BODYSTYLES

‘The Queen’s coronation gown and Dior’s ‘New Look’ express two completely antithetical systems of time. The former is pre-set for traditional time while the latter is pre-set for modern time. Each outfit serves as a vehicle for time travel - the one into the past, the other into the future. But they have something in common: the subjugation of the personal, biological time of those who wore them. At her coronation, the Queen herself became a symbol of traditional, steady-state time; an advertisement for the continuity of the monarchy. On the other hand, a customer of Dior’s - simply by putting on the ‘New Look’- would have had her own, biological time rendered semiologically insignificant by the imposition of Modern Time.

It is the same for the rest of us. Every day when we open the wardrobe door and select an outfit to wear, we are choosing between making ourselves advertisements of steady-state or linear-progressive-modern time. If we choose an outfit which is avant-garde then we will be advertising a concept of time which is progressive and which celebrates the future. And if, on the other hand, we choose a ‘timeless classic’ then we will be promoting a perception of time which is traditional and which celebrates the present as a manifestation of the past. Time is the most fundamental of all ideological systems and every human being in their choice of clothes or body decorations participates in this politics of reality.’ p.122


‘Prior to the rise of modern nation states (and now the global village) our entire planet was differentiated into hundreds of thousands of costume regions and therein lies one of the principal purposes and functions of this form of dress: to mark the boundaries of small-scale communities and to provide a focus of group identity for those who resided in these communities. Thus what I have termed regional differences are actually social rather than geographic markers.

The second characteristic and function of folk costume derives from the first. Each peasant group represented by a distinctive costume style (‘Our Costume’) was (or is) a community which sought to buttress itself against destabilising change by means of a steady-state perception of time and by means of an unchanging and ‘timeless costume which was an expression of this perception of time and history.

Thus costume is a sort of time capsule which moves through history while denying its existence. By creating the illusion of the immutability of the status quo costume helps traditional societies to nip in the bud the threat of change by denying it its reality. . . Within a traditional community, costume does not change simply because it cannot be perceived to have changed.’ p.123


‘While the defining characteristics of costume are regional variability and ‘timelessness’, fashion is characterised by perpetual, restless change and by regional uniformity. If a costume could be described as an advertisement for the status quo, fashion is an advertisement for change and progress. By perpetually substituting this year’s ‘new look’ for last year’s ‘new look’ (which has become tarnished by time), fashion defines ‘seasons’ and thereby creates the impression of change. While costume aims to be fixed or frozen in time (and thereby to reify a steady state system of time perception), fashion is a relentless march forward - of style and, by implication, of time itself. (Which is, of course, just as much a fiction as costume’s ‘timeless’ immutability.)

Both costume and fashion are systems of signification but, at least on one level of analysis, they each express very different kinds of information. Whereas costume says where an individual is located sociologically (e.g. in village A, in the upper class, in the category of widows, etc.), fashion says what a person’s position is in linear-progressive time (behind the time/now/ahead of the times). However, because these meanings carry positive or negative social connotations for the would-be fashionable they also, by implication, define an individual’s place in social space.’ p.124

‘This is how the fashion system functions semiologically: each signifier (the ‘new look’ of 1986, 87, 88, etc.) has no ‘natural’ symbolic meaning. Indeed, each such signifier on its own has no meaning at all. It is only when one ‘look’ is contrasted with others which have come before or after it in fashion time that its meaning (behind the time/now/ahead of the time) becomes apparent. For example, if in 1988 black garments are out and flower print garments are in this cannot be taken to mean anything other than that this difference of colour and pattern is a device to signal change at a time when other parameters of style such as cut or skirt length have been ‘used up’ in order to effect style change in previous years. Flower prints do not, in the context of the fashion system, signify anything other than the fact of fashion change itself (of which they are an arbitrary sign).

Within the fashion system, differences of colour, pattern, cut, etc., have no more meaning than do the letters of a linguistic alphabet (e.g. the letter ‘a’ in ‘cape’ and the letter ‘o’ in ‘cope’ are only arbitrary devices of differentiation). In 1988 - within the fashion system - the only meaning which can be attached to a black blouse is old-fashioned and the only significance of a flower-print blouse is fashionable. p.124

‘The different characteristics of costume and fashion as semiotic systems are important because they point to the different kind of relationship which each has to the society within which it operates. A costume system is always directly and symbolically linked to its socio-cultural environment such that social facts > culture > costume styles. Thus the social system expresses itself directly and ‘naturally’ in the style of its costume. In a sense, therefore, ‘Our Costume’ is the signifier of ‘Our Society’,

In fashion, on the other hand, there is no immediate, intrinsic or ‘natural’ correlation between social history and fashion history. Flower prints to not signify that 1988 is socio-culturally a brighter, more colourful or flowery year than 1987. Their meaning is only that 1988 is a different year from 1987. The Chairman Mao jacket of the 1970s did not signify communistic trends in Western society.

The only ‘natural’ symbol to be found in fashion is that of the fashion system itself taken as a whole. Its unending stylistic change - taken together - are a ’natural’ symbol of time as change. (And this conceptualisation of time is itself an expression of the phenomenon of social mobility.) It must be emphasised again, however, that this correspondence (social mobility > lineal-progressive time > fashion) refers only to fashion as a total system: the individual phonemes of the fashion system (‘this year’s look’) are meaningless pieces of a larger systemic jigsaw.’ p. 125

‘Modernism - this new way of seeing history - opened the door onto a brave new world and brought radical innovations to the arts and, most of all, to the art of decorating and clothing the human body.

I am not here referring simply to particular styles of dress, but rather to a system - a machine, if you will - for the perpetual production of new styles. Whereas in feudal and other traditional socio-cultural systems new styles of dress were suspect and devalued until they could be given a patina of ‘oldness’ and slowly incorporated into traditional costume, fashion rejoiced in novelty. The social mobility of the rising bourgeoisie was replicated, expressed and celebrated in fashion’s stylistic mobility and that which was new and different was afford greater value simply because it was new and different. p.127

‘Although we are generally inclined to dismiss Punks, Skinheads, Teddy Boys, Rockers, Bikers, Hippies, Psychedelics, Rockabillies, Gothics and their distinctive styles of dress and adornment as ‘fads’, this is a misinterpretation of the phenomenon. Each such ‘cult’ is, in fact, a viable social and cultural entity and the attire of each such group is a traditional costume rather than a capricious fashion. . . Like those who belong to tribal and peasant societies, the members of Western style groups, by means of the time capsule which is costume, seek to preserve their socio-cultural status quo ‘forever’. (Whether they succeed in this project is, of course, another matter.)

Although fashion has periodically copied and recontextualized the costume of these Western style groups (e.g., Zandra Rhodes’ ripped and safety-pinned design of 1977/8), those who are actually of these groups deplore such fashionialization and trivialization of their costumes. Within the boundaries of these style groups themselves there is no such thing as ‘this year’s Punk look’ or the latest thing in Biker gear.’ p.130

‘As in the case of traditional tribal and peasant communities, style groups’ costumes are symbolic and their meaning is the culture, values and beliefs of those who wear them.

By means of such a semiotics of attire and adornment the members of style groups can advertise the most fundamental beliefs and values of their culture to each other and to the rest of us. While the clothing and decorations of the would-be fashionable are arbitrary signs which generate meaning (ahead of the times/now/behind the times) only in relationship to fashion history, the costumes of Western style groups (like those of most tribal and peasant peoples) are meaningful in and of themselves and they signify symbolically and ‘naturally’. Because they are not arbitrary signs, these costume symbols are not interchangeable - thus it would be semiologically and ideologically inappropriate for Hippies to dress as Punks or vice versa. And because such costumes are ‘natural’ symbols, they constitute a direct, visible expression of the cultural system of those who wear them. In a sense, therefore, Punk costume is Punk culture and Hippy costume is Hippy culture etc. p.132

‘The 60s were a period when virtually everyone perceived themselves to be members of some enormous, ever expanding and ever rising bourgeoisie. Everyone, in other words, had great expectations. The vast majority believed that they had prospects and they welcomed change as the doorway which lead to a sunny, sci-fi future. Standing still, looking back, putting up with the status quo was frowned upon. Ever more rapid fashion changes symbolically celebrated the desirability of social change and progress. A particular style of garment was, therefore, either old-fashioned, in fashion or avant garde and there was no room in this system for alternatives. Because style was completely defined by its temporal dimension, it was uniform and easily recognisable (by the public as well as by fashion journalists) as the fashion.

In the 1980s things appear to be very different. Instead of embracing the futuristic we embrace post-modern styles which look back with affection rather than anger or superiority and which unashamedly salutes that which used to be seen as passé. This may not (in so far as dated styles are deliberately re-contextualized) be a straightforward traditionalism but its certainly a world away from the approach on the 60s which labelled as suspect anything whatsoever which was tainted by time and therefore not ‘modern’. Clearly the 1980s are a whole new ball game.

I cannot claim to know the true cause of the post-modern world view, but it is easy to see that it has had a profound effect upon fashion’s previous dictatorship of style. Today, just as in the 60s, fashion designers launch their new collections and each season fashion journalists dutifully report that this year’s colour are such and such, this year’s hem length is such and such, and so forth. On the surface it all seems like business as usual, but closer inspection suggests that something very different is going on. Namely, the stylistic differences from one designer to the next are more pronounced than are the generic differences from one year to the next. Indeed, it is very difficult to find any common denominator which effectively summarises this yearly fluctuation.

My point is simply that in the 1980s yearly fluctuations are not as distinctive as are the ‘timeless’ signature styles of particular designers. And although fashion journalists may each year make valiant (if misguided) attempts to neatly summarise the themes, colours, hemlengths, etc., of that season, this has clearly become a meaningless exercise. Whereas in the 60s, ‘this year’s colours’ might have been limited to two or three per season, we are now given a list as long as your arm which takes in practically every conceivable shade and hue (and then, as we read on, we discover that ‘of course’ X, Y, and Z are continuing to buck the trends by using some other colour which managed to slip through the long list which the journalist provided at the start).

In the 1980s it is the differences from one designer to the next which are important, while yearly fluctuations are no longer as marked or significant as they were in, for example, the 60s when one really could pinpoint the common denominator of a given season’s direction. In glossing over the difference between different designers, journalists are obscuring the fact that large segments of the so-called ‘Fashion Industry’ are no longer engaged in the business of producing fashion in a strict sense of the word.’ pp.136-137

In the beginning there was style. Invented by our earliest ancestors some 100,000 years ago, this approach to transforming appearance served to mark out the boundaries of each tribe, to indicate differences of role and status within the group and to emphasise the unchanging continuity of traditional ways of life. Then, in the Renaissance with the birth of modernism, fashion was born - demonstrating and celebrating constant change and progress. In the last few decades, however, fashion has gone out of fashion and style has re-emerged as the dominant force but, now, with the emphasis upon individual, personal expression.

Excerpts from Fashion & Anti-fashion © Ted Polhemus, new edition 2011 [add link to lulu.com and amazon.com]

‘The fashion/anti-fashion distinction is concerned with changing and fixed modes of adornment respectively. Furthermore, changing fashion looks reflect and express changing, fluid situations of social mobility, while anti-fashion styles reflect and express fixed, unchanging, rigid social environments. For this thesis to have any validity, however, it is important to emphasize that, as regards both social and stylistic change, we are concerned not with any quantitative, measurable, objective rate of change, but rather with impressions, perceptions, assumptions and the ideology of change and progress.’

   ‘Fashion is not simply a change of styles of dress and adornment, but rather a systematic, structured anddeliberate pattern of style change.’

   ‘Those who in the 1960s thought that fashion was dead, that 'fashion is not fashionable any more', forgot that anti-fashion images in the context of the fashion system acquire a new meaning and a new mode of communicating that meaning. Hippy, Hell's Angel, peasant and worker styles, when worn by the fashionable, are no longer folk costumes or true streetstyle; they are part of the fashion system. The style may remain much the same – indeed, it may even be the same garment – but its significance has been changed drastically.’

   ‘Fashion is the natural, appropriate language of the socially mobile, those between rather than within traditional social groups. While symbolizing social mobility and change, fashion also symbolizes the social rootlessness, anomie, alienation and atomization which are the requisite and the result of this social change. Fashion's function is to represent and identify the social and cultural limbo of modern urban society, where more and more people are on the move between the lower and middle classes or the middle and upper classes, or within the middle class. Many of us find it difficult to identify ourselves socially. The old categories no longer seem to apply. Here is, and always has been, the spawning ground of fashion.’

   ‘Identification with and active participation in a social group always involves the human body and its adornment and clothing. Being a Nuba, a beatnik, a Hasidic Jew, a Hell's Angel or a hippy involves looking like a Nuba, a beatnik, a Hasidic Jew, a Hell's Angel or a hippy. Furthermore, as we said before, the particular style which each group adopts as 'our costume' is not arbitrary and is not interchangeable with the style of other groups: Hell's Angels could not dress like, for example, the Hare Krishna people and still visually communicate the ideology of the Hell's Angels, and vice versa. It is in this way that anti-fashion styles are appropriate social symbols. They state not only that 'we' exist (i.e. that 'we' are a group), but they also express symbolically what kind of group it is that 'we' are.’

   ‘But while some elements within the ‘fashion world’ have drifted into anti-fashion, fashion has been busy making guerrilla raids on the most unsuspecting anti-fashion groups to kidnap a booty of anti-fashion styles and ideas which can be fashionalized and, after a brief spell spotlighted by the glare of the ‘In’, discarded on the junk heap of un-fashion. It is important to underline again the fact that the conflict of fashion and anti-fashion is not between  particular styles (e.g. Cavaliers versus Roundheads, Skinheads versus Hippies) or between different designers' ‘looks’ within a fashion season (e.g. Dior versus Balenciaga). Within fashion and also within anti-fashion, conflict is between image A and image B. The conflict between fashion anti-fashion, on the other hand, could be represented as the clash of images A, B, C, etc. (specific anti-fashion styles) and images A1, BS C1, etc. (that is, image A, etc. after fashionalization). The image itself need not change much: fashionable 'boiler suits' which appeared in Britain in the 1970s were, despite alterations in some cases, still essentially boiler suits as worn by genuine British workmen everywhere. The look of the garment remains basically the same, but the sociological, temporal and semiological-linguistic context of the style has been radically changed by its fashionalization.