Existentialism Discussion Assignment: Uniformity, Freedom, and Meaning
The Dissucsion POST INstructions
For this discussion, students will imagine a society where everyone is required to wear the same daily uniform, and personal style or individual expression through clothing is not allowed. Any attempt to dress differently brings consequences. This scenario is meant to help students think about existentialist themes such as freedom, authenticity, responsibility, individuality, anxiety, bad faith, and the creation of meaning.
Students should use at least one philosopher from the week’s readings to explain their own existential beliefs. They should also reflect on whether they have ever felt restricted by a dress code or uniform and how that experience shaped their understanding of freedom and personal identity.
The discussion should also consider when, if ever, uniforms are justified. For example, uniforms may serve practical purposes related to safety, professionalism, identification, or fairness. Students should evaluate whether those reasons can outweigh a person’s desire for personal choice and self-expression.
Finally, students should think carefully about the phrase “I had no choice.” Are people still responsible for their choices when outside pressures are strong? Can meaning still be created when freedom is limited? The goal is to explore whether human beings can remain authentic and responsible even in a society built around enforced sameness.
MY RESPONSE: This is to prompt a discussion with my students
Existentialism resonates with me because it will not allow human beings to completely hide behind systems, roles, rules, or excuses. Jean- Paul Sartre’ existential concept of “bad faith” really helps me understand why a uniformed society could be dangerous. Bad faith is when someone lies to themselves about their own freedom and responsibility. They convince themselves they are merely a role, merely a function, or just following orders. When everyone is forced to wear the same clothing, the danger is not simply that we lose fashion options. The danger is that people may gradually lose the practice of viewing themselves as free individuals who must choose, reflect, and live honestly.
My existential belief is that freedom is not the ability to do whatever I want. Freedom is the ability to live within my circumstances truthfully and responsibly. I have come to understand that a person can go through the motions of being busy, successful, religious, responsible, productive, and still be utterly bored, numb, or disconnected from life. Authenticity to me is being aware of where I am, what I’m choosing, and what’s trying to manipulate me. If uniforms taught people to blindly obey or if everyone looked the same and we stopped celebrating unique characteristics; then a uniformed society would threaten my ability to stay conscious of my life.
I have lived under restrictions based on religious, professional, and cultural expectations of appearance. In many church and leadership environments there are assumptions about how a person should dress, speak, carry themselves, and behave. Some of those standards are good because they promote respect, organization, or intentionality. But they can become unhealthy when people hide who they really are behind a socially acceptable mask. To me, that goes against my existential philosophy because I believe that part of our soul dies when we conform to everyone else’ standards and stop expressing truth about who we are.
I do think there are many work environments where uniform requirements are justified. Safety, brand identification, sanitation, and professionalism can play a big role. Firefighters, nurses, police officers, factory workers, and food service workers may need to wear specific uniforms to complete their jobs. When people are wearing uniforms because the work they do requires it; the uniform does not seem to be about stripping away identity. But when uniformity is forced on people to promote rigidity, punish individuality, or make lives easier to monitor; then it crosses into unethical for me. Context matters.
“I had no choice” is a complex statement. On one level, existentialists would say nobody ever has that excuse. We almost always have a choice. However, I also think we have to acknowledge that external forces can make the idea of choosing extremely risky. Abuse, poverty, fear of punishment, physical survival, family obligations; these can limit a persons freedom in ways that feeling free is actually a dangerous privilege. So while someone might still be making a choice; it may no longer feel like a choice.
Meaning can be found even in a totalitarian world. I believe humans would still create meaning through relationships, work, bravery, kindness, creativity in private, small acts of moral resistance, or how they treat others. Someone may not have the freedom to choose what they want to wear, but they can still choose if they want to be bitter, numb, resentful, empathetic, truthful, or brave. This doesn’t mean oppression is okay, but it does mean the human spirit cannot be completely regulated by rules.
The deeper existential question this scenario provokes in me is not “Can I wear what I want to wear?” but “How can I stay awake, honest, and responsible when everything in my world tells me to conform and fade into invisibility?” To me that is where true freedom starts.