Edit of January 12, 2023: While an RN bill must be examined in the National Assembly, Brigitte Macron said she was “for wearing a school uniform” in an interview with Parisian. The school uniform thus returning to the front of the stage, we offer you the rereading of this article.
The debate on the “uniform” at school seems inexhaustible. After Xavier Darcos in 2003 then 2009, François Fillon in 2016, it is the turn of Jean-Michel Blanquer to speak out on the subject. Invited to comment on the initiative of the city of Provins, which will experiment with the uniform next year, the Minister of Education judged that “in certain cases, it can be useful, but it can only work if there is a certain local consensus”.
It was enough for many media to mention the “return of the uniform” to school. However, as education historian Claude Lelièvre reminds us, this belief in egalitarian clothing is a myth that is not based on historical reality.
Can we really speak of a “return” of the uniform?
It is necessary to distinguish between the private and the public on this subject. In the private sector, there have always been uniforms. These are often posh establishments, which want to distinguish themselves from the others. In public, it’s different. There has never been compulsory clothing in public schools, it’s a legend. What existed was the use of disparate overalls to protect against ink stains. This made it possible to save on the clothing budget, which was already high.
Does the uniform allow more “equality”, as Jean-Michel Blanquer suggests?
It is absolutely false. Behind this idea of equality, there is in fact the dream that the uniform will make it possible to return to a sanctuary school, which escapes the seductions of our world. For decades, we have wondered how to control young people, how to channel them. One of the ways is boarding school, the return to dictation every day, or the uniform.
All that is myth, and myths thrive when we want to reassure ourselves, when we want to cling to elements of a so-called past to protect ourselves from the anxieties of the present time. It is a symptom of social disease. And it’s not the uniform that will cure this disease. It’s just a way to hide inequalities or more simply, for a number of parents, it helps to circumvent the race for expensive clothes. It is not because we are dressed in the same way that social differences disappear.
Why has the wearing of a uniform never been imposed, despite numerous declarations to this effect?
Because when you have to take the plunge, there are new difficulties that appear, so nothing is imposed. For example, if we decide to impose the uniform: what type of uniform do we choose? Is it the same for boys and girls? Who should pay it? Will upscale establishments have the right to have a more “chic” outfit? Not deciding anything means not taking on the responsibility of imposing a measure.