On parents going to school in pyjamas


Sometimes, working late at the university, when it’s dark or raining I call my partner (who works there also) to drive and pick me up. She jumps in the car, in her “loungewear”, and is at the university within five minutes.

I was reflecting on our own comfort levels, and the distinctions in what we will wear in different spaces, in the light of the drama which recently erupted when a primary school head teacher in Darlington, England, wrote to parents, asking them to come to school appropriately attired. “I have noticed there has been an increasing tendency for parents to escort children to and from school while still wearing their pyjamas and, on occasion, even slippers” her letter noted.

The school’s attempt to get parents to change their clothes when dropping off kids or coming to collect them, and particularly when attending parents’ evenings, school assemblies, and nativity performances, appears not to be a one-off event. Several schools, it seems, across Britain periodically feel the need to admonish their parents similarly.

Arguments made against pyjama-wearing are what one might expect: they are unsuitable for cold weather; set a bad example for the children; reflect poorly on the parents and neighbourhood; and show lack of self-discipline and morale. Fundamentally, pyjamas are for the bedroom not for the school or the school gates, and parents should know the difference.

But this attack on parents – and, as so often is the case, parents here really means mothers – hasn’t gone unopposed. Arriving defiantly at the school gates in pyjamas and slippers, parents argue the most important thing is getting their children dressed and to school on time; their own clothing didn’t matter. And in this struggle over notions of appropriate wear, mothers turn their criticism to other kinds, particularly sexualised kinds, of female clothing, such as the low-plunging necklines and high heels of Skerne Park Academy’s head teacher.

It’s easy in a dispute like this to take parents’ side – not in terms of their own fashion counter-attack but in objecting to the snobbish criticism of working-class women’s wear.

When the head says, “They should not sit around in pyjamas because they don’t have to get dressed for work,” her words articulate what pyjamas encode: that these women don’t have “real” jobs. Their lives aren’t framed by time-space divisions such that they need to dress to enter disciplined occupational spaces. And in the absence of discipline by an employer it has been left to the head teacher, with far less leverage, to act.

What she has is the moral pressure of example-setting. “I just think if they’re a good role model for their children and want to them to get a job and better yourself then they ought to get dressed.”

Some may find something insulting in this assumption that parents should want to help their children aspire to lives more occupationally successful and privileged than their own.

But something else is also going on in this series of conflicts over bedroom wear at schools.

And that is the feared extension of these women’s intimate domestic space into and across public places.

Women breastfeeding in shops, legislatures and restaurants face similar concerns; critics claim their actions are also inappropriate, breaching normative spatial divisions of what should be done where.

In the breastfeeding case, it is the reproductive, fluid-producing body that is deemed improperly visible. Here it is the comfortable, close-to-sleeping, less overtly gendered body of women in pyjamas and slippers.

But the problem isn’t simply that pyjamas are inappropriate school objects.

Wearing pyjamas in school blurs the division between home and public, symbolically folding the school into bedroom space. Through the presence of women in bed-wear and slippers, the school becomes reimagined.

A working-class environment of discipline and learning, perceived as already precarious, becomes coated in domestic comfort and familiarity.

What this produces, I think, is disgust (or at least distaste) among those who feel they have lost symbolic space and the capacity to set school norms.  This is what lies behind the phrase “slummy mummies” scattered across media accounts of this episode: that the slum is being brought into the school – the school becoming part of the slum.

Head teacher Chisholm remarks, “If we’re to raise standards it’s not too much to ask parents to have a wash and get dressed.

Women in nightclothes and slippers symbolically carry with them the spaces of their bedroom, and the uncontained sexed bodies of the night.

The feelings this generates should not be underestimated.

In the 1990s, I witnessed something similar in the conflict then raging over installing a London eruv – a notional perimeter required by orthodox Jews so they can carry things on the Sabbath. (The perimeter makes space symbolically private and therefore outside the religious prohibition on Sabbath carrying.)

Here too people opposed the eruv’s establishment on the grounds it appropriated their neighbourhood even though they were unlikely ever to actually notice it or its boundary. Opponents told me, sometimes almost in tears, that installing an eruv would turn the space into a shtetl; that it would evoke feelings of being in a concentration camp; fundamentally, they said, religious Jews shouldn’t take space – even at the most symbolic, non-zero-sum level – because the space didn’t belong to them.

In this school pyjamas dispute, space is also not neutral. It is school space already organised along disciplined, culturally encoded lines, where the school uniform is branded, limited and purchasable from Tesco’s, and where the school is part of an educational and economic project to raise competent disciplined workers.

Indeed, one irony of tying bedroom-wear to a lack of parental aspiration for their children may be that schools are failing to be aspirational enough. Or, at least, they are not aspiring to produce creative workers: artists, writers, musicians. Academics, for instance, when pressed, will often admit they like to write, research, and answer emails at their dining room table in pyjamas, dressing only for a skype meeting, for time spent at university, or to produce a break in the working day.

Given the range of home-based work, Kate Chisholm’s students may well earn their living working in their nightwear, splicing together care-time, leisure-time and employee-time as they sit at their computer, or engage in some other activity, in smart clothes, casual clothes or even no clothes at all.

The penetration of economic life into the home is of course far from a modern development. Although it has its benefits, fears that it extends the spaces in which we are commodified and instrumentalised, wrought on producing things of economic value, are well made.

In this context, where people are supposed to accommodate work demands in all zones of their lives, including their night-times, as work floods temporal divisions and limits, wearing pyjamas at school can be seen as a kind of kickback.

Defying conventional divisions of time and space, nightwear and slippers in British schools become a symbolic attempt to retrieve space that has become far too competitive, work-obsessed and achievement-oriented, reclaiming it as the outer fringes of a comfortable, less compartmentalised and importantly (in a school) shared, home.









One thought on “On parents going to school in pyjamas

  1. I agree with your interesting analysis of the spatial norms that may be involved in this situation, and wanted to suggest a perspective from a psychotherapeutic model e.g. Ego States and Games – standard models in Transactional Analysis ( cf. Eric Berne et al).
    In terms of Ego States, it is tempting to see a school as a strong Parental figure in the community, with the capacity to be experienced as both a Nurturing and a Controlling/Critical Parent by the actual parents of children attending the establishment.
    This can set up a competition game, in which each side sees the other in negative terms i.e. the school sees the ‘pyjama parents’ as abandoning their parental role and becoming over-nurtured Children, encouraging a self-indulgent lack of discipline which requires a firm controlling and critical response. The actual parents then feel persecuted, and and experience the school as a rejecting and over-critical Parent, and themselves as a feckless Child with no support. If they are not happy to be victims, they can then move into being defiant competitive Parents, and defy the attempts to shame and control them by non-compliance and protest activities. If they accept the Child role defined by the School, they may give in and behave as required, but feeling victimised and deficient, which leaves the school being experienced as a successful persecutor for the moment, and keeping all of them held in this power struggle with future conflict inevitable.
    This is, I suggest, mainly because the dominant Ego States involved in the game, are Parent and Child, with Adult being excluded or severely limited, thus precluding uncontaminated thinking and problem-solving.
    The hidden purpose of this game ( psychological, not fun), is to avoid having authentic dialogue with each other about how each party actually thinks and feels about the issue, which could lead to a mutual understanding and appreciation of their adult needs and responses, and how to resolve the problem.
    Although the game does not provide any resolution of the issue, it does energise and reward each proponent for their active involvement, until it is dissolved.
    You have described further developments in the game, such as the the competing disparagements of each others dress codes, and the implied judgements around value through employment, all of which can keep the game going and feed the bad feelings it generates to all parties as an outcome.
    This awaits an opportunity for an Adult dialogue to commence!
    Peter Leviné
    Certified Transactional Analyst

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s