In the piece "The Visible and the Invisible" Bourdieu the types of clothing commonly worn by the different professions in his time period. Depending on what type of job you held, there was a certain, unannounced uniform that went along with it. Take for example blue overalls for a farmer or industrial worker, or suits worn by junior executive. Very clearly you can see a distinct divide in clothing between upper class and the working class by the materials used and lavishness of their clothing. Lower class workers pick materials that are cost efficient and last longer, upper class executives pick fancy suits made of expensive material. Not only does the quality of material vary between classes, but also the quantity and the variance of items. It is very clearly seen by the data presented in the study that poor working class people care very little about external material goods because they need to spend their money on more important things like food or bills. Given financial security, this may completely change for them because they will have more room to splurge on lavish clothing, although as Bourdieu points out, this is unlikely because lower-class citizens possess jobs that do not depend on appearances at all, only physical work. Because of this distinction in clothing preference, or rather availability, it is easy to categorize people into social classes by purely visual contexts.
As Connerton states in his piece, a piece of clothing represents a whole cluster of meanings and a set of expectations for the person adorned in that clothing. What they are both saying is that by looking at someone's appearance, you can gleam certain character attributes from them. This is the idea of cultural capitalism, which is how taste, appearance, and activities you participate in are reflective of your social class. Although this excerpt of Bourdieu's book does not blatantly talk about cultural capitol, here is a page that can give you a clearer definition of Cultural Capitol. Even though these two pieces we're written in the 80s, they still hold much cultural significance. Although we may not wear blue overalls or overcoats, there is a distinct class separation in clothing purchases. School age children, from about 7th grade through high school, are an excellent example of apparent class separation. I can still remember myself at the ripe age of 12 being completely devastated by my parents unwillingness to buy me $60 jeans and $30 shirts from Hollister or Abercrombie. All my friends had the little birds on their pockets, so why did I have to wear jeans from Walmart? My father then tried to explain to me that those jeans would be two hours worth of work for him to buy them for me, and we just didn't have the money for it. The high importance society gives to clothing sets up a culture that values aesthetics more than internal worth.
The CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch is a perfect example of how clothing is used as a social signifier of personal worth. He claims that the company does not make plus size clothing because the brand is meant for "cool kids" and fat people are not cool. This brings us back to Friday's reading about bodily capitol and how fat people are largely devalued in our society just because of their external appearance. An article that ties the two pieces together nicely is "How cultural capital relates to fatness and fitting in". The author of this article discusses how the certain look she enjoys does not cater to her (larger) body type and how that has hindered her social relations. Her hipster tendencies steer her towards vintage floral dresses that she can wear to divvy bars in the evenings, but because of the waif-like image of quirky indie girls, she finds it difficult to find clothing that fits. As I mentioned before, one piece of clothing, say ironic thick-framed glasses, can tell you a lot about a persons tendencies and values. So what does this mean to have a society that can be so superficial, you can tell their whole backstory by what brand of jeans they wear?
I can relate to the craze of "needing" to wear Abercrombie clothes and having the moose logo visible. During middle school I was fortunate enough to wear quite a bit of their clothing and thinking back now with the information from these readings, I was a force in the division of class amongst students. Those that didn't wear it still desperately wanted to be included with those that did. The "cool, rich" kids against the uncool and poor clique war ensued. This status/class division makes it apparent how much influence a simple little logo on a shirt can have. Though you may only own one designer shirt, if you wear that shirt at the right time with the right people you're "on the in". An outward appearance dictated by clothing can have a profound effect on social interactions, but it's important to remember the old saying, "Don't judge a book by its cover."
ReplyDeleteP.S. Thanks for posting earlier in the day. Helps me avoid procrastination by not waiting until 9
The correlation between social class and outward appearances one presents via clothing is a very interesting topic. After spending a few years at UofM I think we can all agree that this concept is very obvious on this campus. For example, wearing nice boat shoes, button downs, and other "classy" appeal can be associated with Greek Life or wealth; both usually coincide. However, after visiting friends at Northern Michigan University, their campus seems to not follow the "normal" patterns of relating clothing to status or wealth. Rather, it's more about who can wear to most outrageous t-shirt with crazy pictures on the front (usually wolfs or some spirit animal). Many students even make their own hats and gloves. Thus, while reading Bourdieu's piece, his points were clear and understandable; however, I believe that his explanations do not fit all communities and settings, as in the case with Northern Michigan University where there are students who come from wealth and others who do not, yet acceptance is based on a "laid back" thrift shop appearance where people from all social classes can partake. Overall, I believe clothing is something that can give many indications about an individual, but I am fairly skeptical about making conclusions about one's social status when looking at their clothing because there are many fads that use clothing as its main subject (as in Northern Michigan University's case with outrageous shirts and homemade clothing).
ReplyDeleteWhat stuck out most to me was the ease at which categories could be placed on people simply based on their clothing; I do think that in many cases it may be easy to identify the businessman versus the construction, or factory worker in some situations. That being said they don’t constantly dress like that, a working class person can be well dressed, and an upper class individual can dress sloppily. I think it’s not great to throw categories on anyone that easily. In addition to that I also like how Kate connected the A&F article to our reading on Friday. Every time I hear or read about that CEO I ask myself if he’s joking, it’s appalling how superficial not only this man is but also our society as a whole has become.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Darin, My school was very materialistic. Students that wore the most expensive clothes were labeled as "cool" and hip. Although in my community, I didn't see a lot of Abercrombie and Fitch, Students and children wore things like POLO, Ralph Lauren or North Face. Shoes were even in a different category. If you wore popular Jordan's or Nikes, you were placed in a particular social category. What I found interesting as I thought about the social categories is that we and people are placed in these categories so easily. These categories establish our personal worth. Our materialistic ideals substantially affect our self-worth.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that concrete objects worn on the body can have symbolic meaning about a person's cultural identity has many important implications, but it also serves to raise some important questions. Primarily, can the meaning of an object change depending on who is wearing it? For example, in the 'Fitch the Homeless' campaign*, A&F clothes were distributed to homeless people as a form of protest against the company's exclusionary marketing. In a case like the one described, what would it mean for people in the lowest income bracket (literally $0) to be wearing clothes not normally associated with them? I would contend that rather than re-defining society's perceptions of these people to view them as belonging to a different social class, it would change the meaning of the objects themselves to be less exclusive. Put simply, the meaning of the "cultural capitol" you define (and similarly, that of Bourdieu) seems less rigid in my mind than the social categories that the representative objects lend themselves to.
ReplyDelete*http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/06/fitch-the-homeless-viral-video-karber.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI grew up in a lower-middle class neighborhood. The girls didn't wear makeup and no one dressed in Ambercrombie & Fitchh or Express until they started to work for their own money. Even so, the majority of guys that worked did so at gas stations where appearance didn't matter, the girls on the other hand worked at retail stores, restaurants, or offices where they were expected to look a certain way. These kids didn't start to dress this way until money became available to them, but like you said, the type of job one holds defines the clothes one buys for oneself. When the CEO of A&F first came along he dressed like a normal professional but after recreating the brand he changed his appearance to fit the image of an A&F guy and the workplace became a sort of cult from the way people dressed and spoke, to the music they listened to. It is interesting to see how dress can impact our culture in so many ways and its no longer just arbitrary fabric that you use to keep warm.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like how you end your post with "you can tell someone’s back story by what type of jeans they wear". It is interesting to think that this back story we expect of someone can be entirely created by the brand of jeans they are wearing. I will admit that I dress completely different with concern to what event I am attending. I am from a very small country town and whenever I am back home, cheap jeans, an old raggy shirt and a ball cap are the norm; however, when I am going to a party at UofM I make sure to look hard for the best outfit I have, because that's supposedly what impresses people. Jeffries says the A&F guy is the best America has to offer, he's cool, beautiful, funny, optimistic, smart...etc. In this comment Jeffries pretty much tells teenage boys and girls that without name brand clothing; you cannot have any of these characteristics. It is not the person themselves who is smart, funny, and beautiful, it is the clothing that allows them to be this way. I love how you use the phrase ‘superficial society’ to end your post. Society has created a fake or ‘superficial’ way of viewing people based on the clothing they wear.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Jordan, that the meaning of the object changes rather than the view of the person. That is why the CEO of A & F Mike Jeffries has been trying so hard to limit his clothes to those he deems most valuable. He is marketing exclusivity. He doesn't care that he is losing business on "fat people, ugly people and un-cool people," because he doesn't deem them valuable enough to wear his clothes, So he places a lot of value on his clothes but similarly I don't think he would say that his clothes would turn un-cool people cool if they wear them. I also think it's ironic that he doesn't think that ugly people should be wearing his clothes, but yet he changed his face so much in pursuit of the eternal youthful look that he ended up with a face that looks like a melted clown mask and yet he still wears clothes "that aren't for ugly people."
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with the previous comments, I can't help but think of companies who attach their brands to certain sectors of the market in America. Clothing companies that participate in this behavior then add their branding name and brand ethos to this market and then seeks to normalize their brand as being one within the sector of a particular market.
ReplyDeleteFor example, to be an advocate of LGBT rights for a business is very profitable. Clothing businesses then seek to attach their name to a brand and create an image that becomes the dominant, constructed view of that brand and how individuals in that segregated market should dress and behave. Specifically, underwear brands that are targeted towards gay men carry the image of a muscular, white, attractive male and usually cost an upwards of thirty dollars for a single pair. The underwear then becomes a signifier of a more affluent, male who has the means to purchase a pair of the underwear in the first place which then places that individual in a hierarchy amongst a group of individuals (because they could afford to splurge on clothing). Furthering that point, then owning the pair of underwear (or any other clothing) becomes embedded within that culture and market which allows for others who cannot afford specific brands to feel less than which leads to a depleted level of self-confidence. In all, clothing does symbolize wealth and the meanings behind that are the ones that become constructed and accepted as "common knowledge."
I also agree with the point Kate made that one cannot really judge another individual based on the type of clothing they wear, but I also know that a student on campus who wears the Canada Goose coats is one who comes from a background of wealth and then all clothing becomes signifiers of family or individual wealth. (I feel like I will analyze all of my clothes next time I do laundry because of these readings now)