Blog post # 3
Let’s talk about style. I’ll be talking about it in the next post too, but here’s a good place to start.
As much as people try to deny it, a person’s style will greatly affect how they are perceived by others. I figured I should get that out of the way quickly. It’s naïve to think that you aren’t being judged by your appearance. Last year, there was a big fiasco when a Toronto cop made an unofficial statement saying: "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."
There was a big to-do about this, understandably. The statement makes it sound as though men are incapable of controlling themselves (meaning they are not at fault), and that women invite sexual assault by dressing provocatively. Both of these are false, and therefore the uproar is justified. However, I was involved in a class discussion at the time, where the female portion of the class felt that they should be able to wear whatever they want and not be judged based on that. I could do nothing but shake my head. Let’s step back into reality here, folks. If you step out in public wearing less than a square foot of clothing and you are going to be treated differently than if you go out wearing a paper bag. That’s just the way it is. That’s why we dress up for job interviews, so that we can present ourselves in a professional manner. If we truly didn’t judge based on appearance, we’d all be naked. Well at least indoors, where the unpredictable Canadian weather can’t reach us.
Back on topic. The outfit worn in public often signifies one’s tastes, finances and preference as well as demonstrating the individual’s position in socially prescribed roles. A soccer mom looks like a soccer mom because articles of her appearance are characteristic of that role. She’s got a Subaru stationwagon/Dodge Caravan and it’s got a soccer ball sticker/air freshener on it and she’s wearing jeans and a grey hoodie and glasses and has short-medium hair. Her class status is apparent through these symbols. This nice lady’s choice of outfit is her expression of normality, but it’s a “loaded choice”. Everything in her life makes her a “soccer mom”, but she feels as though it was her decision to become one. And perhaps she holds a certain sway in the matter through her decisions regarding other aspects of her life (i.e. what kind of car to buy), but in the end, her decisions reflect her identity, rather than her choosing her identity directly. If she suddenly decided, “I want to be a scene chick!”, no one would take her seriously; her image is not easily transferable. She would be far too busy rockin Tumblr and screaming at shows to ever take her kids to practice. The subcultures display codes of their own, that directly contrast each other.
I haven’t even brought up Hebdige yet. But I’ve been bringing up a few of his points. Hebdige gets really insightful in the second half of Subculture: The Meaning of Style. He’s talking about juxtaposition. So here’s a formula: Object + Meaning = Sign. Got it? Now, signs are generated, assembled and relocated by subcultures. So when a subculture takes multiple objects and juxtaposes them with meaning, we get signs that point us to conclusions. When it comes to clothing, these signs point to the wearer’s identity. So when someone takes a cross, an icon of Christianity, and combines it with a necklace, they have created a wearable sign, pointing viewers to the conclusion that the individual is Christian. The punk subculture is unique here, because their signs don’t always have intended conclusions. They often have intended results, but the concepts that the sign represents may be irrelevant. Two examples: The swastika and the bike part braclet. Wearing a swastika incites anger because of the acts committed by those wearing the symbol. It isn’t worn because punks are fascists, it’s worn because you won’t like it. The bike chain bracelet doesn’t mean the punk is a cyclist, it means they’re unconventional, which is a pretty vague term. The signs don’t show a way, they are intentional means of evoking a reaction. Hebdige summarizes this “unfashion” with a great moniker: “If the cap doesn’t fit, wear it.”
What I find fascinating about rebellious subcultures, such as punks, hippies and the more recent hipster culture, is that their intent of being anything but normal (re)defines what normal is. What happens when the icons of hipster culture become ‘normal’ or ‘mainstream’ as they are already?
New rebellious subcultures. That’s what happens. An old rebellion against normality is trivialized and a new one forms. The expression through rupture, as Hebdige puts it, is constant, and frankly, I’m glad. There always needs to be a voice of opposition to provide that moment of “Wait, maybe they have a point. What if I’m wrong?” But that’s a sentiment for another post. I’m off to do something artsy.
-WC-
No comments:
Post a Comment