I'm going to start with a disclaimer: if you like more formal professional dress, if it brings you joy and makes you more comfortable, that's absolutely fine, as is clothing required for the safety and protection of workers, and professions which require a uniform.

I do, however, want to examine formal professional dress as it relates to enforced dress codes and aesthetic expectations, to explore what the origins, motivations and potential risks of these codes might be.

Last week I spoke about the need for more accessible working conditions and highlighted that working from home has helped many people to burst the bubble of the "professional" aesthetic. For the sake of brevity I left out a lot of the stuff I had wanted to say, but I think this subject deserves its own feature, so I’m going to explore the nuance of just what ‘professionalism’ looks like, and the ways in which we approach such an aesthetic as a society.

For many people compulsory professional dress in the workplace feels uncomfortable, unnecessary and overly formal, with nearly one-in-three of workers wanting to ditch formal dress in favour of slightly more casual clothes.

READ MORE: Brexit, The Beano: Boris the Menace image evoked: Ian McConnell

This notion may seem ludicrous to a lot of people, as the notion of what “professionalism” looks like is so deeply ingrained in the cultural mindset, with specific emphasis placed upon formality and uniformity in order to be perceived a certain way.

The employment company Indeed gives workers the helpful advice that, "Dressing professionally refers to wearing clothes and accessories designed for a professional workplace. Professional outfits are modest, well-tailored and free of images or graphics. Your clothes should be clean, ironed and free of rips, holes or stains."

There are many things to be unpacked even in that short, broad definition, not least using professional to define itself, along with the assumption that workers can find and afford well-tailored clothes, which often requires the use of a bespoke service if your body doesn’t match ready-to-wear outfits.

Something that stood out to me were references to "modesty", rather a nebulous and undefined idea which changes from country to class to culture.

I looked up the definition of modesty in a few different dictionaries to avoid bias. Oxford says it’s, "behaviour, manner, or appearance intended to avoid impropriety or indecency," which begs the question of exactly what kind of impropriety or indecency is prevented through the presence or absence of formal but not casual clothing, while Cambridge dictionary defines it as, "correct or socially acceptable behaviour and clothes, representing traditional cultural values."

READ MORE: EDITOR'S PICK: Sunshine with The Boss and a busy week in football

It's important to consider that different cultures possess vastly different values and traditions. Some cultures prefer the covering of the head, hair or neck, the ankles, wrists or hands, many have different rules for what constitutes modesty for people of different genders or ages, some adapt their rules on modesty for warmer or cooler climates. None of these different codes, rules, traditions and ideas of modesty can be viewed as better or worse, right or wrong.

It might seem hyperbolic to say that the concept of professionalism as it relates to dress codes in the workplace is being used to perpetuate classist, racist and sexist cultural attitudes, although in practice we can see many examples of the kind of unfairness people experience under the guise of professionalism.

Rawiri Waititi, the co-leader of the Māori Party, was ejected from Pāremata Aotearoa, the New Zealand Parliament, when he chose to wear his hei-tiki, a traditional Māori pendant, in place of the prescribed tie with his suit. Waititi made his feelings clear, describing the compulsory tie as a "colonial noose" and emphasising that, “It’s not about ties – it’s about cultural identity, mate.”

This situation – and many like it – display the challenges presented by defining professionalism in the workplace as embodying “traditions and cultural values” in a post-colonial, diverse and multicultural environment.

In America, the Crown Coalition reports that Black women’s hair is 2.5 times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional, forcing to two-thirds of Black women to change their natural hairstyle for a job interview.

READ MORE: Scotland: We are separated from England by more than a border

This level of discrimination and the frequent weaponisation of ‘professionalism’ against protective and natural hair styles and textures lead to the introduction of the Crown Act, which seeks, "to ensure protection against discrimination based on race-based hairstyles by extending statutory protection to hair texture and protective styles such as braids, locs, twists, and knots in the workplace and public schools."

Indeed, many codes and expectations that exist in the workplace embody the kind of sexism that can make the professional sphere seem exclusionary or even hostile to women.

Earlier this year the republican-controlled Missouri state house came under fire as they made a change to their professional dress code – an amendment requiring women to have their arms covered at all times. Democrat state rep Ashley Aune said of the amendment, "Do you know what it feels like to have a bunch of men in this room looking at your top trying to determine if it’s appropriate or not?”

Indeed, although explicitly sexist dress codes are ostensibly illegal, a cultural hangover remains in the implicit expectations placed upon women in the workplace, as can be seen through a study by The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston University, which found that women who wore a "professional" amount of make-up were perceived by others as more "capable, reliable, amiable and competent" than those not wearing make-up.

It’s important to be aware of your rights as they relate to keeping your employer in check. The UK Government policy document on discriminatory dress codes states that, “If you think your employer or potential employer has discriminated against you in their dress code or in any other way and you cannot resolve the issue informally, you should speak to your HR Department or trade union representative if you have one, who will advise you of your options. You can also apply for early conciliation at Acas, which you and your employer would attend. If this conciliation does not resolve the dispute, you may take your case to an employment tribunal. If the tribunal upholds your claim, you may be entitled to compensation and repayment of any costs.”

Considering the increasing number of British workers ready to ease up in formal wear at work, employers might do well to consider prioritising employees' comfort and choice.

Does the skill-set of a worker decrease when he removes his tie? Is an employee with their arms covered more competent? Is the workforce less capable, respectable or worthy of their job when not engaging in the aesthetic performance of professionalism?

It often seems that standards of formality are employed to give an impression of positive attributes based on societal expectations of class and social standing, while excluding those who do not meet this constructed standard, maintaining a more divided and hierarchical society. However, as we see every day, an honest worker dressed informally is no less honest, and a liar in formal dress is no less a liar.