It seems almost impossible to imagine getting dressed without them. That small, often unnoticed slit or patch sewn into our trousers, jackets, shirts, or skirts – the humble pocket. We instinctively reach for them to stash keys, phones, loose change, or just to rest our hands. They feel like an intrinsic part of clothing, as fundamental as sleeves or buttons. Yet, pockets as we know them are a relatively recent innovation in the long history of human attire, and their arrival fundamentally reshaped not just how clothes looked, but how people interacted with their world.
Before the Pocket: A World of Pouches and Bags
For centuries, carrying personal items wasn’t a matter of slipping them into a sewn-in compartment. Instead, people relied on external solutions. Think of medieval peasants or Renaissance merchants – they would typically use separate pouches or small bags, often made of leather or cloth, tied around the waist or slung over the shoulder. These weren’t integrated into the garment itself. They were accessories, necessary additions for carrying coins, tools, or other small necessities.
These early “pockets” were often visible and, consequently, vulnerable. Pickpockets, or “cutpurses” as they were aptly named, could literally cut the strings of a purse and make off with its contents. Security was a constant concern. For women, these tie-on pockets were often worn under voluminous skirts, accessed through slits in the outer layers – offering a degree of concealment but still remaining separate entities rather than built-in features.
Historically, tie-on pockets worn by women under their skirts were often elaborately embroidered. These weren’t just functional; they were personal items, sometimes containing keepsakes alongside daily necessities. Museums often preserve these beautifully crafted examples, showcasing a hidden aspect of women’s material culture from the 17th to 19th centuries.
This system persisted for a surprisingly long time. While functional, it lacked the seamless convenience and security that integrated pockets would eventually offer. The need for a better way to carry small essentials was palpable, even if the solution took time to develop and become widespread.
The Great Integration: Pockets Become Part of the Garment
The shift began tentatively around the late 16th and early 17th centuries, primarily in men’s fashion. Tailors started experimenting with sewing bags or pieces of fabric directly into the linings of breeches and waistcoats. This was revolutionary. Suddenly, valuables could be carried closer to the body, hidden from view and much harder for thieves to access. These early internal pockets marked a significant leap in practicality and personal security.
Men’s clothing, particularly tailored items like coats and trousers, readily adopted this innovation. Pockets became status symbols, indicating a man had things worth carrying and protecting. The design of men’s wear evolved to accommodate them. Tailoring techniques became more sophisticated to incorporate welt pockets, jetted pockets, and patch pockets without disrupting the garment’s silhouette excessively. The very structure of men’s suits and jackets became intrinsically linked to the inclusion of multiple, functional pockets – inside breast pockets, hip pockets, ticket pockets, watch pockets. It was a practical evolution driven by need and facilitated by the relatively stable, structured nature of masculine attire.
The Gender Pocket Gap
While men’s clothing rapidly embraced integrated pockets, women’s fashion followed a vastly different trajectory. For centuries, the emphasis in women’s wear was often on silhouette and aesthetics, dictated by corsetry and voluminous skirts. Integrated pockets were seen as bulky additions that would ruin the desired lines of a dress. Fashion favoured external bags, like the small, often decorative drawstring bags known as reticules, which became popular in the late 18th and early 19th centuries after slimmer dress styles made under-skirt pockets impractical.
This lack of built-in pockets wasn’t merely a fashion choice; it reflected societal expectations and limitations placed upon women. Without pockets, women were implicitly more reliant on others or constrained in what they could carry independently. Their clothing often prioritized form over function, aesthetics over autonomy. Carrying capacity was outsourced to handbags, reinforcing a separation between the woman’s body and her personal effects – a stark contrast to men’s attire, where pockets signified self-sufficiency.
Pockets, Practicality, and Changing Times
The Industrial Revolution and subsequent social shifts began to slowly change the landscape for pockets in women’s wear, though progress was uneven. As women entered the workforce in greater numbers, participated in sports, or campaigned for suffrage, the need for practical clothing with functional pockets became more apparent. The World Wars were significant turning points, as women took on roles previously held by men, requiring utilitarian clothing like trousers and overalls – garments where pockets were a necessity, not a frivolity.
Designers gradually started incorporating pockets more thoughtfully into women’s dresses, skirts, and jackets. However, the disparity often persisted, and indeed, continues today. Many women’s garments still feature purely decorative “pockets” (the dreaded faux pocket) or pockets so small they’re practically useless. This ongoing “pocket inequality” remains a point of frustration, highlighting how clothing design can subtly reflect and reinforce gendered assumptions about activity and independence.
The design decision to omit or shrink pockets in women’s clothing isn’t always purely aesthetic. It can be influenced by manufacturing costs, as functional pockets require more fabric and construction time. However, it also perpetuates the reliance on handbags, a separate market entirely. Be mindful of how clothing choices can impact daily convenience and reflect broader design philosophies.
Beyond gender, the universal adoption of pockets fundamentally altered daily life for everyone. They freed the hands. Carrying money, identification, keys, tools, and eventually technological devices became effortless. Pockets supported mobility and independence, allowing people to move through the world with their essentials readily accessible. Think about the simple act of paying for goods, unlocking a door, or checking the time on a pocket watch (and later, a phone) – pockets made these interactions smoother and more integrated into the flow of life.
The Enduring Legacy of the Pocket
Today, pockets are everywhere, in countless variations. We have the deep, utilitarian pockets of cargo pants, specialized pockets designed for smartphones or tools, hidden security pockets in travel wear, and the classic configurations in jeans and jackets. High fashion designers play with pocket placement, size, and style, sometimes making them focal points, other times concealing them entirely for minimalist aesthetics.
Their influence is undeniable:
- Design: Pockets dictate seams, structure, and bulk in garment construction. Their presence or absence is a key design choice.
- Practicality: They remain the primary way most people carry immediate necessities, enhancing convenience and self-sufficiency.
- Social Context: The history of pockets, particularly the gender gap, reveals much about societal roles and expectations embedded in clothing.
From a simple external pouch to a sophisticated integrated feature, the journey of the pocket mirrors broader changes in technology, society, and style. It’s a small detail that speaks volumes about how we live, what we value, and how we carry ourselves – and our belongings – through the world. The next time you instinctively slide your hand into a pocket, take a moment to appreciate this revolutionary little compartment; clothing, and life, would be remarkably different without it.
