Dress as Metaphor British Female Fashion and Social Change in the 20th Century. Katarzyna Kociolek
gradually it became “a symbol of the wearer’s tastes and politics” (218), comments Wilson, stressing that as such the reform dress started to communicate identity in a way modern fashion does. The unconventional hairstyles (bob for women) and loose robes became manifestations of “a general rejection of the conventions and bourgeois lifestyle” (216).
Subcultural fashions may perhaps be regarded as a legacy of oppositional dress, for like the dress reform styles or dandyism they seemed to have invested clothing with metaphorical meanings. Referring to semiotics and the writings of both Roland Barthes and Umberto Eco, Dick Hebdige in his text on subcultures (2007) proposes to view clothing as signs, which “contain a whole range of messages” (257) about “class, status, self-image and attractiveness” or are at least “expressive of ‘normality’ as opposed to ‘deviance’ ” (257). Yet, while fashion choices may not be fully intentional, the stylised subcultural attire is “a visible construction, a loaded choice”, which “gives itself to be read” (257). The main goal of subcultural sartorial practices is “the communication of a significant difference” (257) from the society at large as well as simultaneous communication of the subcultural group’s identity. The model proposed by Hebdige to examine subcultural fashions resembles quite closely the sender-receiver model of communication, for according to him the use of clothes by members of subcultures is “motivated” and “intentional” (257).
Although Hebdige’s theory has been subject to numerous criticisms, with scholars such as Angela McRobbie accusing it of gender bias, the general mechanisms of transmitting meaning through clothes described by him provide ←36 | 37→some insight into what seems to be equally intentional sartorial communication in a public/political context. As the entrance of women into the public sphere of politics was often marked by the adoption of oppositional or what Hebdige terms “revolting” styles (259), it seems worthwhile to recount the main tenants of his theory, examining to what extent such concepts like “bricolage” and “homology” apply to fashions adopted by suffragettes, Flappers, and feminists (discussed in detail in Chapters 3 and 6).
Bricolage, which involves “blending of dissonant elements,” serves the purpose of disconnecting individual items of clothing or an accessory from its usual context/meaning. By being placed in an unusual combination with other supposedly incongruous elements of attire, the item starts to communicate a different message. According to Hebdige, bricolage occurs when elements of dress are “stripped of their original connotations” (2007, 259), as for example when “the conventional insignia of the business world – the suit, collar and tie” cease to metaphorically convey “efficiency, ambition, compliance with authority” (259), becoming instead a subcultural uniform, and “ ‘empty’ fetish” (259).
The subcultural practice of bricolage opened the ground for endless incorporations into fashion of elements that had been previously firmly outside the conventional understanding of style and aesthetics. Examples of Punk new fashion accessories given by Hebdige include lavatory chains, safety pins, plastic bin liners. The ultimate goal of incorporating these objects into fashion was to communicate revolt and dissent from normative femininity and masculinity alike. Not surprisingly, the repertoire of social taboos was readily exploited by Punks, who constructed their “confrontation dressing” (259) referring to fetish gear and sex-shop imagery. Yet, as the current study argues, the subversive styles were but a metaphor of the subversive behaviour of the Punks, who according to Hebdige “posed the clearest threat to law and order […] subverting the conventions of concert and night-club entertainment” (2007, 261).
Homology, which is another concept that Hebdige uses to examine subcultural styles and which he borrows from Levi-Strauss and Paul Willis, allows us to view Punk as supremely integral and coherent. Because subculture’s fashion is in homological relation to both anti-social behaviour of the subculture group members and their cacophonic music, it is “made to form unity with the group’s relations, situation, experience” (Hall et al., 1976, qtd. in Hebdige 2007, 263). According to Hebdige, the supposedly incongruous and chaotic styles that characterised Punk subculture were meant to reflect the social position of Punks and became a form of a visual protest against the orderly society in which Punks experienced marginalisation. Also following Willis, Hebdige stresses that contrary to commonly held views, subcultures are not “lawless forms” (263). On the ←37 | 38→contrary, all elements characteristic of a given subculture, such as dress, music and a way of being correspond to the values and self-image of that subculture.
In a more recent subcultural phenomenon, namely hip hop of the 1990s, dress and clothing also seemed to serve the important communicative function of producing and enhancing specific identities, establishing a sharp dividing line between those inside and outside the subcultural group. In his essay entitled “Great Aspirations. Hip hop, and fashion dress for excess and success,” Emil Wilbekin examines hip hop’s complex relation with the world of fashion, commenting on the importance of designer fashion for hip hop “character and identity” (250). While hip hop style is changing as quickly as its music, what remains a fairly stable characteristic of the subculture’s fashion is its constant engagement with designer labels. World famous fashion houses do not flinch from openly endorsing hip hop, reaping profits from the immense popularity of the music genre and its aesthetics. As Wilbekin observes, “beyond the blatant courting by both sides, fashion now takes aesthetic direction from hip hop culture more than ever” (251). This resulted in hip hop clothing being emblazoned with brand names, and the designers’ emulation of street fashion. Although such close affinity between a subculture and haute-couture fashion may be viewed as indicative of the new times of more democratic and equal social relations, the top fashion brands still communicate exclusiveness of their collections by “creating […] garments in luxe fabrics: cashmere, silk, mohair, and mink” (251–252), notes Wilbekin.
Likewise, Mary Ellen Roach and Joanne Bubolz Eicher stress the communicative function of dress and accessories, particularly in the public context of politics. According to the authors, wearing clothes is an “aesthetic act” and as such it is highly context specific, for “the language of personal adornment is acquired from others” (109), they argue. Individual societies or even social groups create their own dress codes through which they communicate their concepts of beauty and their systems of values. The clothed body is always meaningful, argue Roach and Eicher, as it “carries a number of other messages, frequently of social and psychological significance” (110). Therefore, the authors propose to group messages communicated by adornment under the following headings: “social role”, “social worth”, “economic status”, “political symbol”, “magico-religious condition” (112–117). Closely reminiscent of a linguistic message, clothing transmits information about social and power relations in a given society. Yet, like language, attire can be misleading, for “individuals can assume disguise to deceive the observer” (112). The messages about social role are closely linked to the ones about social worth and economic status. As pointed out by Roach and Eicher, adornment serves the purpose of marking the division between classes, indicating the high ←38 | 39→economic status of the elite. While in the past the sartorial distinction between representatives of various economic groups in society was sanctioned by sumptuary laws, contemporary sartorial practices, particularly in Western societies tend to be “generally more ambiguous in its symbolism”, Roach and Eicher argue.
Politics is another sphere where adornment has played an important communicative function. According to Roach and Eicher, political power has been sartorially represented by the use of “symbolic dress” as well as diverse accessories that are personal “mark of identification” (116). While political figures may occasionally resort to wearing historical costumes for the sake of “traditional ceremonial display” (which is discussed in Chapter 7), subtler forms of sartorial demonstration of power and political ideology are more frequently adopted. Nowadays, these include wearing emblems and badges, whereas in the past trousers cut, powdered hair or beauty