Page 126 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 126
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 5–6
Gender and Clothing Practices
Within culturological studies, authors mainly place fashion within the
study of youth-subcultural styles (Hall and Jefferson, 1975). Youth subcul-
tures are defined as “attempts to resolve collectively experienced problems re-
sulting from contradictions in the social structure” (Barker, 2000, p. 323).
Analyses focus on subcultures of working-class boys, reducing the specif-
ic youth subculture to class subculture. Defining style as rebellion, cultur-
ological analysis of youth subcultures highlights the positive, creative and
political role of clothing practices in identity negotiations of young peo-
ple, who establish their sense and meaning of a specific style in social crit-
icism and the creation of alternative identity moduses as well as the social
locations of their performance. Style in youth subcultures is defined as op-
posed to fashion, seen as part of the dominant culture, implying subordi-
nation and adaptability.
While culturological studies of youth subcultures address styles and
their role in young people, feminist theory distrustfully and critically
deals with the meaning of outfit and fashion in the construction of fem-
ininity. These analyses articulate “the system of fashion and beauty” as
“uniforms of patriarchal fantasy” (Thornham, 2000, p. 147) that estab-
lish woman as the consumer subjected to male desire, disciplining wom-
an’s body through dominant fashion standards (Bartky, 1988), strength-
ening stereotypical images of femininity and producing repressive norms
of the “real” femininity. These analyses reveal a negative and restrictive
role of clothing and other related body practices which they define as the
mechanism for discipline, control and adaptation to the existing power
relations. Although this discourse also partly allows for the ambivalent
nature of fashion as both a creative and oppressive practice, it puts signifi-
cantly more emphasis on its negative, restrictive and disciplining function
serving to submit women to the existing power relations rather than to so-
cial criticism, and leading to the stereotypisation, shrinking and homog-
enisation of alternative identities and social locations rather than their
creation.
Both theorisations are shown as relevant, but deficient in address-
ing the engendering of young people through body practices. Their defi-
ciencies may be summarised as follows: 1) by focusing on style as rebellion,
culturological analysis of youth subcultures ignores the gender dimension
and the pressure from the processes of the construction of gender identi-
ties in adolescence; 2) by focusing on fashion as the disciplining of femi-
ninity under patriarchal and consumerist norms, the feminist critique of
fashion omits masculinity from the analysis and the fact that men are also
124
Gender and Clothing Practices
Within culturological studies, authors mainly place fashion within the
study of youth-subcultural styles (Hall and Jefferson, 1975). Youth subcul-
tures are defined as “attempts to resolve collectively experienced problems re-
sulting from contradictions in the social structure” (Barker, 2000, p. 323).
Analyses focus on subcultures of working-class boys, reducing the specif-
ic youth subculture to class subculture. Defining style as rebellion, cultur-
ological analysis of youth subcultures highlights the positive, creative and
political role of clothing practices in identity negotiations of young peo-
ple, who establish their sense and meaning of a specific style in social crit-
icism and the creation of alternative identity moduses as well as the social
locations of their performance. Style in youth subcultures is defined as op-
posed to fashion, seen as part of the dominant culture, implying subordi-
nation and adaptability.
While culturological studies of youth subcultures address styles and
their role in young people, feminist theory distrustfully and critically
deals with the meaning of outfit and fashion in the construction of fem-
ininity. These analyses articulate “the system of fashion and beauty” as
“uniforms of patriarchal fantasy” (Thornham, 2000, p. 147) that estab-
lish woman as the consumer subjected to male desire, disciplining wom-
an’s body through dominant fashion standards (Bartky, 1988), strength-
ening stereotypical images of femininity and producing repressive norms
of the “real” femininity. These analyses reveal a negative and restrictive
role of clothing and other related body practices which they define as the
mechanism for discipline, control and adaptation to the existing power
relations. Although this discourse also partly allows for the ambivalent
nature of fashion as both a creative and oppressive practice, it puts signifi-
cantly more emphasis on its negative, restrictive and disciplining function
serving to submit women to the existing power relations rather than to so-
cial criticism, and leading to the stereotypisation, shrinking and homog-
enisation of alternative identities and social locations rather than their
creation.
Both theorisations are shown as relevant, but deficient in address-
ing the engendering of young people through body practices. Their defi-
ciencies may be summarised as follows: 1) by focusing on style as rebellion,
culturological analysis of youth subcultures ignores the gender dimension
and the pressure from the processes of the construction of gender identi-
ties in adolescence; 2) by focusing on fashion as the disciplining of femi-
ninity under patriarchal and consumerist norms, the feminist critique of
fashion omits masculinity from the analysis and the fact that men are also
124
