性感而又平淡的职场“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、管理咨询公司以及顶级律师事务所工作的那些人上班时的穿着都很荒唐。当然，他们说起话来也是一样。

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.

这个想法是我在不久前观看《托尼•厄德曼》(Toni Erdmann)时冒出来的，在这部德国喜剧电影中，一位年轻的管理咨询师在上班时，她的老爸不期而至，顶着一头乱蓬蓬的棕色假发，穿着一身反光的西服，还戴着一副像是从笑料铺子淘来的假牙。

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.

当他拖着庞大而又邋遢的身躯费力地走过光鲜的办公室时，我突然醒悟过来：怪诞的并不是戴着一口假牙几乎没法说话的他，而是那些咨询师，他们个个光鲜靓丽，却又看起来千人一面。

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.

过去10年，薪水最高的那些人看上去更趋同也更极端。他们都不得不遵循以下不成文的着装要求：1.再贵也不过分;2.色调再单一也不过分;3.再平淡也不过分。

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.

没人胆敢展露个性。唯一令自己脱颖而出的办法，就是让自己看起来比别人更加光鲜更加有钱。这些规则对男女都适用，只不过后者还要克服一个额外的障碍。那就是女人们必须使自己看上去尽可能性感，同时又不能显得没有品味。雪莉•桑德伯格(Sheryl Sandberg)做到了这一点，而金•卡戴珊(Kim Kardashian)则没有。

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》中那位年轻的管理咨询师穿着很得体。高跟鞋和质地精良的深色套装凸显了臀部的曼妙曲线，而无袖连衣裙展露了她紧实的双臂。

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.

这跟现实生活中的情形俨然一模一样。前不久的某天上午11点，我去一家美国的顶级律师事务所做演讲。那里有8名女律师，她们中有5人都盲目地仿效着桑德伯格，身着紧身、不舒适的素色连衣裙，还蹬着恨天高。我不清楚从什么时候起工作变成了这样——像一场死板的鸡尾酒会，只是没有鸡尾酒——而这让人隐隐不安。当雇主们要求接待人员穿高跟鞋时，我们理所当然地愤愤不平，而对于女士们因为同事们都这样穿而认为自己有必要效仿时，我们却无动于衷。

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.

从事这些行当的人都野心勃勃又争强好胜——他们在穿戴上互相攀比不足为奇。他们工作的写字楼助长了这种风气。银行和咨询公司都在办公室的装潢上相互较劲，都希望自己的办公室最气派、最时尚、最平淡而又铺张——鼓励在那里工作的人们也效仿这种风格。随着办公室使用的花卉展示、石材以及现代艺术越来越夸张，员工们的鞋子、手袋和服装也越发华而不实。

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.

人们怎么穿着暴露了职场生活的两大谎言：多样性和真实性。前不久我参加了亚洲一个妇女大会，这场会议是由某个国际投行赞助的。会场的大屏幕上，赫然显示着“真实的力量”，在座的700名衣着完美、脚踩高跟鞋的女性注视着这几个词，却不加质疑地接受着一套套陈词滥调，告诉她们“做真实的自己”有多重要。唯一看得出“多样性”的地方是她们有的穿着缪缪(Miu Miu)，有的选择黛安•冯芙丝汀宝(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开会，那天我穿了一双平底靴和一条在优衣库(Uniqlo)花29.99英镑买的海军蓝灯芯绒衬衫连衣裙。这条裙子的尺码对我差不多恰好合适，几乎全新还很干净。只露出双手、脖子和脸。实穿、端庄又舒服。

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.

我看了看周围的人，发现男士们都穿着剪裁精良的西装，而女士们都穿着有型的短上衣还搭配着低调的金质耳饰，我发觉自己就像托尼•厄德曼一样格格不入。我处在一个明显的劣势。那一刻，我是一个怪人，一个叫花子，明显低人一等。

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.

我不确定这种奢华的、超级时髦而又无比平淡的着装规范对谁有好处。也许客户们更有可能信任那些穿得像专业人士的顾问，但这必定是有限度的。客户不可能喜欢在穿着上被系统性地压过风头。

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.

除非是这样的逻辑：银行家、律师和咨询师们发现，通过在细微的地方让客户难为情，他们会更容易把客户玩弄于股掌之上，使客户不敢对收费提出异议，从而让他们买得起奢华的行头。

lucy.kellaway@ft.com 译者/偲言