The Tan Suit and the Golf Shoes
What Sociology Tells Us About Double Standards
Scandal is an interesting thing; it is defined as something morally or legally wrong that often leads to public outrage. The public loves a good scandal. We ate up the college admissions scandal in the spring. We love when salacious gossip about celebrity affairs or misdeeds emerge. As I explained in an earlier post, we really enjoy a good scandal, especially if that scandal brings comeuppance on the wealthy or powerful in society. It’s important to note that the reason we enjoy it so much is because it happens so infrequently. The wealthy and powerful often make the rules, and so it’s easier for them to circumvent them. Another pattern that emerges is that we often see significant double standards in the way the public reacts to even the silliest of scandals, depending on who is involved.
In 2014, President Obama held a press conference where he wore a light tan suit. Media outlets and other public figures lost their collective minds. One representative actually said it was a national security threat. There was a full meltdown on many of the different cable news channels (and not just Fox!). I’m curious if you dug through our current president’s Twitter timeline if there might have been a comment about it. To this day, it is still considered a minor presidential scandal for President Obama.
This brings us to the present. Just this weekend, President Trump attended a church service in Virginia; in light of the tragedy that unfolded in Virginia Beach last week, it seems fitting that a president might attend a church in the state to mourn and honor those that were killed. However, he apparently stopped by to be honored because Franklin Graham had labeled the Sunday, “Pray For Donald Trump Day”. He was there for 15 minutes. More interesting, however, was what he chose to wear. He emerged in golf shoes, a golf shirt, and a baseball cap (he did remove the cap during the prayer; Twitter lit up with the results to his hair).
Is this a scandal? Nope. It’s a blip on the radar, and, let’s be honest, it’s barely a blip at that. It is clear that a double standard is at play here. In society, we have certain norms; we decide them collectively, and we have to determine normality in order to determine abnormality. No act is inherently deviant; in other words, deviance is relative. So, who gets to decide what is normal and what is abnormal? Traditionally, those in power are able to decide. While church has become more casual over the years, it is probably safe to say that golf shoes and a baseball cap might still be considered “abnormal” for the average person. When the president does it, however, it can be twisted to look “normal”.
So, why is Obama’s tan suit a “scandal” while Trump’s golf wear in church is not? Both men held the same position: President of the United States. Why might one be labeled as outrageous? To answer this question, it’s critical to think of double standards where the socially powerful or the majority are able to define their behavior as normal but define those same behaviors as abnormal when they are carried out by the non-powerful or social minorities. Even as President Obama held the highest office in the land, he was still subject to the criticism that is often reserved for minorities or the less powerful in society. Power was not a shield to that criticism.
We often hear a refrain following any outrageous behavior by President Trump: “If Obama had done that…”. Many people recognize double standards, but they may not recognize the power at play behind those double standards. Labeling something as “deviant” is a powerful tool in our society, but conflict theorists will often tell you that it is a tool reserved for a small percentage of the people.
