This Economist article focuses on the jewelry that female politicians wear. The writer, Anne McElvoy, mostly focuses on decoding the messages and reasons behind certain looks and pieces. She follows several political figures, but I liked the paragraph that focused on Clinton best.

There has been a shift in the jewelry of Hillary Clinton from 2007 to present. She used to wear diamonds and large sapphire or gold earrings but has shifted to wearing small hoop earrings, a small chain and a bracelet that contains pictures of her granddaughter Charlotte. It is clear that Clinton is using jewelry to send a message here, specifically that she is relatable and not overly extravagant. I think it is interesting that before 2008 she wore jewelry representative of a first lady, but in the current election has shifted her look. This reminds me of her other “makeover” in 1979.

The piece goes on to examine how many female political figures have used jewelry to send a message or present themselves in a certain light. The article mentions that Michelle Obama purposefully wears inexpensive fake pearls from Banana Republic to both give off a Jackie Kennedy vibe while also appearing accessible. She is so accessible in her style that she has entire magazine articles online dedicated to how to recreate looks from her “jewelry box.”

What other ways has Clinton used visual rhetoric to her advantage? Are women ever able to use the double standard to their advantage, by sending messages through clothing and jewelry? What ways have other political figures used jewelry to send messages?

McElvoy, Anne. “Jewel Purpose.” 1843 Magazine. The Economist, Oct.-Nov. 2016. Web. 1 Oct. 2016.

Image Via 1843 Magazine; The Economist

Advertisements