Theory and Discourse - 07!25!2011 - REDRAFT1

Concerning Theories and Discourse
For us the essence of aesthetic observation and interpretation lies in the fact that the typical is to be found in what is unique, the law-like in the fortuitous, the essence and significance of things in the superficial and transitory
1
Dress and fashion are often referred to as hybrid subjects as they bring together wide-ranging conceptual frameworks and interdisciplinary approaches in their study. 2 A pervasive phenomenon, such as dress, invariably is subject to much scrutiny and commentaries, particularly as it deals with self-production, the manner in which people supplement and modify the body, interact with and observe others, and are present as selves. There is a spirit of imagination at play in the human practice of adorning, re-creating or re-designing the body and the environment the body inhabits, whether drawing on inspiration from social contexts or from other cultures. Within this framework, dress as an activity, or practice, provides a means through which people can express their personal attachment to a certain cultural ideal, in an individualized and presentative manner.3 Attesting to the importance of clothing and its intimate relationship with personal identity, beauty, style and taste criticism of sartorial expression often arouse more intense reaction than criticism of other consumer objects (a car, computer or house).4
Mads Ascanius, EVDS MDP, 2011 Un-Buttoned Between Nature and Culture: Perspectives on Identity, Fashion, Body & Garment Supervisor: Barry Wylant
2
Articulated in inanimate objects, social norms, values and practices, fashion is not generally considered universal, as in something found in all cultures at all times.5 It is often viewed as a phenomenon unique to western civilization, a cultural logic or mechanism that over time has applied itself to almost any area of contemporary society, and not just to the cut or fit of clothing and dress.6 As a mass phenomenon in modern society fashion has historically been seen as a launching pad for novelty and as such an ally of the avant-garde, associated with influential trends, famous designers, cosmopolitan centers and everything we find innovative, and exciting. It is frequently defined by time, and by space, as it establishes itself in the situated practice of dress, connected with the human body and its environment, and to the changes occurring as a consequence of our concerns with aesthetic expression, individuation and the principle of the new.7 Fashion (la mode) is commonly associated with consumer culture, consumer objects, (clothing, cars, cookware and such) and with lifestyle choices, although more attention is generally paid to sartorial fashion, possibly because dress has such an intimate relationship with the human body and by extension identity which in modern theories of fashion is viewed as significant.8 Considered in broad context as a complex and ever-changing social and cultural system with a wide impact, fashion has imposed its logic on almost every area of modern society and as a consequence, plays a measurable role in the understanding of modern
3
behaviours.9 The phenomenon of fashion addressed here can as such be understood, in a very general sense, as the location of people s experiences of, and negotiations with, modern life. Bearing in mind that it permeates not only the idea of dress but many other areas of cultural activity such as art, politics, science and technology, and a wide range of issues and ideologies, fashion is indeed a phenomenon that is central to human agency.10 Fashion as a culturally embedded phenomenon which cannot be isolated as an independent variable and must at all times be seen in context of movements in the social, political and technological landscapes and how it is framed within the prevailing aesthetic and ethical discourse, intimately associated with the process of individuation. 11
If fashion is neither a purpose working toward some omega point or an aimless random walk, what is it? It can be said that fashion is, literally, creative; making itself almost exploratory as diverging threads, purposeful insofar as it has a direction (toward greater flexibility, spontaneity, awareness), and aimless in that its goals are not pre-established and have to be achieved in transit. Fashion thus sits at the threshold between the mechanisms of practice and culture, its teleology or reason for being. One might ask, what fashion can tell us of the societies in which it emerges, of changing discourses on the body, appearance, and the formation of identity.
4
Dynamics and Logic The questions and explanations concerning dress and fashion often attempt to clarify why we wear clothes. Endeavouring to find and develop an all-inclusive explanation or macro-theory , they try to describe why an apparently irrational system of dress exists in the first place and secondly why fashions seem to continually change. Efforts seek to determine the reason for the rapid changes occurring, and how they involve and affect our human activities. Some suggest we dress for protection, others such as J.C. Flgel and James Laver, propose a link to our sense of modesty or sexual attractiveness. These theories are somewhat problematic yet telling. Modesty is by no means a universal principle in all cultures or sub-cultures, considering that even in extreme environments such as a Canadian winter people still will wear skimpy clothes, styles that can be both uncomfortable and impractical (and not in the least sexual in character).12 Over time three theories have become central in the efforts to understand fashion and particularly significant with respect to explaining the dynamics or logic of fashion: emulation, zeitgeist and shifting erogenous zones. The ideas of emulation or trickle-down theory has been highly influential in the study of dress and fashion, growing out of the pervasive ideas of social evolution and the application of Darwinism to society and culture. This idea, though most often ascribed to Thorstein Veblen and Georg Simmel likely finds its origins in theories on social change put forward by Herbert Spencer in his First Principles published in 1862, linking change with the processes of integration and differentiation. It additionally finds fuel through the sociologist Gabriel
5
de Tarde, who in his book The Laws of Imitation suggests that, desire is made up of social relations and laws of imitation , not only occurring in a downward pattern but also arising from below in the hierarchical structures of the social class system.13 Veblen and Simmel s theories are covered in some detail below, suffice it to say that, theories surrounding trickle effects are challenging in the framework of a modern society with its constant connectivity and rapid information diffusion and with the accessibility and variations in dress increasing in tandem with the at times break-neck turnover pace of the global fashion system. Zeitgeist, the mind/spirit of the age with its historical roots in the German romanticists and in particular with Hegel and his philosophy of history, often links variations in fashion with social, economic and political contexts, such as the length of hemlines associated with varying economic conditions, the abandonment of the corset due to the First World War and women entering the work force, and the emergence of the culottes as an effect of the French revolution. 14 Though, in particular circumstances, we can find certain logic in many of these explanations, dress frequently fails to reflect social climate, and zeitgeist in providing an ample justification for the emergence of fashion. A case in point is the varying length in hemlines, being long in poor economic conditions and short in flourishing economies, no evidence seems to suggest that this consistently has been true throughout history. 15 Within this discussion it is of value to consider that, frequently we see an outfit or fashion item as an integrated whole (a Gestalt), neglecting to observe the different time scales simultaneously at work in the instant snapshot we get
6
by glancing at a person in the street. It seems more appropriate in this context, to consider fashion and the particular garment as a product and meeting place of different historicities and not simply a frozen appearance of the here and now. While there is no doubt that eroticism plays a role in how we perceive dress and in some instances observe it as fetish, this (along with emulation and zeitgeist and many other theories) often appear somewhat linear, reductive and mechanistic in their cause and effect narratives, as they seek to find one overarching reason for human nature at play.16 They do not fully explain where particular styles of dress originate from or why they are adopted as a fashion at a certain time and not another. Rather, the presence and multiplicity of theories seems to suggest that, changes in dress and fashion are a more multifarious matter than simply linking it to shifting erogenous zones or neurotic impulses. Considering Tarde we can perhaps view the changes more as inventions or discoveries emerging over time and under somewhat obscure circumstances, involving self-conscious individual initiatives immersed in debated fashion frameworks concerned in part with class, gender and language and our varying relationships with the body.17
7
Gender Lifestyle, dress and the phenomenon of fashion have long been linked with gender and sexuality, and play an integral role in various theories exploring the manner whereby men and women express and manipulate their individual identities through the use of clothing and dress. Trying to understand the asymmetrical relationship between changes in women s versus men s fashion in the 19th century and how these changes have reflected shifts in gender roles, have drawn particular interest. Some theories have undertaken to explain how and why men acquired the suit as an occupational uniform in context of a new political anatomy in an expanding industrial society and why women largely became trapped in decorative impracticality and superficiality, seemingly perpetuating fashions reminiscent of a bygone era.18 In part this is seen as a reflection of a new social order and emergence of the modern consumer society where work largely is performed outside the home in the crowded industrialized cities, setting the tone for a distinct separation between work, home and leisure, in turn causing a re-evaluation of the dynamics of dress and the social roles of men and women a-like. With the introduction and refinement of the three piece suit through the eighteen hundreds, the limitations put on men s ability to indicate social status on their bodies was severely restricted.19 As men moved their primary economic and work related activities outside the home, their clothing became highly codified and the somber suit became a uniform synonymous with
8
industrial capitalism. The lavishness of pre-revolution France with its powdered wigs, embroidered waistcoats, tight fitting breeches and lace and ruffles and deeply associated with the irrational behaviours of the aristocracy, were now no longer considered manly and ill-suited for a man of the new industrial age. Women on the other hand experienced no such restrictions with respect to advertising wealth and status. Rather their roles shifted to become demonstrations of economic idleness and the prosperity and achievement of the men they were associated with.20 Taking a cue from Veblen and his economic theories, the stagnation in women s dress has been blamed on the hedonistic lifestyles and conspicuous consumption of the noveau riche, where wealth was not only acquired but also flaunted, making women into living mannequins , displays of industrial innovations and the successes of the 19th century patriarch.21 What had prior to the French Revolution been a shared passion and expression of status and wealth primarily becomes the occupation of women, keeping up with changing silhouettes and the latest developments in corsets, fabrics, and accessories (buttons, embroidery and lace). Behaviors connected with the consumption of fashions (though not a new association), and activities that are concerned with the domestic space also develops associations with femininity. What seemingly emerges, which Georg Simmel also refers to in his writings on fashion, is the manner in which to disclose or reveal one s self manifest in the female psyche in quite a different way than in the male. We see a clearer social formation and separation of gender identities in part made visible through the use of specialized clothing styles, apparent in the individuals social and cultural expression of fashion.
9
In anthropology this has brought forth the tension between some of the basic purposes of dress: display (exhibitionism) and modesty (prohibition), theories in large measure associated with John Carl Flgel and later James Laver (and his race to reproduce claim).22 Both seem to suggest that, the psychological dynamics between men and women such as assertion, seduction and sexual attractiveness play a determining role in the manner dress changes, and originates.23 Though Flgel draws extensively on psychoanalysis and likely was aware of Freud s sexual symbolism and the interpretation of garments in this context, this is not the focus of Flgel s work and ideas surrounding dress. For Flgel clothes are not merely appendages but an integral part of the socializing process, managing the social and cultural expectations imposed on the individual naked body at given times in the maturation process from child to adult and in the courses of adulthood. Clothes in this context aid in putting away childish things , playing an integral role in the general transformation or acculturation of Homo sapiens, in our journey from nature to culture.24 As such to understand the ambivalence of the reveal and conceal process so integral to human nature is, according to Flgel s and his Psychology of Clothes, linked to the understanding of how adults mediate and control modesty, and by default display, in the early formative years of the child. Through adult intervention the body is embroiled in morality, generational conflicts and politics manifesting itself in the individual s overall somatic disposition , over time displacing the urge to display , from the naked body onto clothing.25
10
As an extreme example of sexualization can be illustrated by the prevalent frills and skirting s concealing commodes and chair legs in the latter part of the 19th century as a response to the sexualization of women s ankles and in turn legs.
In contemporary western societies, our ideas surrounding sex and gender originate from a commonsense understanding of sexuality generally understood in the context of hetero-sexuality.26 The distinction between sex and gender in part finds its origins in Ann Oakley s Sex, Gender and Society where she describes the characteristics of men and women which are biologically determined (sex) making us female and male, as opposed to those we may consider socially and culturally constructed (gender) masculine and feminine.27 This distinction can be important to understanding how bodies acquire meaning (identity) in a cultural context and how various cultures observe differences between men and women. It can be of some interest to observe that men and women in terms of sex are only separated by one chromosome but that this chromosomal distinction, going back to the early Greek philosophers, divides the corporeal world like a scalpel , and as such the symbolic and ritual , somatic and sensory behaviours and meanings associated with the two sexes.28 Gender roles can vary significantly from one culture to another and from one social group to another within the same culture, and age, class, economics and ethnic context can all influence what is generally considered gender.29 Affected by the
dynamic character of culture, and in step with the occurrence of cultural adjustment, socio-economic conditions and values vary in
11
time. As a consequence gender patterns, and in turn the perception of gender in society, change with them. For the American philosopher Judith Butler gender roles are observed as stylized acts appearing as they are repeated over time making the ideas of gender, as well as sex and sexuality, performative involuntary choices, and thus cultural constructs. This is in part a result of what she names regulative discourses , borrowing from Michel Foucault s iscipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.30 Distinctions of gender (and sex) can give emphasis to and affect everything men and women do and what is expected of them. However, gender is a dynamic concept, changing over time and according to varying personal, social and cultural factors. In the context of dress and fashion, both Fred Davis and Joanne Entwistle assert that gender roles and sexuality are complex issues defined in no small measure by a mixture of cultural, historical, and social interactions and relations. These are issues made distinct by individual character traits, behaviors and material realities, often accepted and rejected according to prevailing aesthetic and moral codes.31 Clothing can announce both sex and gender, but is equally arbitrary and ambiguous as it in large measure relies on the reading of a body and its coverings. As an example the skirt may be read as a sign of femininity in the west, whereas in other parts of the world where people wear sarongs, this is not necessarily the case.32 In this circumstance clothes are informed as a consequence of a set of arbitrary cultural associations, and as Ann Oakley asserts, to be a man or a
woman, a boy or a girl, is as much a function of dress, gesture, occupation, social network and personality, as it is of possessing a
12
33
particular set of genitals.
Conversely, the transvestite who creates an appearance, or a form of masked reality , demonstrates
the manner in which clothing and dress can be used in the production of, or play with, the concepts of sex and gender, underpinning both the function of clothing and its ambiguity in the forming of our understanding of femininity and masculinity and as such as an aspect of culture. As Joanne Entwistle notes on the body.
34
it (clothing) turns nature into culture, layering cultural meaning
This further begs the questions if the body ever was natural or if it essentially is an artificial creation . Considering
that tribal organization initiated the earliest acculturation, the body as such has always been subject to the influence of culture and destined to be an artifice, designed and re-designed at will. What is unique in contemporary society is the intensity and speed with which the body is being manipulated and transformed, not only with the aid of clothing but increasingly with replacement parts, embedded through surgical procedures, changing the language of the body.
Body and Dress The body can be considered from a variety of perspectives. As a physical entity it has a biological, material presence; from a sociological viewpoint the body is generally examined as a socially constructed entity, a physical object mediated by society and
13
culturally interpreted.35 The body concerns itself with social identity and context which from an anthropological standpoint is entangled with individualism, belonging and association, and as such is consequential to adornment and fashion.36 A foundation of much of the literature on the body in the past has concerned itself with the analytical body, and focused on perception, practice, parts, processes or products. Perception in this context refers to cultural uses and conditioning of the five external senses plus our sense of being in a body and oriented in space, what Kant called the inner sense of intuition and sensibility.37 Also the cultural meaning of bodily processes like breathing (a sigh), blushing, crying, laughing, birth, and sex are of interest, as is the meaning which can be extracted from association with products of the body like blood, semen and sweat so forth. Practice in this context includes everything that falls under Marcel Mauss classic notion of techniques of the body in which the body is at once a tool, agent, and object.38 As the sociologist Brian Turner very poignantly observes in his book, The Body and Society : There is an obvious and prominent fact about human beings, they have bodies and they are bodies.
39
Turner s analysis is central to early sociological
concerns with the body, a framework which observes it as a social phenomenon and through empirical research attempts to better ...appreciate and understand human embodiment.
40
Informed in part by Michel Foucault s notion of disciplines Turner identifies
four functional required tasks the body needs to perform to be in society: reproduction, restraint, regulation and representation. Based in a Hobbesian formulation of social order, this Societal Tasks model essentially situates the body as socially constructed
14
and discursive , ordered by the regulatory powers of society and the disciplines of the body, theorising institutions prior to the body.41 This is a model which has been criticised by Arthur Frank who takes the approach that any sociology of or debates surrounding the body must begin with the body itself, rather than society.42 From this starting point he inverts Foucault s perspective and Turner s systems model, considering the body as active in and reactive to society, rather than the body being indicative of society and therefore constrained. In this context what both Frank and Turner neglect to mention, and which is an essential observation in the framework of this project is that, as Joanne Entwistle has remarked, human bodies most often are dressed bodies and therefore are socially constituted and situated in culture , with all its complexities.43 Applying Arthur Frank s analysis to the context of dress and adornment it can be argued that, rather than dress only being a cultural outcome and therefore an indication of self, dress also informs society. Dress continually changes and is in a state of unrest as it purposefully and knowingly is being manipulated around the body, creating a sense of physicality, a body interacting with and within the structure of cloth. This awareness, or embodied consciousness , results in particular actions as the body responds to the relationship with objects (clothes, dress) providing an active indication of intent on the part of the individual, which in turn is the intent society subsequently responds to, after a fashion. 44
15
Entwistle akin to Frank observes the body from a perspective of practice contending that it is in this context the body is the primary object of fashion, a body of agency embodied through inter-activity and which in part is practised in the interface between garment and agent or actor, experienced as the act of dressing.45 The term getting dressed as such captures the idea of an activity formed in social interaction within the bounds of culture and its norms and expectations of bodily expression. It is manifest in a process initiated and shaped by the individual, stressing the importance of body to dress, and the use of a living, moving body to grasp and display the elements of technological innovation and function that make meaning and embodies dress.
16
Fashion as a Communicative System

In part stimulated by psychoanalytical theories, James Laver s work on shifting erogenous zones and considering dress an effect of societal values, proponents of analysing dress and human behaviour have placed dress at the centre of visual and material culture studies.46 As such Alison Lurie and Christopher Breward, among others, ground their approach in structuralist theories and methodology, proposed by Roland Barthes and Ferdinand de Saussure and informed by semiotics. Fundamentally, many suggest clothing and dress aid in formulating a language of fashion, comparative to the spoken and written communication. The language metaphor has by McCracken, in particular, been cited as over applied neglecting to clearly understand the subtlety, ambiguity or irony with which objects communicate. 47 Fred Davis, in Fashion, Culture and Identity, additionally acknowledges that fashions rules of communication, with its ever-shifting meaning, are difficult to formalize and inadequately understood.
17
Semiology As a science of signs semiology was developed mainly in French universities during the 1950 s and 60 s to create a formal methodology for studying social meaning. Popularized largely through the work of Barthes and in particular his book Mythologies , semiology inspired, as one of its more useful outcomes, an extension of the notion of language beyond being merely spoken, to concern itself with everything that can be taken as a sign.
48
Everything from imagery, symbols, conventions and gestures, from
road signs to hemlines , (which by consensus are considered significant or meaningful within material culture), became the object of semiology and in turn product semantics.49 Based in part in the theories developed by Reinhardt Butter and Klaus Krippendorf in the 1980 s, semantics expanded the concept of semiology and introduced into the language debate the idea of a product as a text or recorded message with varying levels of meaning. A text in semiotic terms generally refers to a recorded message that makes it physically independent of both sender and receiver, such as a book or picture, a film or a product. As an assemblage of signs (words, images, sounds and gestures) a text is generally constructed and interpreted as a consequence of genre and medium of communication.
18
The question is however if fashion as a language per se exists, as in a manner in which dress can communicate our inner most thoughts and emotions. Is it plausible to consider clothing having such expressive character that it speaks ? In The Fashion System written in 1969, Roland Barthes contends through a sociological and structuralist analysis using Ferdinand de Saussure s language system of signs , signifiers and signified or semiology , that fashion comprises a system, which can be read and observed in detail to extract communicated meaning.50 Confronting the tangible objects of material culture as they represent themselves to us in language and pictures, Barthes attempts to develop a structure for interpreting and understanding the subject matter of clothing through an analysis of images and text presented in fashion magazines. For Barthes, fashion is a self-contained sign system, with structured and combined elements like language, a sartorial vocabulary or language of clothing related to the way in which a garment is made; its construction, the fabric, colours and surface decoration. What defines the parole , or speech of clothing, is in essence three-fold: the manner in which the clothing is worn, the combination of elements and the occasion or particular circumstance for which a garment is chosen. Tailoring Saussure s language model to contemporary fashion, Barthes divides his fashion system into three elements: The technologic or actual garment; the iconic or the image of the garment and the verbal or written description of the garment, as it accompanies the photographic depiction. He argued that the written realm of clothes in large measure holds the key to creating and unlocking the imagined
19
spaces where fashion dwells ( the winter coat , the wedding dress , a slim linen dress for morning ) and that, writing links the participants in a visual fashion game. 51 In this visual game images presented in magazines, the modelling of clothes, runways shows and now the internet are able to conjure up the referential rhetoric that creates the communalities defining the esoteric and culturally embedded world of fashion. Historically the structuralist methodology attempts to break with a substantialist mode of thought and as such opens up an approach which considers fashion as an interrelated (hybrid) system where through their interactions, clothing components derives their meaning and function. 52 Barthes semiotic approach was influential in the formation of cultural studies in the 1970 s and 80 s and despite its rigid analysis of the grammar of fashion, many scholars have used an analytical approach, based on reading fashion, dress and image. Confined within a rather strict set of rules of choice based in a synchronic (gestalt) approach, Barthes analysis of fashion (and others ) becomes somewhat reductionist as he attempts to impress a structural and almost mathematical methodology onto fashion and clothing. Barthes largely ignores, in his quest to situate fashion within the confines of Saussure s linguistic model, the history and discourse on fashion flooded with detail, nuance and change to be considered. Solely focusing on an underlying system of a cultural practice bypasses the diachronic narrative and as such the broader aspect and idea of, in this case, fashioned clothing.
20
The main concern, with respect to the structuralist approach, lies in the decoding of items of dress as devoid of their social context, and their presence in everyday life, focusing on the unrelated object and its perceived meaning. Alison Lurie claims in The Language of Clothes that, clothing can be experienced akin to the written and spoken word , as a language with its own distinct grammar, syntax, and vocabulary.53 In her book Lurie takes the idea of dress and fashion as meaningful communication to the level of a singular language, as a word for word expression of our inner self, and our identity. However, dress is not as precise and articulate as a language; rather it operates as a sign system within a diverse range of cultural environments and is not necessarily understood in a universal manner. Worn, untidy or casual dress in a formal urban setting automatically marks the wearer as a person of low status.
54
Ignoring the agency, embodied experience and intent an individual brings to a set of clothes as
a rigidly applied universal structure, denies the meaning of dress in its various contexts. It seemingly also ignores the continually changing landscapes of fashion and how various social groups influence and appropriate looks to make them their own and in the process breaking the confines of the social hierarchical structure, in part underlying the structuralist approach. The British Teddyboys comes to mind in this context revolting against the socially confined and manipulated dress codes and appropriating an eclectic and almost ironic dressed-up style or visual identity. Interestingly, in the practice of doing so and in the process of rejecting the disciplined, they themselves create a uniform-lingo , though a somewhat un-disciplined one.55 To assert that as a language
21
individual clothing items, dress styles or fashion in general, allow us to distinguish the person behind the intellectual satorialist or the sharecropper seems at the same time both limiting and generous, and somewhat pretentious.56 It is not surprising to find the idea of language appropriated for the purpose of dress and fashion or for that matter other design disciplines, being that language is our main means of communication. 57 Furthermore, some of the properties we find in language, composition (of meaning), combinational possibilities, the memetic stability of its signs, which can be copied and memorized over and over, and the manner in which it can indicate and enforce social boundaries, share striking similarities to fashion as a communicative system.58 Theorists such as Dick Hebdige, Malcolm Barnard and Patrizia Calefato have suggested that, as an essential element of human life, fashion and dress share an apparent universality with language, namely its ability to communicate, a fundamental human concern. 59 Concurrently, in the context of identity, language appears time and again as a tempting metaphor for the characterization of communicative systems, signalling (prototypical) social roles. Speech and the written word are our most prominent prototypes for social communication and is for all intents and purposes the association we turn to when trying to understand communicative systems. To understand such systems requires building comparative connections from one new system to some know system, a position advocated by Lakoff and Johnson in Metaphors We Live By.60 As such they suggest, following Rosch, ...that people categorize objects, not in set-theoretical terms, but in terms of prototype and family resemblance.
61
22
The over-application of the language metaphor has, in particular, been criticized by Grant McCracken in the context of explaining communication systems such as we may consider clothing and possessed objects.62 When the semiotic approach appropriates language concepts to the realm of clothing, it reduces fashion and dress to an abstract symbolic system and, as mentioned, largely fails to consider the complexities of the social dimension of everyday practice. Besides, as Fred Davis notes in Fashion, Culture and Identity, as a communicative tool, dress is limited in its ability to enter into dialogue.63 Mostly it presents itself as a one-of-a-kind message that, however complex, only transforms as the wearer decides to change appearance. In speech, on the other hand, a conversation unfolds progressively, evolves and adjusts meaning as speaker and listener seek to communicate. The give and take of meaning which occur in a dialogue does not take place in the staging of clothing, it may speak to us and spark conversation, but it is hardly engaging in one.64 Perhaps more appropriate is to make the claim that clothing and fashion share certain parallels with the way we observe the language of visual communication; as implied meaning or undercoding , perceived through gesture, infliction, pacing, facial expressions, context and setting akin to the manner in which we use speech.65 Or as Davis contends, that dress is more like music, evocative and ambiguous, free to roam from formal constraints rather than bound by the precise language rules proposed by Lurie. 66
23
The visual character of clothing and dress is obvious, and can hardly be disputed. Whether created through intent, or by a tentative interaction with a wardrobe, clothing seems to converge with users, and their immediate environment, to exercise a communicative potential. 67 Visualize for a moment a person in a worn coat, worn pants and holed shoes and a tuque, or someone wearing a white t-shirt, jeans and black leather jacket adorned with safety pins. Whether presented on the street, in magazines or through movies and television, the imagery or story conveyed through these types of visual cues, can often extract certain associations and observations, in relation to the potential characteristics of the person behind the cloth.68 The persona or mask we perceive in these instances, are akin to the mask the Roman actors would wear to reflect their character.69 We can essentially all dress up as sharecroppers, or business men and women, yet it is only a surface treatment we apply to the body, a shadow of the actuality which we attempt to appropriate until such time as we become our intent. It seems that, akin to any form of meaningful communication the language of clothes is open to analysis, residing in the ambiguous realms of translation versus decoding, intention versus interpretation, information or persuasion.70 As such there is necessarily no methodological purity or communication discourse that can anticipate the diverse nature of practiced fashion. The question remains if clothing, or the framework within which the clothing performs its role, determines its meaning.71 It is here suggested the language of clothes can best be understood as appearing in the individually designed shapes, colours, textures and
24
silhouettes of dress (shirts, pants (trousers), jackets, coats, hats, gloves, socks, underwear, and so on). It is not in the speech of clothes or the syntax, or for that matter in the fetish; it is simply in the poetry of the body, the movement, the expression and impression that go hand in hand with shape, colour and drape. It is in the knowing we bring to the experience that allow us to make meaningful expressiveness appear as a consequence of practicing dress; the manner in which we consume clothes and make them cultural objects.
Emulation and Trickling Probably the most well-known (popularized) and cited piece of fashion theory could well be the American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen s The theory of the Leisure Class , which often and curiously is cited omitting the full title: The theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions. In a critical exploration of the social and economic circumstances surrounding the end of the 19th century, Veblen defined a relationship between industry, commerce and consumer; impressing in the mind of western culture the representation of what he, in his critique of the prevailing aesthetic standards, famously defines as conspicuous consumption , or the unproductive wastefulness of the leisure class. 72 As Veblen asserts, it was for the then noveau riche industrialist bourgeoisie not enough to have money and power, but one had also to show for it in order to achieve social
25
status and prestige. The appearance of wealth, in this context acquired through consumption, (and in measure promoted in the tranquil refuge of the domestic and private spheres), was necessary as an expression of successes in the ruthless industrial working world. These ideas have later, in some detail, been explored by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, inherent in his theories around structures, habitus and practice. 73 Showing good taste demanded practice and, at that time, something only afforded men of considerable wealth, an assessment in line with Kant s aesthetic of a ruling class.74 Veblen considered that our perception of something being beautiful inextricably is linked to the degree with which it indicates the wealth of its owner/wearer. From this perspective, wealth (and class) essentially guarantees beauty whereas poverty ensures ugliness, a sentiment William Morris amongst others, would actively disassociate with.75 However, Veblen s ideas are increasingly challenged as simplistic and reductive , in overstating the rational role of clothing, and generally lacking in relevance in a modern conception of fashion. This criticism particularly relates to his analysis of women s roles in Victorian society as servile expressions of economic success, devoid of agency.76 Making Veblen s accounts of fashion additionally challenging for his critics are his attempts to explain it away as useless, unnecessary, ugly and irrational , a sentiment shared in some measure by Baudrillard who argued that; Fashion continually fabricates the beautiful on the basis of a radical denial of beauty, by reducing beauty to the logical equivalent of ugliness. It can impose the most eccentric, dysfunctional, ridiculous traits as eminently
26
distinctive. This is where it triumphs of rationality

77
imposing and legitimizing the irrational according to a logic deeper than that
A concern with both Veblen and Baudrillard in their assessment of fashion is the extent to which they seem to ignore the role of contradiction , of ambivalence and the simple pleasure we can extract from wearing a well designed, comfortable and aesthetically pleasing piece of fashionable clothing.78 Veblen in his consumption theory introduces a dominant paradigmatic lens through which fashion largely has been viewed since. The main substance of Veblen s theory is defined by what is known as the trickle-down effect; a view of the course fashion takes in the form of emulation in a top down or trickling-down of styles and behaviours, defined and situated in an economic and social hierarchy. Despite the fact it was written at the end of the 19th century these rationalizations can still be traced through the work of many, contemporary theories of dress, particularly in theories relating to consumer culture.79 In Veblen s familiar argument, it is necessary for the leisure classes that clothing indicate the inability to engage in any form of manual work and that dress therefore must in some degree be uncomfortable.80 A dress that would allow free play of the body here marks its wearer as a member of a lower class. Dressing solely for bodily comfort thus reduces the wearer to the scope of the physical self. This implies that the display of social status through dress carries greater weight, than bodily considerations, in locating the wearer as an active participant in the social world. In a society where the social hierarchy determines position and identity, neglecting to orient one s dress towards the social world reduces one s being to simply a physical
27
body, rather than a proper social actor. Ideas about dress in this context reveals the historical tensions and shifting balance in orientation towards display of status, as opposed to the physical body, issues taken up by the dress reform movement in the late 19th century.81 Many theories of fashion fail to recognize fashion as a complex phenomenon closely linked with the aspect of socialization and how we, from an early age come to turn to and act upon our bodies in particular ways.82 Being that clothing generally is connected with the human body and human activities, dress is better observed as something practiced, associated with how we perceive ourselves and others in the context of daily habits and dishevelled interactions in the personal as well as public spheres. From this perspective fashion is closely linked with personal experience and an authenticating narrative , and as such individuation.83
Individuation or Practice of Self

(Imitation and Distinction) The German philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel in some measure shared Veblen s view of fashion as a form of emulation or trickling-down of styles and modes of behaviour suggesting that, as an elite class opts for a distinctive style the classes below
28
slowly adopt these in an effort to copy or imitate the status on display. As styles keeps trickling down and eventually are adopted by the lower classes, the elite must once again move on to another distinctive style. He further argued that elite dressers adopt a particular style to distinguish themselves from everyone else, yet they do so as a group, in a paradoxical collusion of conformity and individuality, a practice occurring at all levels of society in the modern age.84 In practical terms we buy a garment because its form, colour and texture appeals to us, and how it speaks to our personality; simultaneously we find comfort in the fact that others will be wearing something similar. We want to seem different but not expose ourselves to embarrassment by being seen to act too far outside a prevailing norm; it is as Kant states always best to be a fool in fashion rather than a fool out of fashion. 85 Where Simmel s view differs somewhat from Veblen is in his observations of fashion as more than ideological tools or screens for unworthy motives , and Pecuniary Canons of Taste in the hands or on the bodies of a powerful leisure class.86 Simmel observes fashion in the context of social life, as momentary resolutions of numerous and often conflicting forces; absorbed in the ever changing aesthetic contradictions arising in the autonomous individual, expressed in part through clothing.87 Essentially the physical forms assumed by clothes, like other artifacts, ...merge into and participate in a collective ordering and interpretation of the world s stuff .
88
What makes Simmel s treatment of fashion unique lies in part in his examination of clothing as materiality, as something which has been worked on, as in the journeys that clothes take, how they are made, what they are made from and how they are
29
shaped, decorated and patterned. In the passage from the particular, and personal, to the ubiquitous world of style and elegance , it is essentially these physical forms that for Simmel are the material means of clothes, social purpose.89 It is through the material forms of clothing that we are able to transform ourselves, to create an aesthetic, within which clothes in turn take on their own aesthetic value. Akin to a work of art the individual can become a unique stylistic expression, the embodiment of a joint spirit. 90 As such fashion is not simply a matter of content or a study of changes in dress styles over time. In observing the histories of fashion we can observe the social equalization and the desire for individual differentiation and change; detecting a set of relations and an adherence to the social demands and inner promptings of the institution of fashion. 91 Simmel emphasized in his Philosophy of Fashion that, there is a link between fashion and identity and as a consequence, the construction of the modern social self.92 At the turn of the 20th century identity was no longer strictly bound in tradition and the close family unit; rather it resulted from the pursuit of a more individualized lifestyle. Clothing in this context offered a relatively inexpensive and visually expressive manner in which one could project identity or social position. This practice takes flight within the industrialized cities of western society, in part a consequence of the fragmentation of the social processes and the increased access to consumer goods. The erosion of the private and public spheres, progressively apparent during the late 18th and 19th century, encourages the play with appearance and performance, promoting the emergence of Baudelaire s flneur . Dandies and bohemians used display and self-representation as techniques of survival in the modern metropolis.93 Fashion or la Mode in
30
this manner is integral to modern society, to the modern experience and central to the urban lifestyles that continually exposes the individual to strange and new circumstances.94
Practice of taste or Sensus Communis

Influenced in large measure by Kant s aesthetic writings, Simmel in his approach to formal sociology ironically adopts Kant s idea of sensus communis to his analysis of fashion as a societal formation combining two opposing forces. 95 On one hand fashion is observed as a socially acceptable and secure way of distinguishing oneself from others, and on the other it satisfies the individuals, need for social adaption and imitation.96 Fashion is the imitation of a given example and satisfies the demand for social adaption: it leads the individual along the road which all travel, it furnishes a general condition, which resolves the conduct of every individual into a mere example. At the same time it modifies to no lesser degree the need for differentiation, the tendency towards dissimilarity, the desire for change and contrast [ ] by a constant change of contents
97
For Simmel, fashion helped to overcome the distance apparent between the individual and society in as much as it offered a valid standard of taste , based in individual preference and choice of members of the community of tastes. 98 Essentially fashion allows the individual to express loyalty and ties to the existing aesthetic norms and considerations and at the same time remain
31
individual, retaining inner freedom. 99 Although, as Kant asserts, a judgment of taste is based on a subjective sense experience, there is an inherent expectation that others will join in an appreciation of a given aesthetic, if not, no judgment or standard of measure would exists by which we may assess what is liked or disliked.
And this vague awareness, that the most basic functions of our spirit are here in operation, functions that are identical in all souls, lets us believe that these judgments are not ours alone. As a matter of fact, we do believe that everyone would judge in a similar way, if only he could approach the object (das object zulassen) in the same way
100
Akin to Kant s community of tastes, fashion can simultaneously never be completely universal. Kant would likely have argued that such a community of taste can only be that of an idea or a promise , as the universal validity and communicability of the subjective experiences are problematic, particularly in the contradictions of our social frameworks, and in the dichotomies of acceptance and rejection, individuality and conformity.101 However, considering Simmel s standard of taste, we can observe communality embodied in clothing and how it is practiced in dress, in how we become practitioners of a way of life, of fashion, within a community of other practitioners of similar tastes.
32
In dressing, decorating our homes, through the foods we eat, and the music we listen to, we express taste, a certain aesthetic judgment, learned and taught as part of becoming what we may observe as an amateur practitioner, (a cook, designer, or satorialist).102 Essentially we contribute to a collective activity of taste-making by partaking in various practices, learning and knowing how to appraise specific performances of a practice. In the process of participation we acquire vocabularies and begin to understand criteria of tastes, allowing us to communicate, share and refine our relationships within the community, and the ways in which we enact the practices. Contributing to and drawing on the common pool we can begin to feel at home and find communality and shelter , such as we may observe in Heidegger s concept of dwelling , learning to build (create) as we discover how to dwell within the practice. 103 In other words we can generate pleasure of a practice by acquiring an intimate understanding and mastery from within. 104 What can evolve from this within point is an intellectual, passionate, ethical and aesthetic attachment that ties subjects to objects of interest, technologies, places and of course other practitioners.
It is possible to conceive of making in that way; we thereby grasp something that is correct, and yet never touch its nature, which is a producing that brings something forth.
105
What springs forth through practice is in part knowledge (even if only provisional), a sense of shared materiality, and as pointed to previously, the possibility, for example, of the maker of jewelry over time becoming a jeweler.106 In essence practice not
33
only produces work but also a (re)production of society and of a being-in-the-world, occurring in the context of what is perceived within a group of practitioners as correct or incorrect, liked or disliked, deriving from aesthetically judged activities. In the deployment of discursive practices learned and taught as part of becoming a practitioner, taste-making can be appropriated through the performance of a collective, situated activity such as is reflected in the practice of dress. As a consequence of feeling at home or comfortable within (practice, community and/or self), we can in this manner find the pleasure and aesthetic of fashion in dwelling in the practice of fashioning.
Self-Production In the process of modernization, the quest to become what one is sits in context of the struggle between individualism and conformity; what Simmel declared to be the sine qua non of human existence.107 It is a negotiation between the competing demands of acceptance and rejection that can forge identity in a modern consumer society. This quest of becoming is in large measure the dynamic that drives the ideas and activities behind the production and innovation of self as much as it drives the manner, force and logic of fashion in consumer culture. Over the course of history and particularly in the divergent modes of individualization in modernity, identity has shifted from being determined by birth and provenance to a reflexive, ongoing project shaped by appearance and performance.108 This
34 becomes a problematic situation. In the break with the historical context and the decline of traditional sources of authority and
identity ascription, as may be found in social structures such as family, class, religion and work, individuals are left anxious and rootless. In what Anthony Giddens names a reflexive modernity where identity and self-production are considered individual tasks and responsibilities, the individual is increasingly faced with a plethora of choices and a loss of certainty. In the processes of coping with changing social demands or life events such as parenthood, employment or health issues, in the life stages between adolescence and adulthood, the opportunities and challenges of identity negotiation come into focus, seemingly offering equal measures of freedom, risk and uneasiness.109 Following Simmel, Zygmunt Baumann identifies individualization as a transformative process that, with the advent of the modern society changed from a given (a closed category) defined by traditional values and norms, to become a project or task (an open question) which the human actors have themselves become responsible for and charged with addressing.110 As such, identity and self-production are not simply problematic they are also a technical problem. 111 Within this framework the development of the individual is inseparable from the manner in which the task is taken up; how the individual works on the self as a project. Foucault defines this phenomenon as technologies of the self ,
35
...which permit individuals to effect by their own means or with the help of others a certain number of operations on their own bodies and souls, thoughts, conduct, and way of being, so as to transform themselves in order to attain a certain state of happiness, purity, wisdom, perfection, or immortality.
112
The problem inherent in modern self-production is accentuated by requiring, on the part of the individual, an
acknowledgment of the body and self as flawed, inadequate or incomplete in some manner or form.113 This in turn can add pressures to pursue enhancement of the body, of the physical self, as an expression of self-image. In order for such a process of improvement to take place, areas in need of makeover must be identified as well as the appropriate tools, practices and perhaps experts to aid in the transformation. The self in other words have become a do-it-yourself project requiring scrutiny, affirmation and inscription, giving rise to the use of consumer objects and processes or specific practices in the self-production quest. In a reflexive modernity it is therefore no surprise that consumption has acquired such prominence in daily life and has come under scrutiny.114
36
Consumption The shift from a culture of production to one of consumption that can be perceived in the 19th century is in many respects motivated by various historical processes and events. The growing middle class of the 18th and 19th century used goods as tools to define and defend their newfound class position. As a response to the effects of advances in mass production and colonial resources, persuasion (advertising, marketing, etc.) encouraged mass consumption, simultaneously encouraging a hedonistic lifestyle, with its search for novelty, sensation and fantasy, exacerbating conspicuous consumption patterns.115 In this display of distinction and membership, goods are neutral ground and, as Simmel suggested, the manner in which we interact with them can define both them and us. We use goods (things, objects, artifacts) in context of individuation, as tools in negotiating Simmel s tension between individuality and generality to define and redefine place, position and meanings. Within this framework, as Mary Douglas & Baron Isherwood note: ... they (goods) can be used as fences or bridges , connecting or distinguishing, striking subcultures or mundane practices of everyday lives.116 The intersections of consumption and identity can present us with narratives of how individuals make use of commodities available to them, of how these are appropriated for purposes beyond their original intent, actively negotiated and reformulated; how prescribed meanings and uses are rejected through language, tactics, bricolage and symbolic creativity.117
37
As a creative and productive process, consumption is a contentious subject in a socio-cultural context, in particular if viewed as the sole engine of progress and sustainability in a capitalist based society.118 The obvious economic, environmental and ethical concerns associated with certain practices of mass production, carry with them consequences that are no longer peripheral to human existence and with improved connectivity and awareness, increasingly difficult to ignore. In our continued quest for identity we are both enabled and constrained by consumption, showing itself in the tensions between the wants of the singular and the needs of the mass. In this tension the individual is a participant in a commoditised system that still seems to reproduce the notions of class, emulation and gender, despite the advertising rhetoric of equality and free choice and the end of class as an explanatory social variable. 119 There is something mundane about the production of selves, how in the context of everyday life, we express individuality as it arises out of life-style and manners, grooming habits and clothing choices. However, confined by perpetuating consumption patterns, in diffusion of ideas and by the production and flow of material goods, self-production is a far cry from ordinary.120 A system that dispenses with ascription increasingly requires the individual through day-to-day conduct to renew, reconfirm and document its membership through achievement, to negotiate socially produced risks and contradictions, while coping with the task of being individual. 121 The road to become an exception to the rules can therefore be sought in the Simmel s logic of style, in how
38
the combinations of constitutive mass produced elements serve the individual in creating a sense of accomplishment and confidence, defining individual flavour in the context of a collective practice of taste-making. It lies in the techniques applied to bodies in the process of acculturation, how people move and wear clothing mapping out codes of conduct reminiscent of habitus, putting a face to fashion a technology of civility , or sanctioned ...conduct in the practices of self-formation and selfpresentation.
122
Style In the Simmelian universe, style is more than a mere thought abstraction , and in his discussion on dress Simmel argues for equating personal fashion with that of personal style.123 As mentioned, it is through the material forms of clothing we are able to transform ourselves, to acquire style, and though we may be confined to objects of consumption or stylized objects of applied art , the manner in which we assemble and display them is what essentially makes both them and us, distinctively fashionable or stylish.124 It expresses a uniquely personal life-style within the modern social order, and in a fashion observes the individual as an inimitable artful appearance of a shared aesthetic.
39
The meaning of style, as a process of assembly, choice and use, carries connotations of both the unique and traditional in the creation of individual style out of mass produced objects. Style as such requires judgements of taste, assessed and attributed to the objects of consumption and in turn the possessor, variable in as much as they are defined by shifts in fashion and consensus amongst practitioners.125 Style can in this sense become a touchstone for place, progress, and of belonging in a culture immersed in consumption. On one hand, style or styling is a creative process by which goods are acquired, assembled and given new meaning, possibly as an act of subversion or explicit resistance to existing norms and values.126 On the other, it is as Simmel suggests a means by which we cope with the proliferation of material culture, enabling the individual to eliminate the endless choices regarding taste by opting into the broader taste categories of branded goods, reducing anxieties and streamlining selection. For the individual, style holds the promise of authenticity, when outside the grip or influence of external forces such as fashion. It holds the promise of constructing personal narratives revolving around the impulsive choice and assemblage of commodities. Dress as such requires an active intervention of the symbolic as well as the material uses of an article of clothing to acquire its particular expressive character. Authenticity and individuality is negotiated as an active and reflexive expression of style, created as a narrative compromise between the individual and the social, a process of self-production riddled with inconsistencies. Emerging is a postmodern view of interactive, complex and fluid processes filled with conflict and conformity, acceptance and
40
rejection, within which individuals and collective forces converge to create practices through socially sustained activities. Fashion in this context makes us come into being, appear, creates us as dressed bodies and clothed individuals, making the implicit explicit. We remove the fashion, the clothes, and we remove part of our selves and in essence we dis-appear , transform from being-likethis to not-being-like-that as in something different, undocumented and unknowable.
Concluding
Fashion can be said to be a response to ideas, innovations and discoveries, and in this sense is a reflection of changing needs and interests, and curiosity with respect to the world that surrounds people and that, which lies within our grasp. Fashion is reflexive and lives by recognition, and equally finds food for thought in technological innovations, archaeological uncovering or ethnological discoveries, as it does in imitation, moods and mindsets.127 It has presented us with an array of narratives over time, defined by design ingenuity and profligacy; creating codpieces, exaggerated silhouettes, slashing and suits and motorcycle jackets, t-shirts and bell bottoms, many of which are a part of fashion s
41
now iconic imagery. In both the modern and post-modern world, clothing, dress and fashion are the fleeting playing grounds for historical re-direction mixed up with art and the latest hi-tech advances, finding ways to revisit the theories and vocabulary of the past in a continued search for innovation, the new, and with that a fresh sense of authenticity and identity. Fashion in this respect is a view to the knowledge of changing circumstances in which: The present is usually nothing more than a combination of a fragment of the past with a fragment of the future.
128
The mentality of fashion focuses its efforts on correcting and re-shaping itself until a certain ideal has been achieved. In the reflective light of history some of these ideals may seem grotesque and caricaturist, such as the codpiece of the Renaissance, the wigs of pre-Revolution France or the Tournure or Hottentots bustle of the late 19th century.129 However, it is worthwhile to consider such appearances in the framework of the time and place they of which they are a part and the ruling social, moral and aesthetic principles that in turn have guided these changes and the individual practise of dress. Self-Identity is not a given and is a process contextualized within time and space, shape-shifting the body, changing but staying the same, as the self relative to itself.130 The lives of the body are actively engaged in managing identities and clothing and dress are tools in this process inscribing surfaces with colour, fabric, function, form and historicity, extending and making meaning.
42
The practice of dressing offers a methodology for understanding the relationships, of which dress and in turn fashion is a part. As a dynamic and paradoxical process, intertwined with controversy and acceptance, embracing and renouncing things and people, fashion engages considerations of beginnings and ends, of life and death. Theories on fashion have long been concerned with its connection with individuation, and it is evident that self-production in this framework is central to our relationship with clothing and dress. As a culturally embedded and socially sustained practise, dress, the awareness of appearance and the importance placed on it, drives the relationship with and the flavour of fashion. As both Kant and Simmel observed there is a distinctly transitory character in fashion. Like a ghostly outline it leaves behind that which cannot be reached because once it is touched it is not here. Its existence seems fleeting at best and though there is a propensity toward universality inherent in most fashion this can never be fully realised for the simple reason that, once it permeates everything it ceases to be fashion. In the practice of dress however, fashion finds its continuity in the fragments of past and present styles, and the individualized expression within the various communities of taste-making, in the hands and on the bodies of fashion practitioners, creating fashions unique and ever changing aesthetic.
43
FOOTNOTES
1
Simmel, Georg, Quoted in Fashion Classics from Carlyle to Barthes by Michael Carter, Berg Publishing, 2003: 60 Cf. Breward and Evans, Fashion and Modernity 2005; Entwistle, 2009; Entwistle (2000) 2007; Craik (1993) 2005; Douglas and Isherwood (1979) 1996 3 Cf. Barnes Ruth, Dress and Gender: Making and Meaning in Cultural Context, Berg Publishers, 1993 4 Prown, Jules David, Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method, Winterthur Portfolio, vol. 17, No. 1 ,Spring, 1982: 1-19 5 Svendsen, Lars, Mote: Et Filosofisk Essay, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, Norway, 2004: 21, It is important to note that, at the beginning of the 21st century we are observing a critical awareness of a need to move beyond the Euro centric approach, embedded in old concepts of fashion as existing solely within western European culture. Lead by Canadian anthropologist Sandra Niessen and Australian historian Antonia Finnane research is targeting two main themes: Global diffusion and appropriation, and local and regional fashion movements appearing more or less independent of western influences. However for the purpose of this project the focus is on a western formation of fashion. 6 Cf. Blumer, Herbert , Fashion: From Class Differentiation to Collective Selection, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 3, Summer, 1969: 275-291, 7 Mendes, Valerie, Amy De La Haye, 20th Century Fashion, Thames & Hudson,1999: 7, cf. Also Entwistle: 2000, Svendsen:2004. 8 Cf. Simmel, Georg. Fashion. in The Rise of Fashion, A Reader, Edited by Daniel Leonhard Purdy, University of Minnesota, (1901) 2004: 292-93, Cf. Also, Jules David Prown, Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method, Winterthur Portfolio, vol. 17, No. 1, Spring, 1982:1-19. La mode emerges in the 1840 s as a feminine noun, replacing the masculine le mode, derived from the Latin modus a common term for style of lifestyle. Cf. The world Book Dictionary, Vol.1, World Book, Inc., 2003: 1336. 9 Ibid. Blumer,1969: 275-291 10 Ibid. Blumer,1969: 275-291 11 Cf. Breward, Christopher. The culture of Fashion: A New History of Fashionable Dress. Manchester University Press 1995, also Steele, Valerie. Paris Fashion: A Cultural History. Berg (1998) 2006 12 Cf., Flugel 1930, Polhemus and Proctor 1978, Wilson 1985 (2003), Barnard 1996, Entwistle 2000. In respects to sexual attractiveness consider here many of the baggy and militaristic styles which have appeared over the years, in particular during the 1960 s and 1990 s. Furthermore the full flowing and exaggerated silhouettes of the 1980 s seem to lack a particular sexual expressiveness in spite of an increasingly body conscious ideal making its way in western culture during this time. Nudism, nude beaches and current styles of dress and behaviors, can in some measure attest to modesty being problematic in considering it as a main reason for dressing the body. Additionally, certain cultures outside the North American and European continents have been found not to wear clothing at all. 13 Cf. Tarde, Gabriel de. The Laws of Imitation. NY: Henry Holt and Company, (1890), 2nd Edition 1903, the observations Tarde puts forward sets him apart from both Veblen and Simmel, in as much as he contends that imitation is not solely a trickle-down affair in the social hierarchy but equally so happens in a trickle-up pattern. 14 Entwistle 2000:62-64. Political considerations are not necessarily a consequence of fashion, as the issues surrounding the wearing of the Hijab in western society can attest to, as controversy surrounds a very traditional piece of dress.
2
44
Cf. Richardson, Jane, Alfred Kroeber, Three Centuries of Women s Dress Fashions: A Quantitative Analysis , Anthropological Records, 5(2), 1940:111-153. Cf. Also John W.G. Lowe, Elizabeth D. Lowe, Stylistic Change and Fashion in Women s Dress: Regularity or Randomness? Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, 1984:731-734 16 Cf. Mendes & Haye 1999; Wilson 1985, Polhemus 1994, 17 Cf. Flugel 1930, Polhemus and Proctor 1978, Wilson 1985, Barnard 1996, Entwistle 2000, Tarde 1903:2 18 Following Simone De Beauvoir s 1950 s argument that, fashion keeps women pinned to superficial life, the following decades saw feminists debate whether to discard the old symbols of femininity in order to liberate themselves. A decisive answer came from the British cultural studies scholar Elizabeth Wilson in the 1980 s, who presented an approach to dress that sees fashion as an every-day art form. Within this structure dress is not repressive to women and essentially proposes that dress provides a set of tools for creative self expression. Cf. Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. Vintage Books, 1989 & Wilson, Elizabeth. Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity. (Virago 1985), Rutgers University Press, 2003; Corrigan 2008 19 Cf. Hollander, Anne. Seeing through Clothes. University of California Press (1976) 1993, also Svendsen 2004:43-44 20 Cf. Gordon, Beverly. Woman s Domestic Body: The Conflation of Women and Interiors in the Industrial age. Winterthur Portfolio, Vol. 31, No. 4, Gendered Spaces and Aesthetics, Winter, 1996: 281-301 21 Cf. Veblen, Thorstein. The theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions. Cosimo, (1899), 2003. In particular Chapter seven: Dress as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture is referenced and quoted from in the context of this project. 22 Broadly speaking Laver asserts than we as a species need to reproduce through sexual union and as part of the natural order therefore must compete for sexual partners. Clothes in this context form an essential element in the selection process and in the race to reproduce . Cf. Carter 2003:137 23 Cf. Flugel, J.C. The Psychology of Clothes. Hogarth Press 1930, Based loosely on Freud s psychoanalysis, (though making no use of fetish objects or sexual symbolism), Flgel in his work advances the idea that clothing is a compromise-formation mediating between the desire of children to exhibit their naked bodies and the later social prohibition requiring the body be covered for the sake of modesty. For Flgel the story of clothing is the story of the relative strength of these two forces and the ambivalence experienced in accommodating these relative to societal taboos and adult expectations. In this context clothes plays a central role in Flgel s theory, actively drawing the infant out of its id-dominated condition (the dimension of primitive instinct and desire), and as such is foundational to human life. Cf. Also Carter, Michael. J.C. Flgel and the Nude Future. Fashion Theory, Volume 7, Issue 1, Berg Publishers, 2003:79-102 24 Carter, Michael. J.C. Flgel and the Nude Future. Fashion Theory, Volume 7, Issue 1, Berg Publishers, 2003:79-102 (p. 86) 25 Ibid. quoted from J.C. Flgel, An Introduction to Psycho-Analysis. London: Victor Gollancz, 1932 p. 120, The exhibitionist instinct originally relates to the naked body, but in the course of individual development it inevitably (in civilized races) becomes displaced, to a greater or lesser extent, onto clothes. Clothes are, however, exquisitely ambivalent, in as much as they both cover the body and thus subserve the inhibiting tendencies that we call modesty, and at the same time afford a new and highly efficient means of gratifying exhibitionism on a new level 26 Entwistle 2000:142 27 Entwistle 2000:143, Cf. Also Dozier, Raine. Beards, Breasts, and Bodies Doing Sex in a Gendered World in Gender and Society, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2005:297316 28 Synnott, Anthony. The Body Social: Symbolism, Self, and Society. London: Routledge, 1993: 6
15
45
Cf. Ortner, Sherry B. Making Gender: The Politics and Erotics of Culture. Beacon Press, 1996:12-20, Ortner describes gender from the perspective of a game, or more precisely, a multiplicity of games which take on varying forms of bodily activity as well as consists of complex rules defined and accorded within specific time and place. 30 For more extensive reading on this subject please refer to Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Taylor &Francis e-library, 2002 and Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive limits of sex . Routledge, 1993. 31 It is of value to observe that the boundaries between sex and gender and nature and culture are severely challenge when we begin to consider the issues surrounding transsexuals. Broadly speaking they are born with the biological characteristics of one sex, whereas they identify with the gender of another. 32 Entwistle 2000: 144 33 Oakley, Ann. Sex, Gender and Society. (1976: 158), as quoted in Entwistle 2000: 143 Though important, the topics of sex, gender and sexuality, is above only covered briefly, and in general terms, as they are considered beyond the scope of the current essays which takes a different path in understanding our relationship with dress and fashion. However, for the purpose of the overall project these concepts are understood as social and cultural rather than biological creations. For more extensive and specific reading on fashion, identity and sexuality cf. Entwistle 2000, Hollander 1994, Davis 1992, Wilson (1985) 2003, also Claudine Griggs. S/he: Changing Sex and Changing Clothes. Berg, (1998) 2003 34 Entwistle 2000: 143, Griggs: (1998) 2003 35 Synnott: 1993, Entwistle: 2000; the assumption in sociology that that the body belong primarily to biology have largely collapsed and the meaning of the body has increasingly become a problem for linguistic, cultural and social analysis. 36 Entwistle, 2000: 6 37 Paton, Herbert James. Kant s Metaphysic of Experience. London: Routledge, (1936) 2002: 99-103 38 This is inclusive of but not limited to swimming, dancing, washing, ritual breathing in meditation, posture, the variations in batting stance amongst baseball players and in the context of this project it is asserted the act of dressing would fall under the category of technique Cf. Mauss, Marcel. Techniques of the Body. Economy and Society, 1973: 70-88 39 Turner, Brian S. The body and Society: Explorations in Social Theory. Blackwell, 1985: 1 40 Ibid. Turner, 1985 : 1 41 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) advocated social constraint and control to be exercised by governments in the preservation of human life and civilized values. Encouraging a renewed interest in human nature he proposed a certain view on corporeality within the context of social order. 42 Frank, A. For a Sociology of the Body: an Analytical Review. In H.A.T. Featherstone (Ed.), The Body: Social Process and Cultural Theory (Vol. 5) 36-102. London: Sage Publications, 1991, Cf. also Frank, Arthur. The wounded Storyteller: Body, Illness, and Ethics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995 43 Entwistle, Joanne. The Fashioned Body. Polity Press, 2000:6-12, Though this essay does not specifically embark on an analysis of issues associated with gender and sexuality, it is however important to note that, these are central to many debates with regard to fashion, dress and of course identity. Some suggested reading: Elisabeth Wilson. Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity. (1985), Rutgers University Press, 2003:91-134, also Davis 1992 44 Frank, 1991, 1995 Following Frank this can be distinct through four practical aspects (dimensions) which he proposes the body encounters when it responds, or acts , to particular situations: control, desire, other-relatedness and self-relatedness. Furthermore this suggests the body follows a phenomelogical orientation, making this an issue of agency as in taking an active initiative in the creation of a clothed identity.
29
46
Dourish, Paul. Where the Action is: The foundation of embodied interaction. MIT Press, 2004:17-18, Agency is in this context observed as the ability to act and choose. 46 Cf. C. Breward 1995; Davis (1992) 1994; Hollander (1976) 1993; Lurie 2000 47 Cf. McCracken, Grant. Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities. Indiana University Press, (1988) 1990, (chapter 4) 48 Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. A Midland Book, (1976) 1979: 7. A somewhat broad but poignant definition, and for more in depth analysis of linguistics Cf. Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, London: Fontana/Collins, (1916) 1983 49 Pepperell, Robert. The Post-Human Condition. Bristol: Intellect Books, 2003 (1995) 2003: 79 50 Barthes, Roland, The Fashion System, University of California Press, trans. by Matthew Ward and Richard Howard 1983, (org. Systeme de la Mode, 1967). In Barthes own words: ...a structural analysis of women s clothing as currently described in fashion magazines, it essentially used a methodology inspired by Saussure s postulated science of signs under the name of semiology 1990: xi 51 Ibid. Barthes:1990 52 Bourdieu, Pierre, The Logic of Practice, Stanford University Press, 1990 (1980) pp. 4-5 53 Lurie 2000: 3-6 54 Lurie 1981: 9 55 Cf. Mendes, De la Haye 1999:152-53 56 Ibid. 57 Cf. Buchanan, Richard, Design and the New Rhetoric: Productive Arts in the Philosophy of Culture, Philosophy and Rhetoric, 2001, Vol. 34, No. 3: 183-206 58 Cf. Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976 59 Cf. Body Dressing, Edited by Joanne Entwistle and Elizabeth Wilson, Berg, 2001:9. Cf. Also: Calefato, Patrizia The Clothed Body, Berg (2004), 2005, Barthes, The Fashion System: (1967) 1990, Eco: 1979, Lurie: 1981, Hebdige: 1979 60 Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press, (1980) 2003 61 Ibid. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) 2003: 71. Roschs research speaks to the manner in which we categorize the world by similarity and association, in a sense by the way we construct ideal types. We assert qualitative differences to these types (fast cars, smooth rock, soft and sleek dress etc.), and in attributing these qualities create sub-categories differentiating chair from sofa chair, bike from racing bike, dress from evening dress and so on. As a further example we categorize Punks as belonging to the general term culture (prototypical) recognizable yet simultaneously observe them as someone outside the accepted social and cultural perimeters (non-prototypical) to the extent they become a subculture . In interpretive design categorization can be seen as an issue of reference, visual analogies, metaphors and similes make the association between objects and the life and culture that support its making. Cf. Rosch, Eleanor, and Barbara B. Lloyd. Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1978: 27-48 (Principles of Categorization) 62 Cf. McCracken (1988) 1990. Chapter four in Particular. 63 Barthes, Roland, The fashion System, University of California Press (1967), 1990 64 Davis, Fred, Fashion, Culture and Identity, Chicago: The Chicago University Press, (1992) 1994 65 Cf. Eco, Umberto, A Theory of Semiotics, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979, As quoted in Davis: (1992) 1994 66 Davis (1992) 1994: 3
45
47
Lurie, Alison, The Language of Clothes, Holt Paperbacks, 2000: 3-6, also Davis 1992; Entwistle 2000, Svendsen, Lars, Mote: Et Filosofisk Essay, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 2004: 63-73 It is of note that, in historical terms the image conveyed through the white t-shirt and black leather jacket hardly existed, as an iconic representation prior to Marlon Brando's Johnny Strabler character in The Wild One, wearing the Perfecto motorcycle jacket. The importance of the visual media in disseminating the symbolism must be considered in this context. Though not all that is spoken necessarily becomes fashion, as a tool the movie mediated a mood and a gesture of rebellion, striking a cord within the social framework imperative for the look to take flight and become culturally important, as a sign of the times. 69 The OED defines persona as a mask, a character or role accessed 07-05-2011, University of Calgary 70 A discussion on design as information versus design for persuasion can be found in: Robin Kinross The Rhetoric of Neutrality, Design Issues, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 18-30, Published by: The MIT Press, 71 Entwistle, Joanne, The Fashioned Body, Polity Press, 2000, p. 42-43, Cf. also Davis 1992 72 Veblen, Thorstein, The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, Cosimo, (1899), 2003:103- 116 73 Veblen (1899) 2003, Cf. Bourdieu, Pierre, The Logic of Practice, Stanford University Press, 1990; Bourdieu also speaks to the idea of different classes holding different notions of what beauty is, and that beauty as such does not belong to one particular class but is fundamentally immersed in the belief of the autonomy of art with respect to social relations, further suggesting some overall consensus on the aesthetic level. 74 Gronow, Jukka, Taste and Fashion: The Social Function of Fashion and Style, Acta Sociologica 36, 1993:89-100 (91) It is in this context valuable to consider the implications of what Kant suggests at that place in time. To think that all humans have similar taste is revolutionary: the hunger of a king did not in principle differ from the hunger of a beggar. 75 Veblen, (1899) 2003:103-116; Cf. Corrigan, Peter, The Dressed Society: Clothing, the Body and some Meanings of the World, Sage Publications Ltd, 2008:3537 76 th Entwistle, 2000:60-62, These generalizations sit in contrast to the work of prominent 19 century feminists and designers such as Amelia Bloomer, and Deutscher Werkbund co-founder and actress Anna Multhesius and other women involved in the aesthetic movement , who identified with the prevailing artistic and intellectual avant-garde. In part professing to liberate women and the body from the constraints of the corset and more generally fashion , these ideas were in large measure based in the structure of Arts and Crafts and the socialist ideas of Ruskin and Morris, and defined by the Romantic notion of th naturalness in contrast to artificiality . The initiatives have further influenced the 20 century bio-political movement centring around the body, paving the way for body project or body fashion , which sit at the heart of a global economic sector immersed in cosmetics, nutrition, sports, and increasingly cosmetic surgery. Cf. Christopher Breward and Caroline Evans Fashion and Modernity, Berg 2005, Barbara Vinken and Mark Hewson, Fashion Zeitgeist: Trends and Cycles in the Fashion System, Berg, 2004 77 Baudrillard, Jean, For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign, Telos Press Ltd., Translated by Charles Levin, 1981:79, Entwistle, 2000:61, Svendsen:2004 78 Wilson, Elizabeth, Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity, Virago Press (1985), Rutgers University Press 2003:50-55 79 Cf. Wilson, Elizabeth Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity, 1985,To numerous to list Jean Baudrillard and Quentin Bell come to mind sharing Veblen s assessment with slight variances in their presentations of fashion. 80 Veblen (1899) 2003 81 See footnote 96
68
67
48
Entwistle, 2000:65 Cf. Featherstone, Mike. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism., Sage 2007, Entwistle 2000, Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A social Critique of Judgement of Taste. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. (1979) 1984 84 Simmel 2004: 290. 85 Kant Immanuel. Anthropology From a Pragmatic point of View. Robert B. Louden (Ed.), Manfred Kuehn (Ed.), Cambridge University Press, 71, th 2006: 142. also Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. London: Continuum, (1975) 2004: 33-34. Texts from the 14 century have described and ridiculed people that don attire which diverges from what is strictly functional, so fashion has long had its proponents and its critics. 86 Veblen, (1899), 2003:103- 116 87 Carter, Michael, Fashion Classics from Carlyle to Barthes, Berg Publishing, 2003:59-63 88 Ibid Carter, 2003:64 89 Ibid. Carter, 2003:65 90 Simmel, Georg, Fashion, (1904), in The rise of Fashion, A Reader, Edited by Daniel Leonard Purdy, University of Minnesota Press, 2004:297 91 That fashion is...a product of social needs is perhaps demonstrated by nothing stronger than the fact that, in countless instances, not the slightest reason can be found for its creations from the standpoint of an objective, aesthetic or other expediency. Simmel (1904) 2004:292, Carter 2003:67 92 Simmel, (1904) 2004:290-92 93 Cf. Breward, Christopher, The culture of Fashion: A New History of Fashionable Dress, Manchester University Press, 1995:87-89 Cf. Also Campbell, Colin, th Understanding Traditional and Modern patterns of Consumption in 18 Century England: A Character-Action Approach , in Consumption and the World of Goods, edited by John Brewer and Roy Porter, Routledge, NY, 1993: 53 & Sennett, Richard The fall of Public Man, NY:W.W. Norton and Company Inc. (1977), 1992:68 94 Ibid. Breward:1995, Campbell:1993, Sennett:1992 95 Kant aesthetic discussion comes out of two opposing political traditions; the German state suggesting its citizen s happiness should be legislated and the British empiricist aesthetics, who viewed the matters of goodness and beauty to be a private (personal) concern and judgement of members of civil society. Kant discussed fashion only briefly in the context of taste and rejects fashion as unreflected and blind imitation, and as such antithetical to good taste, a view Kant shares with his contemporaries in as much as a person blindly following the whims of fashion was without style, however a man of style or a gentleman would in contrast use his own powers of judgement. Cf. Gronow 1993: 91, Svendsen 2004: 39-40 96 Simmel (1904) 2004:290-92 97 Simmel (1904) 2004:290-92 (291) 98 Gronow, 1993:89-100 (90) 99 Simmel, (1904), 2000:301 100 Simmel, Georg, Kant 16. Vorlesungen, Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1905b:168 Cited in Gronow 1993:93, translated by Jukka Gronow 101 Kant. Immanuel, The Critique of Judgement, University of Adelaide, 2008:70, 8 102 Gherardi, Silvia, Practice? It s a matter of Taste!, Management Learning, Vol. 40 (5):535-550, Sage Publications 2009:538-40, as Gherardi shows the word amateur has Latin roots which it shares with amare , literally meaning to love . As such an amateur is someone who practices as a dabbler , who practices for the love of doing what he or she does. 2009:537
83
82
49
103
Cf. Heidegger, Martin, Poetry, Language Thought: Building, Dwelling Thinking, Trans. Albert Hofstadter, Harper & Row, 1971:145-61, and also Michael Polanyi, Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy, Harper Torchbooks, 1964, Gherardi: 2009 104 Bourdieu, Pierre, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of taste, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1984:4 105 Ibid. Heidegger: 1971 106 Please refer to earlier section: Concerning the Practice and Phenomenon of Fashion 107 Ibid. Simmel 1991:63-71, Cf. Also Zygmunt Baumann, Liquid Modernity, Polity Press 2000:31-32 108 Cf. Baumann 2000, and Giddens, Anthony, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Stanford University Press, 1991, performance in this context must be understood to encompass all human accomplishments not simply performing a role as in playing a role. 109 Ibid. Giddens 1991 110 Cf. Turner, The Body and Society 1984, concerning the tasks of the body in modern society. Also Foucault 1988 111 Cf. Bauman:1996, Foucault, Michel, The Care of Self: The History of Sexuality, Volume 3, New York Vintage Books,1986, Giddens:1991 112 Foucault, Michel, Luther H, Martin, Huck Gutman, Patrick H. Hutton, Technologies of Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, University of Massachusetts Press, 1988:18 113 Foucault, Martin, Gutman, Hutton, 1988 114 Maguire, Jennifer Smith & Kim Stanway, Looking Good: Consumption and the Problems of Self-Production , European Journal of Cultural Studies. 11 (1): 63-81 115 Cf. Bourdieu:1984, Campbell:1987 116 Douglas, Mary, Baron Isherwood, The world of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption, NY: Basic Books (1979), 1996:xv 117 Cf. Certeau, Michel, The Practice of Everyday Life, University Of California Press, 1984, also Hebdige, Dick, Subculture, The Meaning of Style, Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1979, Teddy boys, Punks, Suits, safety pins and tubes of Vaseline, examples of the reformulation of consumer objects and redirection of meaning. 118 Maguire & Stanway: 2008 119 Cf. Beck, Ulrich, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage Publications, 1992 Cf. Also, Individualization, ed. Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim Sage Publications 2001 120 Ibid. Simmel, 2004: 290-92 121 Cf. Baumann, Zygmunt in, Individualization, ed. Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim Sage Publications 2001:xvi 122 Craik, Jennifer, The Face of Fashion: Cultural Studies in Fashion, Taylor & Francis e-library, (Routledge 1993), 2005: 4; Bourdieu: (1979) 1984 123 Gronow, 1993:97 124 Simmel Georg, The problem of Style in Theory, Culture and Society 8, 1991:63-71(69) ...the individual constructs his environment of various stylized objects; by this doing the objects receive a new centre, which is not located in any of them alone, but which they all manifest through the particular way they are united 125 Bourdieu:1984 126 Hebdige, Dick. Subculture, The Meaning of Style. Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1979:2-3
50
127
The bustle of the Victorian era is said to have found its inspiration in the Hottentot Venus exhibited throughout Europe in the early part of the 19th Century. Combined with the corset it accentuated the buttocks, waist and bosom, creating an idealized image of female sexuality, exaggerated but simultaneously concealed. Cf. Matthew Sweet, Inventing the Victorians, St.Martin s Press, 2001 128 Simmel, Georg. Fashion , in The rise of Fashion, A Reader, Edited by Daniel Leonard Purdy, University of Minnesota Press, (1904) 2004: 295. 129 Kybalova,L. Das Grosse Bilderlexikon der Mode. Artia, Praha 1966: 127, this design expression is associated with the ethnographic expos of pygmy tribes (or as they somewhat derogatorily were named: fat-backs ) on the African continent. 130 Cf. Ricoeur, Paul, The conflict of interpretations: essays in hermeneutics, (Existence and Hermeneutics), Continuum (1989), 2004:3-70, Cf. Also Lars Svendsen, Mote: Et Filosofisk Essay, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, Norway, 2004: 148-49

Theory and Discourse - 07!25!2011 - REDRAFT1

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Theory and Discourse - 07!25!2011 - REDRAFT1

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Concerning Theories and Discourse

particular set of genitals.

it (clothing) turns nature into culture, layering cultural meaning

Turner s analysis is central to early sociological

Informed in part by Michel Foucault s notion of disciplines Turner identifies

Fashion as a Communicative System

Everything from imagery, symbols, conventions and gestures, from

distinctive. This is where it triumphs of rationality

Individuation or Practice of Self

Practice of taste or Sensus Communis

Você também pode gostar