"You can not come here": Is it not time to cancel the dress code and the "institution policy"
Dmitry Kurkin
The phrase "You can not be here"probably heard anyone who at least a dozen times tried to go to the institution with a limited entrance - if not in his address, then at least in the address of his companions. It does not take a couple of months without a discussion about the next incident in social networks, when someone was somewhere else and for some reason (often contrived) “unrolled at the entrance” did not flare up. Detailed instructions, "How to get face control" (the ugly Anglicism from the Russian nineties does not want to die, despite attempts to replace it with more correct wording "dress code" and "institution policy"), are reprinted on the Internet year after year - and in practice more often they turn out to be useless, since they do not take into account the complex chemistry of the processes in the head of a single "Saint Peter" at the entrance, which is often impossible to predict.
Do clubs and restaurants have the right to segregate the public, and if so, by what criteria? How ethical is it at all in 2018 to divide people based on their appearance and visible social status? Can this be considered discrimination and is it against the principles of a public offer?
Perhaps, it’s worth starting with the fact that the proprietory door policy is often not even very well conceive by the owners of the establishments: in an interview with four years ago, London restaurant businessman Alex Proud honestly admits that there are no clear-cut policies or rules for dress codes in nightclubs and restaurants . In his words, the managers of the institutions step on the “minefield” every time they open their doors and assign a special person to them, who must decide whether you are passing or not.
As a profession, people-filters began to appear in the first half of the nineteenth century (a little later in the English-language press they would be given the designation that we still use today - "bouncer", that is, "bouncer"). It is believed that the first bouncers began to hire elite brothels to discourage drunken and overly aggressive visitors from the doors, then this practice was adopted by drinking establishments. At the next round of puritanism and the fight against "debauchery" at the beginning of the twentieth century, the guards at the entrance had an additional function of the guardians of morality - they ensured that the dancers did not come closer to each other than nine inches. But as a whole, the principle of work of People At the Entrance in two hundred years has not changed: they must maintain the safety and comfort of those who are already inside.
The goal itself is beautiful - the problem is in the methods of achieving it. Do not let a person who exudes aggression or clearly behaves inadequately, is primarily for his own good. But is it possible to draw an unequivocal conclusion only in appearance of a potential visitor that he (s) will create problems inside? Do short-sleeved tops or massive gold chains say this? The restaurant taboo on sweatpants and sneakers, which still operates in many establishments, although it gave offensive classics, still had its ground. But hasn’t it turned into an absurdity at a time when street fashion captures more and more space, brand-name workouts cannot always be distinguished from those bought in the clothing market, and sneakers are completely status shoes, behind which kilometer lines of sneakerheads are lined up? Do worn jeans say about the solvency of a person in an era when even billionaires wear worn jeans?
The first bouncers began to hire elite brothels to discourage drunken and overly aggressive visitors from the door.
In addition, “smart casual” is in itself a blurry concept, but even its blurring does not guarantee that you will not receive a refusal at the entrance. So, let's say, women regularly hear from bouncer that they are dressed “not well enough”, and men are not allowed into institutions without being accompanied by women. Needless to say that both are obvious manifestations of sexism?
To this, however, there is a valid objection: complete and unbiased inclusiveness for the time being we only dream of and remain a distant beacon. And even when it becomes a reality, the subconscious desire to spend time among "our own people" - whatever that means in each particular case - is not going anywhere: as long as we remain "social animals," the need to join the packs united by some attribute also remains. It ultimately tries to broadcast a man at the entrance. It is unfair to restrict the social life of young parents to exclusively family cafes. But you can understand those who do not want to get drunk from the heart and dance on the tables in front of children. The classic dilemma of personal freedom, which ends where the freedom of another person begins: where is the border where one ends and the other begins?
As for the legal side of the issue, it is quite simple and in translation from the language of the civil code it sounds like this: the institution has the right to establish any internal rules for the consumer as long as they do not contradict Russian legislation, but cannot change the rules on the go (i.e. violate the principle of public offer). But if you think that at the entrance you were discriminated by one of the criteria (from not attractive enough, from the point of view, face control of your appearance or expensive clothes to a national, religious or gender basis), you may well try your luck in court.
It is worth remembering that the notorious policy of institutions has been and remains for the most part a tacit agreement and an unregulated area in which the rules change constantly. And if anything contributes to changing this agreement in favor of people, it is publicity and public discussion. In the end, it was thanks to them that we got rid of many shameful discriminatory practices of the past. The answer to the question "When can I come to the Michelin restaurant in sweat pants?" lies on the surface: when to a critical percentage of restaurant customers it will not seem wild.
Photo: mantinov - stock.adobe.com, Alibaba