Fashion as one of the components of life

Fashion mainly refers to anything which is popular in a culture at any given time, it is inclusive of areas such as; style of dress, cuisine, literature, art, architecture, fashion trends and many other popular factors. Coco Chanel said, “Fashion is not something that exists in dresses only. Fashion is in the sky, in the street, fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening.” Fashion is readily accessible so it is easy for an individual to use it to express themself to others as it helps to show who they are and depict their personality in the terms of visual information. Andy Bennett (2005) confirms that, “fashion provides one of the most ready means through which individuals can make expressive individual statements about their identities”. He also points out that “of the many commodities and leisure resources through which individuals in contemporary society construct and play out identities in their everyday lives fashion plays a central role”.

It is particularly necessary for individuals to express their individuality and position themselves in relation to others in modern society because of the fast pace of life and anonomity of it, as theorist J Entwistle observes “fashion is particularly relevant in the context of ‘the modern city (where) we mingle with crowds of strangers”. Bennett argues that the relative anomonity of modern day life “calls for highly visual and relatively instantaneous means of asserting one’s identity”. Fashion enables a person to do this and consequently can be an influential resource, so the statement that “fashion is a key resource through which individuals in late modernity construct their identities and position themselves in relation to others” seems to certainly be evident in modern society and this may be because of this easy accessibility and power to influence. This essay will focus on just how key a resource fashion is in constructing an individual’s identity and will be looking at feminists and how they have used fashion to position themselves in relation to others in society.”

Feminism has been chosen to demonstrate this statement because fashion in modern society is associated primarily with women. Fashion like many other things with this association can be dismissed as trivial, but it is far from trivial if it shapes how we are read by others, especially on the levels of gender, class and race. In turn, how we’re read determines how we are treated, especially in the workforce—whether we are hired, promoted and respected, and how well we are paid. It has been suggested by many critics that clothes can change society's ideas of sex, gender and the roles of men and women. As theorist Finkelsten observes; “ in everyday life, fashioned appearances [are interpreted] as literalizations of the wearers character, sexual preferences, economic success and educational attainment”.

The meaning of ‘Identity’ as we now know it derives mainly from the work of psychologist Erik Erikson in the 1950’s: ‘an identity can refer to either (a) a social category, defined by membership rules and (alleged) characteristic attributes or expected behaviours, or (b) socially distinguishing features that a person takes a special pride in or views as unchangeable but socially consequential (or (a) and (b) at once)”. In the latter sense, identity "is a modern formulation of dignity, pride, or honour that implicitly links these to social categories”. It can be argued that although fashion may be a key resource it can not be the only resources to construct an individual’s identity. This is because identity is restricted by both needing to fit into a type and also by market forces. For example a woman may have loved dresses, heels and other feminine attire but in the1970’s may have restricted her identity by rejecting these feminine garments, in order to position herself into the social category of feminist.

This was because as theorist Negrin (2008) points out that “until the late 1980’s the predominant attitude of feminists towards fashion was a largely hostile one as it was regarded primarily as an instrument of oppression in which women were turned into passive objects of the male gaze”. Anthony Giddens (1991) states “What to do? How to act? Who to be? These are focal questions for everyone living in the circumstances of late modernity – and ones which, on some level or another, all of us answer, either discursively or through day-to-day social behaviour” . Considering these facts, Giddens proposes “ that self-identity is not composed of set characteristics, rather the individual reflexively creates an understanding of their own biography in the form of an on-going narrative which aims to provide the social actor with a consistent sense of self, and yet may be revised in response to circumstance”. An example of a revision in response to circumstance was in the 1980s when women responded to circumstances and appropriated men’s styles of dress in an attempt to access the social and economic capital that lay in the work place.

Career women practiced power dressing, wearing tailored skirt suits with huge shoulder pads, approximating the style and silhouette of the professional male executive. Yet such adaptations of men’s fashion and styles are rarely without small feminine touches. Sociologist Jan Felshin coined the term ‘feminine apologetic’ to describe how the pearls or ruffles on a woman’s professional attire serve as disclaimers: “I may be powerful but I’m not masculine”. In modern society it can be difficult for strong women to portray their identity and comfortably fit into their desired role in society without attracting criticism an example being U.S. politician and former first lady, Hillary Clinton who has experienced the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t double bind for strong women. If she wears a power trouser suit it’s a “desexualized uniform,” but if she shows a hint of cleavage, as she famously did in 2007,(image below) it can ignite a media firestorm that eclipses her political platform. It seems therefore that Clinton has had to revise her identity (her feminine side) in order to position herself in relation to others (men) in politics.

Hilary Clinton

In contrast to Clinton another strong woman Dita Von Teese has successfully used femininine fashion to narrate and strengthen her identity and establish her role in society. However, this may not have been as difficult since Von Teese is not attempting to establish a role in a traditionally male society (politics).Von Teese is a burlesque dancer, writer, model and in 2012 she launched her own clothing line and underwear line called, Von Follies. She was an ambassador/spokesmodel for HIV/AIDS awareness and has appeared in Vanity Fair, Vogue, Elle, and international issues of nearly every fashion magazine. She has campaigned on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and appeared in their ads.

Von Teese seems to have achieved this without compromising her identity and love for feminine fashion. Von Teese seems to use fashion as a source of personal pleasure she is quoted to have said when discussing Jean Paul Gautier “ Jean Paul has a lot of the same obsessions that I do, like corsetry, ballet-peach satin and silks, black silk velvet, bullet bras and girdles”. Bennett points out that “in addition to informing the external gaze that fashion in late modernity also provides a source of highly personalised pleasure. Not only from the visual aspects of fashion but also from the cut and feeling of the clothing itself, this contributing significantly to the individuals phenomological experience of the everyday”. According to Finkelstein “Fashionability can involve highly sensualised experiences. The feel of fabric can evoke private pleasures. Being clothed in a desirable ensemble can feed the individual’s fantasies of developing an alter ego”.

Giddens also argues that the impact of capitalism has consequences for how individuals construct the project of the self. ‘Modernity opens up the project of the self, but under conditions strongly influenced by the standardising effects of commodity capitalism. So, although capitalism provides a vast and diverse range of products through which individuality may be expressed and attained, the available options are dictated by market forces. This means that the identity is reduced if you use only fashion to express it since there is a limited range of consumer choices. Even though there are limitations to using fashion as a resource of constructing identity it does as Bennett says “servea potent visual symbol in society, one which individuals use in an attempt to both assert their individuality and, at the same time, to align themselves with particular social groupings”.

He cites another theorist, Cannon to back up his theory; Cannon observes that individual’s use fashion “to indicate to themselves and others whether they think they belong with another individual or group, or whether they consider themselves another’s equal or superior”. History has shown that feminists harnessed fashion and used it as a potent visual symbol in society for their own political purposes. When the pleas for women’s equality fell on deaf ears, suffragists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries made quite literal fashion statements. Green, white and violet jewelry was a favored suffragist accessory, but not because of any aesthetic imperative: The first letters of each color— G, W, V—was shorthand for give women votes. Pamela Church Gibson (2006) points out that “for a full understanding of the workings of a given society- including the globalised world in which we now live – the different ways in which people choose to adorn themselves must be studied carefully and if you like decoded. Only then can we fully understand the rules, the ideas, the behaviour and the attitude of that society ”.

However, this has not always been the case, J Entwistle (2000) says that until the 18th century “there was nothing between the dress of men and women with the nobility of both sexes wearing ornate clothing in rich colours and fabrics, as well as makeup, wigs and perfume. “ By the close of the 15th century, fashionable dress had become so fantastical and absurd that it was difficult to tell men and women at a distance” (1985) “ Tall hats and high heels worn by both sexes would have evened out differences in height between men and women” Craik(1994) states that from the eighteenth century in western Europe male fashion has received less attention than womens.This is due to the introduction of the suit for men becoming the “perfect multi occasion garment” and the ideal that it symbolised respectability because “social success was predicated on it so men had to convey a serious (business like) demeanour created by wearing sombre clothes”. Women still wore very feminine attire which sharply contrasted with the male respectable, business like image which would therefore identify their role socially as frivolous and not to be taken as seriously as that of a man. Women have therefore had to fight this image of not being taken seriously and it is therefore understandable why feminists rejected feminine fashion and perhaps their whole identity in order to position themselves in society. Fashion has been a key resource for them in both positive and negative ways to construct their identity and establish a serious role in modern society in relation to others.