A good friend of mine is the founder of online avante-garde political publication
The Firebrand Magazine. Last week we were discussing the development of my blog and he offered to tweet about it, although most of his readers, based on their radical economic views, probably wouldn't find it relevant or interesting. This fact alone irked me for several reasons. It is my firm belief that clothing and its various roles transcend all economic levels; unless you're a practicing nudist, chances are that despite your economic situation, at least at one time in your life you were clothed.
Many cling to the stereotype that clothing equals frivolity. One could easily argue that "fashion" by definition does this, but we often forget in this mass-marketed, consumer driven climate that clothing does not
always equal luxury and superficiality. Clothing at its core is a necessity, one that many around the world still struggle to maintain. But if you look at the history of any culture or study any specific group of people, patterns and trends as to what is "acceptable" or "stylish" undoubtedly emerge, despite income level. I think of the anthropology course I took during undergrad in which we studied several African tribes. Depending on where on the continent they lived, amount of clothing varied. For example, women in the more arid African climate tended to wrap themselves in longer, layered, more elaborate dresses, while those who inhabited humid jungles often donned thin skirts and nothing else. Special jewelry and other adornments were worn in each culture for special occasions and were often highly symbolic, linked to a tribes own religion.
 |
| Maasai women with beadwork indicative of their social standing / Photo credit: The Wild Magazine |
I think that's something that gets lost in our "fashion forward" world, the fact that historically, clothing and adornment were used first as necessity and then adapted to communicate societal messages. This is easily discerned as an outsider looking in to a culture so drastically different from our own, but these things also exist around us in the United States today. This concept of course is added to in first world countries where the luxury of art (fashion) is something that can be actively pursued on a very large scale.
The fashion obsession of today, fueled by the accessibility of the internet and fanned by more and more ready to wear lines and collaborations tells its own story of our development as a society. That's one reason I personally find it so fascinating; yes, fashion is a luxury, but it serves multiple purposes: basic need, economic, entertainment, artistic, historical, physiological and these should not be overlooked. It's something to be taken seriously and, like all other aspects of history and sociology, to be studied out in order to better understand the world we live and the people around us.
I'm tired of people criticizing the fashion industry based on stereotypes; yes, those stereotypes exist for a reason, but what are those reasons? One of my friends on Facebook recently went on a mini rant about how he thought it was such a negative reflection on our society that Victoria's Secret held a fashion show, while in the same breath admitting he had no clue that there were such things as fashion shows. There's a reason why we in America hold fashion shows; this is nothing new and is part of our consumer and economic culture (Which is also nothing new! Quit skipping history class, kids). The same can be said of sporting events, concerts, and political campaigns. Are certain aspects of each of these things perhaps frivolous and ridiculous? Of course! But are there reasons these things are happening? Again, I say, of course.
Clothing has so many stories to tell, on individual and nation-wide levels; stories that cross all economic lines. This is something that as a general public we should be cognitive of, instead of instantly criticizing that which we don't fully understand.
Comments
Post a Comment