The Exchange

When did all of this drama about hoodies start? And by “hoodies” I mean the garments of clothing not, as David Cameron would have us believe, a type of person. The sentiments behind his catchphrase “hug a hoodie” may be well placed, but by highlighting the association of a garment of clothing worn across class, race, wealth, etc boundaries with one type of person, his real achievement was to reinforce and even entrench a stigma formerly in its embryonic stage and even then only among the older (trainers-hating) generations.

The fall out from this triggered the writer’s enthusiasm for this piece. I think it was the last Notting Hill carnival where I was outraged at seeing a police officer approach a youth only to rip down the hood from his head and tell him to move on! Rather cynically probably, I put this down to the ever-waning etiquette of an institution that I’m sure at one time was established to protect and serve. (Please note the last word.) My cynicism, however, proved to have slightly missed the mark…

Last week I decided to brave Oxford Street in search of a new mobile phone. As ever I was drawn into any and every shop regardless of their expertise in telecommunications. It was a cold, damp day and I wanted to remain somewhat invisible and not be drawn into any unnecessary conversations, so I employed the trusty hoody. Hooded and snug I thought, but the reaction of the security in one large store seemed more: hooded and thug. I was approached and informed that, despite no notices or anything of that sort being displayed, hoods must not be warn in that particular store. I was soon to find out that this was a policy employed by a number of other stores I visited on the street. Notwithstanding the irony that is shops selling hoodies but not wishing you to wear your hood, I wondered if there was something more sinister and insidious permeating society.

The problem with hoodies seems to be that they are threatening because they conceal. This leads to the elderly apprehending danger in their presence and stores and clubs citing the security cameras futility in their wake.

As far as the first example goes, I’m sympathetic to those who fear certain things in society and would even go so far as to say the polite thing to do may be to remove one’s hood if one notices others feeling threatened. This says nothing about a duty to do so, whether moral, legal or whatever. The fear in this situation seems to be analogous to that of whites fearing blacks at the dawn of man. We fear what we do not understand. As ever, surely the onus lies on the uninitiated to get with the programme!

As far as I’ve read, the various forms of modest attire worn by Muslim women have never seriously been described as threatening, only rude or odd. It is not the hoody that is threatening it is the stereotype associated with it. It is this stereotype that permits such retail policy with impunity. For some, black skin, black clothes and what some may term “hiphop apparel” are just as threatening.

As for the better argument regarding security cameras, it should first be pointed out that hoods need not and most do not conceal the face. Furthermore, hoods are not alone in their potential to conceal or disguise; certainly baseball caps, scarves, sunglasses and even heavy make-up have similar potential to do this. They are not prohibited as far as I know… yet.

The point I wish to make is this: we would not accept our fingerprints being taken upon entering a shop. Not merely because of the inconvenience and the intrusion, but because of the extreme disrespect. This disrespect extends beyond contravention of the presumption of innocence. More profound in my opinion is the message that we do not trust or respect each other enough to avoid presumptions of any kind. We have in effect grown to accept an “every body is a suspect” approach – or every body ‘hooded-up’ is a criminal.

Yes shops are private property, but would you accept being fingerprinted or told how to dress upon entering my home? Some would argue quite convincingly that shops are not wholly private due to their forming a key part of our public community. The question of where the line should be drawn between public and private actors for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 is a vexed one, but we are moving towards a climate where businesses need to be more conscious of their social effects and the consequences such have on our human rights – our communities and our lives. Need we really seek a codified right to dress as we choose?