性感而又平淡的職場“制服”

What people wear to work at investment banks, management consultancies and top law firms is ridiculous. So is how they talk.

在投行、管理咨詢公司以及頂級律師事務所工作的那些人上班時的穿著都很荒唐。當然，他們說起話來也是一樣。

This hit me last weekend when watching Toni Erdmann, a German comedy film in which a youngish management consultant is visited at work by her father, who turns up uninvited wearing a shaggy brown wig, a shiny suit and a set of joke-shop teeth.

這個想法是我在不久前觀看《托尼•厄德曼》(Toni Erdmann)時冒出來的，在這部德國喜劇電影中，一位年輕的管理咨詢師在上班時，她的老爸不期而至，頂著一頭亂蓬蓬的棕色假發(fā)，穿著一身反光的西服，還戴著一副像是從笑料鋪子淘來的假牙。

As his vast unkempt figure lumbered through the gleaming office, it occurred to me the absurd one was not him, barely able to speak through his mouthful of snaggly gnashers. It was the consultants, all shiny and beautiful and looking the same as one another.

當他拖著龐大而又邋遢的身軀費力地走過光鮮的辦公室時，我突然醒悟過來：怪誕的并不是戴著一口假牙幾乎沒法說話的他，而是那些咨詢師，他們個個光鮮靚麗，卻又看起來千人一面。

In the past decade, what people in the best paid jobs look like has got more uniform and more extreme. There is an unwritten dress code that everyone has to follow and which goes like this: 1. There is no such thing as too expensive; 2. There is no such thing as too toned; 3. There is no such thing as too bland.

過去10年，薪水最高的那些人看上去更趨同也更極端。他們都不得不遵循以下不成文的著裝要求：1.再貴也不過分;2.色調再單一也不過分;3.再平淡也不過分。

No one dares look individual. The only way of standing out is by looking even sleeker and richer than everyone else. These rules apply equally to men and women, only the latter have an additional hurdle to clear. Women must look as sexy as possible without looking tasteless. Sheryl Sandberg has nailed it. Kim Kardashian has not.

沒人膽敢展露個性。唯一令自己脫穎而出的辦法，就是讓自己看起來比別人更加光鮮更加有錢。這些規(guī)則對男女都適用，只不過后者還要克服一個額外的障礙。那就是女人們必須使自己看上去盡可能性感，同時又不能顯得沒有品味。雪莉•桑德伯格(Sheryl Sandberg)做到了這一點，而金•卡戴珊(Kim Kardashian)則沒有。

The youngish management consultant in Toni Erdmann wore her uniform well. Her heels were high and the fabric of her dark suits showed the pleasing contour of her bottom, while her sleeveless dresses displayed the firmness of her arms.

《托尼•厄德曼》中那位年輕的管理咨詢師穿著很得體。高跟鞋和質地精良的深色套裝凸顯了臀部的曼妙曲線，而無袖連衣裙展露了她緊實的雙臂。

This is exactly as it is in real life. Not long ago I gave a talk to a top US law firm at 11 in the morning. There were eight women lawyers in the room, five of whom were slavishly doing a Sandberg in tight, unforgiving dresses in block colours and crippling, towering heels. I am not sure at what point work became like this — a rigid cocktail party minus the cocktails — but it is vaguely troubling. We rightly make a fuss when receptionists wear heels because their employers demand it, but not about the women who feel obliged to dress this way because their colleagues do.

這跟現實生活中的情形儼然一模一樣。前不久的某天上午11點，我去一家美國的頂級律師事務所做演講。那里有8名女律師，她們中有5人都盲目地仿效著桑德伯格，身著緊身、不舒適的素色連衣裙，還蹬著恨天高。我不清楚從什么時候起工作變成了這樣——像一場死板的雞尾酒會，只是沒有雞尾酒——而這讓人隱隱不安。當雇主們要求接待人員穿高跟鞋時，我們理所當然地憤憤不平，而對于女士們因為同事們都這樣穿而認為自己有必要效仿時，我們卻無動于衷。

These industries employ ambitious, competitive people — and it is no surprise if dress becomes as competitive as everything else. The buildings they work in make it worse. Banking and consulting offices are competing with each other to be the shiniest, the smartest, the most blandly ostentatious — encouraging the people in them to do likewise. As the floral displays, the expanses of limestone, the modern art get more excessive, so do the shoes, the handbags and the tailoring of the people who work there.

從事這些行當的人都野心勃勃又爭強好勝——他們在穿戴上互相攀比不足為奇。他們工作的寫字樓助長了這種風氣。銀行和咨詢公司都在辦公室的裝潢上相互較勁，都希望自己的辦公室最氣派、最時尚、最平淡而又鋪張——鼓勵在那里工作的人們也效仿這種風格。隨著辦公室使用的花卉展示、石材以及現代藝術越來越夸張，員工們的鞋子、手袋和服裝也越發(fā)華而不實。

The way people dress exposes two of the great lies of corporate life: diversity and authenticity. Not long ago I attended a women’s conference in Asia, sponsored by a global investment bank. On the screen, the words “The Power of Authenticity” were enormous, and staring at them sat 700 immaculate, high-heeled women swallowing unquestioningly a series of platitudes about the importance of being themselves. The only diversity in evidence was that while some were wearing Miu Miu, others were in Diane Von Furstenberg and Burberry.

人們怎么穿著暴露了職場生活的兩大謊言：多樣性和真實性。前不久我參加了亞洲一個婦女大會，這場會議是由某個國際投行贊助的。會場的大屏幕上，赫然顯示著“真實的力量”，在座的700名衣著完美、腳踩高跟鞋的女性注視著這幾個詞，卻不加質疑地接受著一套套陳詞濫調，告訴她們“做真實的自己”有多重要。唯一看得出“多樣性”的地方是她們有的穿著繆繆(Miu Miu)，有的選擇黛安•馮芙絲汀寶(Diane Von Furstenberg)和博柏利(Burberry)。

Last week I turned up to a meeting at an investment bank in flat boots and a navy blue corduroy shirt-dress that came from Uniqlo and cost £29.99. It was more or less the right size, newish and cleanish. The only flesh on display was hands, neck and face. It was practical, demure and comfortable.

前些天我去一家投行開會，那天我穿了一雙平底靴和一條在優(yōu)衣庫(Uniqlo)花29.99英鎊買的海軍藍燈芯絨襯衫連衣裙。這條裙子的尺碼對我差不多恰好合適，幾乎全新還很干凈。只露出雙手、脖子和臉。實穿、端莊又舒服。

As I looked around at the other people, men in fabulously tailored suits and women in shapely jackets and discreet gold earrings, I felt as outlandish as Toni Erdmann. I was at a distinct disadvantage. I was a weirdo, a pauper, distinctly inferior.

我看了看周圍的人，發(fā)現男士們都穿著剪裁精良的西裝，而女士們都穿著有型的短上衣還搭配著低調的金質耳飾，我發(fā)覺自己就像托尼•厄德曼一樣格格不入。我處在一個明顯的劣勢。那一刻，我是一個怪人，一個叫花子，明顯低人一等。

I am not sure who benefits from the extravagant, super-sleek, super-bland dress code. Possibly clients are more likely to trust advisers who dress professionally, but only up to a point. Customers cannot enjoy being systematically out-dressed.

我不確定這種奢華的、超級時髦而又無比平淡的著裝規(guī)范對誰有好處。也許客戶們更有可能信任那些穿得像專業(yè)人士的顧問，但這必定是有限度的?？蛻舨豢赡芟矚g在穿著上被系統(tǒng)性地壓過風頭。

Unless the point is that by subtly humiliating their clients, bankers lawyers and consultants find it easier to lord it over them, making them less likely to protest at being charged the fees that make such extravagant wardrobes possible.

除非是這樣的邏輯：銀行家、律師和咨詢師們發(fā)現，通過在細微的地方讓客戶難為情，他們會更容易把客戶玩弄于股掌之上，使客戶不敢對收費提出異議，從而讓他們買得起奢華的行頭。

[email protected] 譯者/偲言