Being Prepared: Aspects of Dress and Dressing

SpringerBriefs in philosophy, 2017

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, eds. J. Edmondson & A. Keith, Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 2008

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 1992

Development of a theoretical framework for understanding linkages between identity and dress depends on careful selection and definition of terms and development of a broad, holistic view of Social Aspects of Dress. A comprehensive definition of dress includes both body modifications and supplements to the body. Properties of these modifications and supplements can be cross-classified with sensory responses they evoke. Because dress functions as an effective means of communication during social interaction, it influences peoples' establishing identities of themselves and others. An individual's self incorporates identities based on assigned and achieved positions within social structures, especially those that organize kinship, economic, religious, and political activities. Identities communicated by dress are also influenced by technology and society-wide moral and aesthetic standards for dress. Specific types and properties of dress that communicate identity may change through time in response to economic, demographic, and other societal changes. Our general, long-range goal is to update and expand upon a theoretical framework we first presented in 1965 as a series of overviews for a book of readings on the social significance of dress (Roach & Eicher, 1965). In this paper we limit ourselves to four specific tasks. The first is to urge use of the term dress by social scientists rather than other frequently used terns such as clothing, adornment, and costume. In this effort we offer a definition of dress and a classification system for types of dress based on this definition. We also present a

2012

Fashion and clothing construct, reproduce and challenge all kinds of identity and they do so visually and immediately. The meanings of the visual here, the meanings of what people are wearing, are quickly learned and readily understood by all members of all cultures: learning and understanding those meanings may even be said to be the conditions for membership of those cultures. So, for example within seconds of seeing or meeting someone we make a series of judgements concerning identity and culture, about who they are and whether we will have anything in common with them, on the basis of what they are wearing. Rarely, if ever, do we wonder what people mean by the things they wear or dismiss garments as meaningless: meaning and identity are constructed, negotiated and understood constantly in visual fashion. The centrality of fashion and clothing to the concerns of this collection (the concern with visuality, meaning, identity, society and culture), should nor need emphasizing. Soci...

2014

Development of a theoretical framework for understanding linkages between identity and dress depends on careful selection and definition of terms and development of a broad, holistic view of Social Aspects of Dress. A comprehensive definition of dress includes both body modifications and supplements to the body. Properties of these modifications and supplements can be cross-classified with sensory responses they evoke. Because dress functions as an effective means of communication during social interaction, it influences peoples' establishing identities of themselves and others. An individual's self incorporates identities based on assigned and achieved positions within social structures, especially those that organize kinship, economic, religious, and political activities. Identities communicated by dress are also influenced by technology and society-wide moral and aesthetic standards for dress. Specific types and properties of dress that communicate identity may change through time in response to economic, demographic, and other societal changes. Our general, long-range goal is to update and expand upon a theoretical framework we first presented in 1965 as a series of overviews for a book of readings on the social significance of dress (Roach & Eicher, 1965). In this paper we limit ourselves to four specific tasks. The first is to urge use of the term dress by social scientists rather than other frequently used terns such as clothing, adornment, and costume. In this effort we offer a definition of dress and a classification system for types of dress based on this definition. We also present a

Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles

This study categorizes the formative aspects of dress and their implications according to the extent of revealing or concealing corporeality based on body perceptions. By considering the notion of dress as bodily practice to be a theoretical and methodological framework, this study combines a literature survey and case analysis to analyze and classify the forms of women's dress since the 1920s when contemporary fashion took hold. As examined in this study, the typology of dress was categorized as body-consciousness, deformation, transformation, and formlessness. Body-consciousness that is achieved through tailoring, bias cutting, and stretchy fabric displays corporeality focusing on the structure and function of the body as an internalized corset. Deformations in dress are categorized into two different subcategories. One is the expansion or reduction of bodily features based on the vertical or horizontal grids of the body, which visualizes the anachronistic restraint of the body through an innerwear as outerwear strategy. The other is exaggerations of the bodily features irrelevant to the grid, which break from the limitations and constraints of the body as well as traditional notions of the body. Transformations of the body refer to as follows. First, the deconstruction and restructuring of the body that deconstruct the stereotypes in garment construction. Second, the abstraction of the body that emphasizes the geometrical and architectural shapes. Third, transformable designs which pursue the expansion and multiplicity of function. Formlessness in dress denies the perception of three-dimensionality of the body through the planarization of the body.

Why have clothes for a long time been neglected and dismissed by philosophers? After all, there are numerous human activities involving clothes that are fundamental both for our everyday personal existence and for the reproduction of the entire social life: Consider for example covering our bodies to protect them from the cold and from indiscreet gazes, getting dress with the aim of conveying certain messages, producing, distributing, exchanging and advertising fabrics and garments, etc. This should however not appear as too much of a puzzle: Philosophy has in fact for a long time not bothered to conceptually inquire into the nature of daily routines, worldly and frivolous practices and material, apparently futile things. Such an attitude is rooted in pernicious dualisms, as for instance matter vs. mind, appearance vs. reality, surface vs. depth, manual vs. intellectual labor, etc. On this tradition, the idea of "truth" has been mainly conceived of as something to be "unveiled" and "disclosed": The stripping of metaphorical veils and clothes seems thus to be a necessary condition for reaching the highest goals of the philosophical enterprises. The aim of this course is to problematize and revise such a disregard for the topic of clothes and fashion, and for the material world of relations -between persons, between things, and between persons and things -that clothes and fashion contribute to weave. As Shahidha Bari (2016) poignantly points out, our experiences of selfhood, and our interactions with others in diverse social domains, "are contoured and adumbrated by many things, including clothes": "the prejudices by which we disregard the concern for appearances or relegate dress to the domain of vanity, are an obstacle to a significant kind of understanding". A theoretical exploration of clothes and fashion rises a wide range of complex issues, that stretches from social ontology (what is the function of those things that mediate between ourselves, our bodies, and the 'external' world?) to ethics (Is it possible to love and care for clothes? Is it morally acceptable? What moral wrongs does the system of fashion bring about?), from liberal political philosophy (Is the fashion system based on injustices and structures of exploitation? How is power exercised within this system?) to radical critical theories (How do social norms, that are produced and reproduced by the fashion system, discriminate and harm certain categories of people? How are gender, race, class, religion etc. entrenched within this system?) In the course, we are going to address these and other questions by reading, interpreting and discussing classic and contemporary philosophical and sociological texts, but also by conceptually analyzing cultural products -especially blog posts and commercials -that could help us enriching, but also challenging, our philosophical points of view.

Clothing and perceptions of gender and body in the medieval an early modern period Fashion and perceptions of gender and body are closely intertwined. Clothes are thus an important source to often unspoken ideas of masculinity and femininity. In the Middle Ages manners of dress were affected by an Aristotelian perception of gender, where the difference between men’s and women’s bodies was seen as a difference in degree rather than in kind. This led to fashions with similar garments for men and women, differing mainly in length, but not in cut. Gender was marked with smaller items of dress, such as headwear, which weren’t linked to physical differences between men and women, but instead to their social roles. In the late 15th century a change in how clothing was used to present men’s and women’s bodies occurred as the clothes now emphasized bodily difference, indicating a new way of thinking about gender and the body. According to historian Thomas Laqueur the break with the Aristotelian model occurred in the 18th century. This period saw a fundamental break in the development of masculine and feminine dress, but judging from the development of fashion it seems that there was another break, though less radical, in the perception of sex at the end of the Middle Ages.