the woman’s coat must be thigh-or knee- length. The accessory of highest importance for women is footwear, and leather boots, preferably knee-high, are obligatory. Tall, skinny heels are best, but shorter heels may be considered marginally acceptable. Hats are best avoided, but, if worn, should be the feminine version of the 1930s newsboy style. Small, pointy, trendy eyeglasses are recommended, even in cases of outstanding vision, and large sunglasses (“facial” style) are, for women, obligatory.

Rules for use: All Italians between the ages of 18 and 65 must dress according the general Wardrobe Fashion Law. (Dispensations are allowable for health or age-related problems, and individual requests should be directed to the Bishop.) In the event of a violation, the Italian’s (fashionable) electronic ankle bracelet will activate upon crossing the apartment threshold, and the user should return to his or her wardrobe to remedy the violation. Upon returning to conformance with the regulation wardrobe, he or she may then leave home with no further imposition of penalties. In the event of wardrobe negligence carried into the public sphere, however, the penalty will be social ostracization, imposed on a scale escalating in accordance with the frequency and severity of the violation.

These really are the rules, and the penalties (as you can see) are stiff. I’m not kidding. (I’m searching for the governing legal document on the internet right now.) Some people have gotten so used to the rules that they begin to follow them before the age of 18 and continue to follow them after earning the age-related automatic dispensation at age 65. For example, today I saw a woman who – “I am not making this up” – was at least 85. Check that, at least 85 but really most likely edging into her mid-nineties. You know what she was wearing? Knee-lenght skirt; regulation “puffy” coat with faux belt; four-inch heels; fashionable fishnet stockings; and – this is the winner – the Italian signature, “trendy” eyeglasses. Awesome.

Anyway, this is the insight I had on my run today: I realized why all Italian runners wear a uniform. It’s not just because they belong to a team, as I’d thought before (though it remains entirely possible that they belong to the team just to get the uniform.) It’s that there’s an important exemption to the Wardrobe Uniform Law (as described above). Here it is:

Athletic Exemption: IF the user is leaving home to participate in an activity that has as its express and sole objective fitness, the user may exempt him- or herself temporarily from the general Wardrobe Uniform Law. However, he or she must then abide by “Rules of Dress for Athletic Activity” (see below), must return home within two hours and immediately return to compliance with the general Wardrobe Uniform Law, and must not combine the outing directed toward fitness with any other activity. (For example, this specifically prohibits stopping at the supermarket after running or even walking fast.) The (fashionable) lectronic ankle bracelet will be disactivated only pending compliance with the “Rules of Dress for Athletic Activity.”

“Rules of Dress for Athletic Activity”: The rule applies identically to both men and women. Users must dress in clothing that unmistakably identifies the purpose of their outing as athletic. The clear preference is given to Spandex pants and zip-up spandex shirts, both of which should be brightly colored and imitate, as closely as possible, the sponsored uniforms of professional cyclists. (Though helmets, of course, should be avoided.) It is permissible to add a single piece of non-spandex gear to the athletic wardrobe, as long as (1) it is manufactured from another expressly “athletic” material, such as Goretex, and (2) it contains a reflective stripe. (The ideal piece, therefore, is obviously a Goretex, wind-resistant vest with a reflective stripe.)

Note that this rule is applicable whether used by semi-professional athletes or by overweight old men out for a stroll: The important thing is that the user alert everyone that he is doing an athletic activity and hence merits exemption from the general Wardrobe Uniform Law! To illustrate the danger of less than full compliance, consider this cautionary example: wearing loose-fitting pants or a hooded sweatshirt is ambiguous and hence could be confused for non-athletic, unfashionable clothing; hence such clothing, and clothing that is similarly ambiguous, should be at all times avoided.

That’s what I figured out today. It makes a lot more sense, now that I know about the national law. And I’d thought that everyone just bought into appearances a little too much!

Did I tell you, though, that I inadvertently acquired two pieces of fashionable clothing?! Yeah, it shocked me, too. At the flea market, I bought (1) a pair of jeans that fit me, for two euro; and (2) a winter coat for five euro. This was because I had only two pairs of pants and a spring jacket (thanks to my Camino weight frugality), and it was snowing. Turns out that the pants are Tommy Hilfiger, and the coat is very nearly compliant with the official coat regulated by the general Wardrobe Uniform Law. If anyone is concerned, however, you can take a deep breath and relax: I have no trendy eyeglasses and continue to wear my hiking-running shoes (which have now walked about a zillion kilometers), holes and all. And I kind of like the looks of the running shoes. They’re red.