Fashion - Philosophy for Everyone E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Serie: Philosophy for Everyone
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 427

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

If you just can't decide what to wear, this enlightening guide will lead you through the diverse and sometimes contradictory aspects of fashion in a series of lively, entertaining and thoughtful essays from prominent philosophers and writers.

• A unique and enlightening insight into the underlying philosophy behind the power of fashion
• Contributions address issues in fashion from a variety of viewpoints, including aesthetics, the nature of fashion and fashionability, ethics, gender and identity politics, and design
• Includes a foreword by Jennifer Baumgardner, feminist author, activist and cultural critic, editor of Ms magazine (1993-7) and regular contributor to major women's magazines including Glamour and Marie-Claire

Leseprobe

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

INTRODUCTION

Who Cares about Fashion?

Being Fashionable and Being Cool

Fashion, Style, and Design

Fashion, Identity, and Freedom

Can We Be Ethical and Fashionable?

PART I BEING FASHIONABLE AND BEING COOL

CHAPTER 1 WHAT MAKES SOMETHING FASHIONABLE?

What Can Be Fashionable? From Pugs to Poodle Skirts

Do Masses Matter? Robinson Crusoe’s Runway

Do Experts Matter? Khaki Glory

Do Intentions Matter? Accidental Chic

Do Aesthetics Matter? Form Over Function

Does Identity Matter? Tribal Colors

Does Timing Matter? To Everything, There is a Season

Conclusion: What Matters?

CHAPTER 2 FASHION, ILLUSION, AND ALIENATION

What Is It To Be Fashionable?

Appearing Fashionable

Two Concepts of Fashion

Fashion and Alienation

The Metaphysics of Fashion

CHAPTER 3 TRYHARDS, FASHION VICTIMS, AND EFFORTLESS COOL

Being Fashionable

Tryhards and Fashion Victims

Effortless Cool

Self-effacing Goals

PART II FASHION, STYLE, AND DESIGN

CHAPTER 4 THE AESTHETICS OF DESIGN

Design as Problem-Solving or Design as Fashion?

The Rise of Design As a Profession: Is Design a Response to Consumerism?

Consumerism, Self-expression, and The “Invention” of Design

Consumerism Is Not Essential to Design

Were Neolithic Flint Tools Designed?

Can We Avoid Designing? – The Idea of “Useless Work”

The Function and Value of Fashion

CHAPTER 5 SHARE THE FANTASY

Chanel No. 5 and Perfume Fashions

Coco Mademoiselle Ads

Male Perfume Ads

Celebrity Perfumes by Women of Color

Perfume Aesthetics, Erotics, and Ethics

Resisting the Fantasy: Erotics and Commodity Fetishism

CHAPTER 6 COMPUTATIONAL COUTURE

The Fashion

Cyborgs and Supermodels

PART III FASHION, IDENTITY, AND FREEDOM

CHAPTER 7 WEARING YOUR VALUES ON YOUR SLEEVE

CHAPTER 8 FASHION AND SEXUAL IDENTITY, OR WHY RECOGNITION MATTERS

The Sexual Citizen, Rights to Recognition, and Visibility as a Strategy

CHAPTER 9 SLAVES TO FASHION?

Objectification

Physical Bonds?

Moral Bonds?

Epistemological Bonds?

The Upshot

CHAPTER 10 FASHION DOLLS AND FEMINISM

What Is Paradigmatic Barbie Doll Play?

Barbie’s Influence in Cultural Context

What Should Feminists Make of Barbie?

Reinventing Barbie Play

PART IV CAN WE BE ETHICAL AND FASHIONABLE?

CHAPTER 11 SWEATSHOPS AND CYNICISM

The Sweated Worker

The Inevitability Argument

Justifying the Conditions

Sweating Women

Cynical Choices

CHAPTER 12 WOMEN SHOPPING AND WOMEN SWEATSHOPPING

To Shop or Not to Shop? That is The Question

Do Prestigious, Ivy League, Male Philosophers Ever Think About Clothes? Yes! (Well, Sort Of)

Individual Responsibility Only Seems to Fit In Extra Small

Are Americans Boorish Butterflies?

Am I Responsible for The Suffering of The World’s Poor?

CHAPTER 13 A TASTE FOR FASHION

Philosophers’ Denigration of Fashion

Taste and Style

Genius

Love of Beauty as A Moral (Or Proto-moral) Motive

Conclusion

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

VOLUME EDITORS

JESSICA WOLFENDALE is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at West Virginia University, and perhaps a little too fond of vintage clothing. She is the author of Torture and the Military Profession (2007) and has published extensively on the ethics of torture, military ethics, and applied ethics.

JEANETTE KENNETT is Professor of Moral Psychology at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. She is the author of Agency and Responsibility (2001) and has published widely on topics including empathy, addiction, self-control, advertising, and love and friendship.

SERIES EDITOR

FRITZ ALLHOFF is an Assistant Professor in the Philosophy Department at Western Michigan University, as well as a Senior Research Fellow at the Australian National University’s Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics. In addition to editing thePhilosophy for Everyone series, Allhoff is the volume editor or co-editor for several titles, including Wine & Philosophy (Wiley-Blackwell, 2007),Whiskey & Philosophy (with Marcus P. Adams, Wiley, 2009), andFood & Philosophy (with Dave Monroe, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007). His academic research interests engage various facets of applied ethics, ethical theory, and the history and philosophy of science.

PHILOSOPHY FOR EVERYONE

Series editor: Fritz Allhoff

Not so much a subject matter, philosophy is a way of thinking. Thinking not just about the Big Questions, but about little ones too. This series invites everyone to ponder things they care about, big or small, significant, serious … or just curious.

Running & Philosophy: A Marathon for the MindEdited by Michael W. Austin

Wine & Philosophy: A Symposium on Thinking and DrinkingEdited by Fritz Allhoff

Food & Philosophy: Eat, Think and Be MerryEdited by Fritz Allhoff and Dave Monroe

Beer & Philosophy: The Unexamined Beer Isn’t Worth DrinkingEdited by Steven D. Hales

Whiskey & Philosophy: A Small Batch of Spirited IdeasEdited by Fritz Allhoff and Marcus P. Adams

College Sex – Philosophy for Everyone: Philosophers With BenefitsEdited by Michael Bruce and Robert M. Stewart

Cycling – Philosophy for Everyone: A Philosophical Tour de ForceEdited by Jesús llundáin-Agurruza and Michael W. Austin

Climbing – Philosophy for Everyone: Because It’s ThereEdited by Stephen E. Schmid

Hunting – Philosophy for Everyone: In Search of the Wild LifeEdited by Nathan Kowalsky

Christmas – Philosophy for Everyone: Better Than a Lump of CoalEdited by Scott C. Lowe

Cannabis – Philosophy for Everyone: What Were We Just Talking About?Edited by Dale Jacquette

Porn – Philosophy for Everyone: How to Think With KinkEdited by Dave Monroe

Serial Killers – Philosophy for Everyone: Being and KillingEdited by S. Waller

Dating – Philosophy for Everyone: Flirting With Big IdeasEdited by Kristie Miller and Marlene Clark

Gardening – Philosophy for Everyone: Cultivating WisdomEdited by Dan O’Brien

Motherhood – Philosophy for Everyone: The Birth of WisdomEdited by Sheila Lintott

Fatherhood – Philosophy for Everyone: The Dao of DaddyEdited by Lon S. Nease and Michael W. Austin

Fashion – Philosophy for Everyone: Thinking with StyleEdited by Jessica Wolfendale and Jeanette Kennett

Yoga – Philosophy for Everyone: Bending Mind and BodyEdited by Liz Stillwaggon Swan

Forthcoming books in the series:

Blues – Philosophy for Everyone: Thinking Deep About Feeling LowEdited by Abrol Fairweather and Jesse Steinberg

Sailing – Philosophy for Everyone: A Place of Perpetual UndulationEdited by Patrick Goold

Tattoos – Philosophy for Everyone: I Ink, Therefore I AmEdited by Rob Arp

This edition first published 2011© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell.

Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Offices350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UKThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of Jessica Wolfendale and Jeanette Kennett to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Fashion – philosophy for everyone: thinking with style / edited by Jessica Wolfendale and Jeanette Kennett. p. cm. – (Philosophy for everyone; 40) Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-4051-9990-2 (pbk.)1. Fashion–Philosophy. 2. Clothing and dress–Philosophy. I. Kennett, Jeanette. II. Wolfendale, Jessica, 1973– GT521.F38 2011 391.001–dc22

2011015488

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

This book is published in the following electronic formats: ePDFs 9781444345520; Wiley Online Library 9781444345568; ePub 9781444345544; Mobi 9781444345551

I’d like to dedicate this book to my mother for letting me wear whatever I wanted when I was growing up, no matter how outrageous; to my late grandmother for her amazing dress-up box that included a fabulously chic leopard print hat, and to my sister for her sometimes too honest but always helpful critiques of my outfits!

– Jessica Wolfendale

I dedicate this book to the 1960s and the people in it who shaped my interest in fashion: my mother whose wardrobe was a treasure trove of hats for a small girl to try on when she was out, my father whose collection of early 1960s shirts and shoes would make a vintage shopper weep for joy, and my then teenage sisters, whose dresses, make up and hairstyles are indelibly imprinted on my memory.

– Jeanette Kennett

FOREWORD

For the past couple of years, I have nursed a persistent sense that I’m not trying hard enough. No one is saying this to me; I simply feel it instinctively. The source of this inadequacy, you ask? While I could definitely point to my writing (Does this read as if I’m a fifth grader?) or my parenting (Always attempting to avoid tedious nurturing! ) or my finances (Sacre Bleu!), the realm in which I’m slacking is fashion. As I step into my navy blue, heavily scuffed Sven clogs each day, perhaps matched with jeans and a t-shirt and cardigan or complementing a shapeless summer sundress, I wonder: am I too comfortable? Cutting too many corners regarding my public armor?

My chronic clog wearing feels akin to eating Honeynut Cheerios for dinner every night – a far cry from psychic annihilation, but not really living a full life, either. Socrates might see my lack of style as a good thing. As quoted in “Slaves to Fashion,” one essay in the surprising, provocative collection you hold in your hands, Socrates says that “the genuine philosopher disdains”1 fashion and, in doing so, the authors of that essay conclude, “he practices dying.”2

Disdain of worldliness works for Socrates, but my philosophy, feminism, is devoted to what it means to live. Feminism is deeply entwined with creating life – both procreation and self-creation. Sartorially, my issue is this: I, a feminist writer of 40 and mother of two, do not want to dress “like a feminist” (or a mother, for that matter. Mom jeans. Blecch). In short, I don’t want to be reduced to the clichés or stereotypes of the identity that has liberated me. One of my closest colleagues calls it the fear of “becoming a purple3 feminist” – purple sneakers, purple over-sized “This is what a feminist looks like” t-shirts, “ethnic” (though not your own ethnicity) tops, big jewelry, and “natural” hair. Perhaps a hemp pantsuit in Grimace grape for a special meeting?

Let’s contrast that look with fashionable dress: heels, lustrous or chicly shorn hair, clothing made to flatter and shape rather than obscure the body, and accessories that charm or are beautiful objects. Nearly 160 years ago, first wave feminists called for dress reform, creating a harem pants ensemble that was practical and comfortable, and shockingly controversial because it enabled movement and freedom). Then, 40 or so years ago, feminists critiqued the beauty standards applied to women (These critiques contained at least the following elements: first, women’s fashions are designed to not just symbolize but maintain women’s weakness via straight skirts (only small steps, please Ma’am), shoes that prohibit running, and necklines cut in a way that require poise to keep in place. Second, fashion colludes to reduce women to objects, rather than enabling their full humanity. And third, the constant change of fashions aimed at women means that we bankrupt our finances and energy keeping up with this trivial pursuit.

I have grown up with these critiques alongside enduring beauty standards and fashion ideals. Having access to both critique and commodity means that my view of fashion might be different in 2011 than a sister feminist’s view in 1970. To wit, the high heel can be seen as, like the corset, a symbol of women’s oppression, but I actually feel equally oppressed by my clogs – tamped down by my own cowardice to break out of them. Recently, at a birthday party for a friend, I donned a silk georgette jewel-toned swing dress and, in a crisis of confidence, opted to wear blue ballet flats rather than my sparkly pewter heels. The minute I got to the event, I regretted my decision. All of the women looked amazing, and they all wore heels. It was as if I had left the house with my hair in rollers. And I wore the flats not because I thought they looked better or even out of a real commitment to anti-fashion à la Andrea Dworkin, but because standing that tall in the world required grace and confidence I wasn’t sure I could muster (but I could have, and I should have).

Fashion can constrain, and certainly those constraints mirror other ways that women are hobbled (or asked to self-fetter), but a beautifully shod pair of feet is also an example of finesse and effort. When you wear sweatpants, you say, “I don’t have a body, I’m basically shapeless underneath this stretchy shroud.” But you do you have a body under there, and feminism is devoted to respecting one’s body. Feminism also encourages women to push beyond comfort, recognizing the link between risk and accomplishment. A woman might be more comfortable living under patriarchy, for example: not paying bills, barred from serious endeavor. But effort and achievement is so much sweeter than mere ease.

So, can you be a serious person and be … fashionable? The answer has to be yes. At the end of the day, it’s just as oppressive to be told you can’t wear Miucci Prada as it is to be told you must. To return to my initial conceit – my creeping sense of laziness and inadequacy – the malaise is deeply connected to how I’m currently dressed (taupe hoodie, white jeans, and blue clogs, for the record). How each of us handles the barrier between public and pubic conveys much about our own values and self-image. I believe that being “above” fashion can be a principled stance, or it can be a mask for someone who is afraid to harness the power of self-presentation. For me, sliding into generic and unconscious comfort is dying a little, but not in that good way that Socrates liked.

I strongly self-identify with a marginalized and stereotyped political philosophy and I desire not to be trapped by the narrow images associated with my calling. Fashion aids and abets my self-creation. (I have evidence that having flair invites younger people into feminism, too. Courtney Martin, a writer 10 years my junior, has written that her feminist click was seeing me speak at her school wearing fishnet stockings and realizing that she could manifest a personal style and still be a feminist.)4 Some feminists critique fashion as accessing a privilege by buying clothing, which requires money, and cashing in on the unequally distributed advantage of beauty. But it has always rankled me that it’s only feminists whom we require to be so pure and opt out of pastimes like shopping.

Samantha Brennan writes in this book, “not worrying about fashion, or claiming to, is itself a sign of privilege.”5 So true. As an older single feminist friend of mine has remarked, the older she gets, the more carefully she has to dress so that she doesn’t look like a bag lady. It’s a privilege of the young, the thin, the married, and the clearly WASPy to not have to dress with an eye toward ameliorating people’s negative assumptions.

Even as I consider the conditions under which clothing is made, deplore racist-sexist-homophobic-ableist beauty standards and resist a capitalism that encourages me to buy things I don’t need, getting myself dressed is a big part of life. Sometimes a clog is just a clog. But sometimes a clog means I’m practicing dying.

– Jennifer Baumgardner, New York City, April 2011

NOTES

1 Plato, Phaedo, 64a–67-e.

2 Lauren Ashwell and Rae Langton, “Slaves to Fashion,” this volume.

3 Purple being a traditional color of the suffrage movement in England and later in the US.

4 Courtney E. Martin, “Not My Mother’s Hose,” in Click: When We Knew We Were Feminists (Berkeley, CA: Seal Press, 2010), pp. 89–93.

5 Samantha Brennan, “Sexual Identity, Gender Identity and Fashion: Why Recognition Matters,” this volume.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For both of us, fashion is important and always has been. One of us began wearing vintage clothes at age 15 (and still misses the fabulous 1960s cocktail dress she wore to her High School prom) and has never stopped; the other has long been fascinated by icons of style, and rates a visit to a Vivienne Westwood or haute couture fashion exhibition well above a gallery of Constables. We both love to browse vintage clothing shops, watch Project Runway and experiment with different styles, colors, patterns, textures, and decades. Yet we work in a field in which fashion is largely ignored, if not outright dismissed as vain and trivial, and so at times we have each struggled with the fear that our interest in fashion is incompatible with being serious philosophers. But one afternoon in 2008, over perhaps one too many gin and tonics, we began talking about what fashion means to us, and discovered that far from being a silly or trivial topic, fashion raises many different and important questions. Our own experiences with fashion and shopping led us to think more carefully about how fashion shapes, liberates, and yet sometimes constrains identity, and how fashion can make us feel creative and artistic, yet can at times also seem conformist, limiting, and burdensome. We realized that, far from being a subject rightly ignored by serious philosophers, fashion touches on and has implications for many important areas of philosophy, including ethics, aesthetics, identity, and social and political philosophy.

Inspired by our afternoon of (restrained) drinking and chatting, we decided that it was time for philosophy to take fashion seriously. We wrote to philosophers working in diverse areas of philosophy to ask if they would contribute to a collection on fashion and, somewhat to our surprise, discovered that there were many who agreed with us that fashion was important to philosophy – and not only because so many philosophers could use some fashion advice! It turned out that, particularly for women philosophers, the worry that fashion and serious philosophy were incompatible was a common one, and so it was reassuring to see how quickly it became apparent that fashion is something that philosophy should pay attention to. We were excited and inspired by the variety of topics suggested by our contributors – and we quickly realized how valuable this book could be both to philosophers and for anyone interested in fashion.

The journey from our afternoon chat in 2008 to the book that you hold in your hands has been fascinating and thought provoking for both of us. We would like to express our deep gratitude to our contributors for the interesting, challenging, and insightful chapters they have written. Their willingness to engage wholeheartedly with exploring the philosophical side of fashion (and responding to our feedback and comments) from many different angles is inspiring, and we are extremely impressed with the quality of the contributions to this book, and with the depth and thought they display.

This book would not have been possible without the support of the Philosophy for Everyone series editor Fritz Allhoff, who encouraged us to see the wide appeal of this topic for everyone, not just philosophers. We also wish to thank Jeff Dean and Tiffany Mok from Wiley-Blackwell for their continued interest and encouragement during the book’s production and Jennifer Baumgardner for her engaging and reflective foreword. Of course this book would not have been completed without the continuing inspiration we both find in fashion – from browsing fashion blogs to visiting Graceland in Memphis, vintage clothing fairs in Canberra, and fashion runways in Melbourne, to encouraging each other to explore new styles, fashion remains for us a source of creativity and delight, and an exciting and challenging way of bringing together the joy of dressing up with the world of ideas.

Finally, to the readers of this volume – we hope this book shows you new and exciting ways to think about fashion. And remember, in the words of Coco Chanel, “Fashion is not something that exists in dresses only. Fashion is in the sky, in the street, fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening.”

Jessica Wolfendale,West Virginia University

Jeanette KennettMacquarie University, Sydney

JESSICA WOLFENDALE AND JEANETTE KENNETT

INTRODUCTION

Who Cares about Fashion?

Why should philosophy pay attention to fashion? Not only are many philosophers conspicuous for their lack of personal style and taste (as a quick survey of any gathering of philosophers will confirm) but fashion also seems to be a topic about which philosophy has had little to say. As Marguerite La Caze points out, philosophers have tended to hold fashion in contempt – to view it as a topic unworthy of serious analysis. What we wear and how we adorn ourselves are seen as matters of taste and personal preference – of mere vanity and social conformity. It seems a waste of valuable time to think about fashion. If anything, we should think about fashion less! When there are so many serious issues (the environment, global poverty, war, and so on) that require urgent attention, worrying about what to wear, what’s trendy, how much to spend, and where to shop seems like a moral failing. After all, we rarely praise people for being vain! Surely, as the philosopher Peter Singer argues, we should spend our spare money and time on programs that aim to alleviate poverty, starvation, and disease in the developing world, rather than wasting it on items that serve no important needs. Can we justify spending time and money on something as ephemeral as fashion?

This attitude toward fashion may be common among philosophers but it is not well founded. As this volume makes clear, fashion raises numerous important and interesting philosophical issues, many of which have not been well recognized or addressed in philosophy. In thinking about fashion we encounter questions in art and aesthetics, ethics, personal and social identity, political visibility and recognition, freedom and oppression, and the intersection between our bodies, our clothes, and science and technology. To dismiss fashion as philosophically uninteresting is therefore to ignore the rich and diverse set of questions raised by our interest in and practices surrounding, dress, adornment, and style. Fashion does matter. Fashion matters to people, and fashion should matter to philosophy.

Being Fashionable and Being Cool

Just what is it that makes an item of clothing fashionable? What is the property of being fashionable? We have an intuitive sense of what is and is not fashionable at any given time, but it is remarkably difficult to explain how we know this, and what it is we mean when we describe something as fashionable, particularly since fashion (and the fashion industry) is notoriously changeable and fickle – as Heidi Klum says in Project Runway, “one day you’re in, the next day you’re out.” In their contribution, Jesse Prinz and Anya Farennikova argue that describing an item (be it clothes, music, furniture, or even ideas) as fashionable is to make a claim that involves appealing both to “the masses” and to a set of acknowledged experts (such as celebrities, fashion editors, and designers). The fact that an item appears on the runway is not sufficient to make it fashionable, unless enough consumers adopt that item – even if in a modified form. Likewise, the fact that an item is popular does not make that item fashionable unless and until fashion experts endorse it. Ugg boots were not fashionable for many years, despite their popularity. It was only when celebrities began to be photographed wearing them that they became a fashionable item and not merely a cozy pair of slippers.

Yet “fashionable” is not just a description of an item’s status in relation to expert opinion and popularity. The concept of fashion contains two seemingly contradictory elements. On the one hand, we directly experience an item as fashionable – we just perceive that this dress is fashionable and that dress is not. On the other hand, we also adopt an objective standpoint and recognize that an item’s status as fashionable depends upon a number of social factors such as expert opinion, as well as being relative to a time, a place, and a particular group of people – so we also know that this dress won’t be fashionable in a year’s time and won’t be fashionable among, say, the punk subculture. As Nick Zangwill points out, this suggests that fashion involves two incompatible perspectives that create a sense of alienation – the first-person experience (we experience items as genuinely having the property of being fashionable), and the third-person objective standpoint from which we realize that fashionability is an ever-changing attribute that depends on social arrangements. We can’t experience both these perspectives simultaneously, and so we are forced into an uneasy, and perhaps alienating, vacillation between the two.

This tension in fashion is something we are all too familiar with. Who among us has not had the experience of pulling out last season’s favorite item of clothing – one that we thought was the height of cool – and realizing, to our horror, that it has entirely lost its allure. How could I have ever thought this dress was cool, we think? Or that I looked good in it? What was I thinking? Who hasn’t cringed at those old photos where we (or our parents) proudly sport the latest 1980s hairstyles and power suits? The perception of fashionability that these items had then seems to be a kind of illusion from our perspective now. It seems impossible to reconcile these two aspects of fashion, and the tension that results, according to Zangwill, makes fashion an alienating concept.

On the other hand, we think that there are some people who are always cool, even when (or perhaps because) they do not dress in the fashions of the day, and who do not seem to be bound by the relativity of fashion to time, groups, and expert opinions. Being cool appears therefore to be a different attribute from being merely fashionable. Luke Russell argues that the property of being cool is an “aesthetic virtue,” a virtue that he characterizes as involving caring about style and aesthetics for their own sake, rather than for the sake of appearing fashionable and trendy. The effortlessly cool person, unlike the rest of us, doesn’t cringe when she contemplates her past fashion choices. The idea of “timeless” fashion, while appearing to involve a contradiction in terms, can make sense in relation to such a person. Icons of cool such as Jane Birkin, Miles Davis, Humphrey Bogart, Kate Moss, and Audrey Hepburn have in common the ability to appear chic and stylish even as we recognize that their clothes are not or are no longer in fashion today.

Of course there are limits to the idea of “timeless” fashion. Fashions from the Victorian era or from Elizabethan times do not appear cool or fashionable now, no matter who wears them. Indeed, it is interesting to consider whether the concept of “cool” can be applied to historical eras in which fashion is constrained by social and gender conventions to a far greater degree than is the case in most modern liberal societies. It’s hard to imagine a woman dressed in Jane Austen-era clothes as “cool,” even though she might be fashionable given the standards of the time. Historical figures who might qualify as “cool,” such as Lord Byron, are individuals who had a degree of financial and/or social freedom (usually arising from wealth and leisure) that allowed them to exercise their aesthetic choices in a way that was not possible for individuals who were more constrained by convention and circumstance. Perhaps, then, being cool is also a matter of having freedom to exercise one’s tastes, and the resources to be able to do this.

Fashion, Style, and Design

Fashion is also closely connected to style and design more broadly. Andy Hamilton addresses the debate between those who believe that design (whether of furniture, clothes, buildings, and household appliances) should primarily be driven by considerations of function, and those who believe that design must also be guided by aesthetic considerations. The close connection between fashion and other areas of design is evident from the numerous collaborations between fashion designers and the design of household furniture and appliances. Calvin Klein and Laura Ashley are just two designers who have also produced designs in furnishings, bed linen, and homewares as well as clothing, and the fashion house Versace has collaborated on not only the architecture of a hotel (The Palazzo Versace hotel chain) but also on the design of every aspect of the hotel rooms and lobby. Even without explicit collaborations between fashion designers and architects and industrial design, there is a strong interconnection between fashion and the aesthetic of an era. This can be hard to see in relation to our own time, when developments in contemporary fashion can seem isolated from developments in technology, science, and design more broadly. But when we see TV shows such as Mad Men (set in 1960s New York City) and HBO’s Boardwalk Empire (set in Atlantic City in the 1920s) it is clear that part of the recreation of the eras in those shows involves recreating a total aesthetic – not just the clothes that people wore, but every aspect of their lives and the world they inhabit. In these shows, as well as in movies such as LA Confidential (1950s) and The Ice Storm (1970s), we clearly see the interconnection between fashion and almost every aspect of everyday life – office design, car design, architecture, household items, appliances, and furnishings. This help us to see how fashion integrates with design, and to understand how fashion can qualify as having an aesthetic status equal to that of architecture and industrial and household design. We can’t isolate fashion in dress from fashion in other areas of design, and since many see architecture and industrial design as topics worthy of serious aesthetic consideration, it becomes apparent that fashion in dress is equally important as a subject.

The idea of fashion as a part of the total aesthetic of a particular time and culture also explains why there is such a strong connection between fashion and fantasy. Fashion and fashion design present us with not only choices in what we can wear and how we present ourselves to others, but can represent whole lifestyles. The connection between fashion and fantasy is obvious in fashion advertising – where fashions are depicted in such a way as to evoke particular values, ways of life, even kinds of employment. Michael Kors’ recent advertising campaigns, for example, depict an elegant woman being photographed on the red carpet, exiting a luxurious car, and walking with an equally elegant man through the snow. These images create the illusion of a life of wealth, fame, and privilege – the details of the clothes themselves are almost secondary to this aura. The connection between fashion and fantasy is particularly evident in the collaborations between fashion designers and the perfume industry. Cynthia Freeland explores this connection in her chapter, highlighting the seductive nature of much perfume advertising. The long, intricate stories told in Chanel’s recent perfume ads are almost mini-movies, involving distinct characters, intricate plots, mystery, and romance. Since the viewer is unable to experience the perfume directly, these ads convey the idea of the perfume – the idea of the kind of woman who wears it, rather than attempting to describe the scent itself.

Ada Brunstein reveals another side to the relationship between fashion and design. She explores the integration of technology and fashion, and demonstrates how wider social changes in communication technology are incorporated into what we wear in new and exciting ways. Our clothes might, in the not too distant future, be able to receive and send messages to other people, depict changing images, and impart sensations (such as the sensation of being hugged). This has the potential to alter our expectations of how, when, and in what manner we communicate with each other. Our clothes might literally, rather than just symbolically, express who we are and how we feel. This possibility, in common with other advances in technology, challenges traditional conceptions of what it means to be a person, and of how we draw the boundaries between the body, brain, and the external world, as well as highlighting and making explicit the intimate connection between fashion and identity.

Fashion, Identity, and Freedom

Clothing ourselves is clearly not simply a matter of what is convenient or comfortable. It is also not just a matter of what is fashionable this year (since a wide variety of styles may meet that criterion) or of what looks good on us. What we wear communicates many different messages to those around us. Fashion can be important as a way of expressing our personal style, our preferences, and even our moods. As Daniel Yim explains, fashion is one of the primary ways we have of exercising our autonomy and freedom of expression. Indeed, he explains, freedom of expression is seen as a central value of liberal societies such as the United States, so much so that in some cases courts have ruled that it is a violation of students’ rights to freedom of expression to require them to wear school uniforms.

Of course fashion is not always or even primarily about individuality. As Yim points out, it is also a powerful means of communicating group membership and social roles. The clothes we wear, along with hairstyles and other items of adornment, can and often do, whether we are aware of it or not, communicate our social and professional roles and status – think power dressing, fitness freaks, ladies who lunch. They may also communicate our gender, our sexuality, our political commitments, our religious and moral beliefs, and our aesthetic judgments. If you are unconvinced, consider the fact that people who hold conservative religious views tend also to dress very conservatively – modest clothing that is conventional can therefore reveal important information about certain of the wearer’s moral and religious commitments, as well as their attitude toward sexual modesty and behavior and gender roles.

We think uniforms provide further insight into the connection between clothing, style and social identity. Military and police uniforms are designed explicitly to generate solidarity among military and police personnel, and to communicate to outsiders the status and authority of those who wear those uniforms. When we see a police uniform, we immediately recognize that the person wearing it fulfills a certain role, has undergone certain training, and warrants certain forms of treatment (respect, for instance, or even fear). Other kinds of uniforms have become associated with sexual fetishes and fantasies and have reinforced traditional gender roles. This is particularly true of women’s uniforms, such as those of nurses, maids, and flight attendants. Indeed, it’s difficult to think a traditional women’s uniform that hasn’t been sexualized and fetishized. Unlike most men’s uniforms, which typically signal authority and power, many traditional women’s uniforms signify a sexually potent blend of authority and servitude. Nurses traditionally were submissive to doctors, but were in positions of authority regarding patients. Many female uniforms also signify what were believed to be ideal natural feminine traits, such as nurturing, maternal discipline (for example, nannies), and sexual status, submission, and a desire to please. This is particularly true of traditional nurses’ uniforms and flight attendants’ uniforms. Indeed, a number of advertising campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s explicitly invited viewers to associate flight attendants with sexual availability in line with the so-called sexual revolution. The National Airlines 1971 television campaign depicted a beautiful smiling female flight attendant announcing, “I’m Maggie (or another female name). Fly me.” As part of this campaign, National Airlines requested flight attendants to wear “Fly me” buttons on their uniforms. Even at the time, a number of female flight attendants complained that the campaign was nothing more than a “blatant sexual pitch.”1

Uniforms are also responsive to the aesthetic or cultural aspects of fashion. Female flight attendant uniforms in the 1960s and 1970s reflected the fashions of time, including mini skirts and psychedelic patterns and colors, and there were and still are a number of collaborations between fashion designers and airlines. However the advent of mass air travel, and changes to employment practices which ensure that a career as a flight attendant is no longer restricted to young, attractive, and unmarried women, has dampened the previously alluring mix of fashion, flying, and sex.

This mix of fashion, function and allure is also (perhaps surprisingly) found in military uniforms. Military uniforms have influenced consumer and runway fashion to a significant degree – trends such as khaki, epaulettes, braids, aviator sunglasses, and military jackets have been in and out of fashion for decades, and “military” is touted to be one of the top trends this year. Nor are military personnel immune from the influences of consumer fashion and from aesthetic influences. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the British Royal Marine Corps wore beautifully tailored red jackets that, while certainly aesthetically striking, were hardly practical from a military point of view since they could be seen from miles away. Today, the Italian military police (the Carabinieri) are known for the intricate and ornate gold braiding on their jackets. In the United States, the Navy recently introduced its new Navy Working Uniform, which comes in a digital camouflage print in shades of navy and blue (there were already desert and woodland camouflage uniforms). Why? The Navy does not require blue camouflage – and so it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the pattern was chosen at least partly for its aesthetic properties, and not for military purposes. As this and the earlier examples indicate, fashion cannot be separated from the broader socio-cultural context. Fashion reveals and expresses the zeitgeist of the time, a theme taken up by a number of our contributors.

It is precisely because fashion can exemplify prevailing cultural, moral, and political norms that those who reject conventional norms typically express their rejection through their clothes and adornments, among other means. Sub-cultures such as hippies, emos, Goths, and punks are identified not just by their dress but also by the set of moral and political beliefs those clothes are taken to represent. In addition, fashion can play an extremely important role in political and social recognition of marginalized groups. Samantha Brennan explores how important it is that ways of dressing that communicate sexual preference to others be both recognized and accepted by the community in order for homosexual and bisexual men and women to be recognized as such by their communities (and thus for them to achieve equal visibility). Daniel Yim argues that fashion can be an extremely powerful political statement, raising complex ideas about justice, solidarity, and morality. The image of Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising black-gloved hands in the air at the 1968 Summer Olympics remains one of the central images symbolizing solidarity and political activism among members of an oppressed community. And both Brennan and Yim highlight the role that fashion can have as an important means of self-expression and assertion of sexual status and identity for people with a disability.

Fashion is therefore a central part of not only how we self-identify, but also how we identify ourselves to others in our community and how we express important political ideas about group identification, solidarity, equality, and justice. To dismiss fashion as legitimate topic for philosophical analysis is to miss this important connection.

Yet, while fashion can be both liberating and a valuable means of self-expression, fashion has also been associated with repression and control. For women in particular, fashion can be literally restricting. As Rae Langton and Lauren Ashwell argue, women’s fashions often physically restrict women’s movements. This is obvious in historical fashions such as foot binding in China and corsets in Victorian England, but it is still prevalent in modern women’s fashions. One cannot run in high heels and pencil skirts, and norms of modesty affect women far more than they do men – women must monitor whether their blouses are too low cut and their skirts too short – and such self-censorship can restrict physical movement and freedom as effectively as heels and tight skirts. This aspect of fashion suggests that fashion has a dark side – and so (for women at least) to pay attention to fashion is to be enslaved to fashion – to be forced to engage in a practice that is, even at its most benign, a restriction on autonomy.

It does seem clear that fashion as a practice affects women more than men, often in negative ways, and is one that girls are socialized into at increasingly early ages. Louise Collins focuses on the role of fashion dolls, notably Barbie dolls, in instilling a gendered preoccupation with fashion, body shape, and appearance. Her critical analysis reveals how young girls are instructed in the correct ways to play with Barbie. As she says, “In adorning and posing Barbie the girl rehearses the gestures and rituals of embodied femininity to be used in grooming her future adult self.” Barbie play instills norms of attractiveness, suggests suitably feminine careers and pastimes, and importantly prepares the child for her role as consumer. Indeed it is largely through the success of fashion toys such as Barbie that children have acquired value as consumers in their own right, a development that raises a host of ethical issues surrounding marketing, gender stereotyping, and the sexualization of children.

Can We Be Ethical and Fashionable?

There is another side of consumerism that is also ethically troubling. As consumers of fashion, we often fail to think about where our clothes come from, and who makes them. For most of us, our concerns about fashion focus on cost, taste, style, and wearability. Shopping is a process that can be fun, creative, demanding, and frustrating. Rarely, though, do we see shopping as an ethical dilemma. Yet, particularly in today’s world, fashion is produced in ways that raise serious ethical issues. The ethical issues connected to the production of fur and other animal-based products are well known, but what is less prominent in most people’s minds is the fact that most mass-market fashion is made in sweatshops by workers paid well below a living wage, in conditions of extreme discomfort and even physical danger. In their chapters Lisa Cassidy and Matthew Pierlott explore the ethical issues surrounding sweatshops. Cassidy adopts the device of an interior monologue to reveal and question the ways in which we commonly justify our consumer behavior – the processes of rationalization (well, I need a new sweater!) and justification (sweatshop workers would be worse off without their jobs!) that enable us to reconcile our desire for cheap clothes with our discomfort with the conditions under which they are made. Yet, it is very difficult to justify buying clothes that are produced in the appalling conditions found in sweatshops. The claim that economic considerations make it necessary to maintain poor conditions in clothing factories is one that does not bear close analysis – even if clothing companies passed the cost of improving factory conditions directly onto consumers, this would not cause a price rise of more than a couple of dollars per garment, surely a small price to pay to ensure a living wage and decent working conditions for those who make our clothes. However, for many people buying expensive clothes that are labeled sweatshop free or that are produced domestically is not an option (indeed such clothes just may not be available in many places) and so most of us cannot escape the dilemma by buying only sweatshop free clothing. Does this mean that we can’t afford to be ethical?

Perhaps the working poor in the United States and in other countries where there is great disparity of wealth cannot avoid buying clothing produced in sweatshops. But the rest of us surely have a responsibility to do so, and by doing so create the market that would bring down the price of ethically produced clothing. A similar process has, after all, occurred in relation to factory farming – even grocery stores in small rural towns now stock free range eggs and meat. Thus consumer choices can make an impact on market behavior over the long-term. Moreover, sweatshops are not the only ethical concern connected with mass-produced fashion – such production also has significant environmental costs as well.2 Thus there are strong moral reasons for practicing ethical shopping, and thankfully there are options for clothing ourselves that not only avoid the concerns with sweatshops and environmental degradation, but are also responses to the concerns raised by consumerism. The surge of interest in recycled and vintage clothing attested to by the rise in the number of celebrities who wear vintage (such as Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson, CateBlanchett, and Drew Barrymore) and the popularity of online trading sites such as eBay and Etsy indicates that it is now possible to find interesting, wearable, and unique clothing that is both affordable (even for those on a very small budget – one of the coeditors of this volume once found an Armani jacket in perfect condition for $6), sweatshop free, environmentally friendly, and that does not add to the ever-increasing and extraordinarily wasteful amount of consumer goods in the world. Buying vintage and recycled clothing thereby enables the shopper to creatively experiment with the aesthetic pleasures of fashion without worrying about either the ethical cost of fashion or about being overly trendy.

The positive aspect of fashion is developed further by Marguerite La Caze, who highlights the many ways in which fashion contributes to our lives and provides a medium for us to develop and exhibit important social virtues. She argues that a taste for fashion is justified on both moral and aesthetic grounds. Fashion may be beautiful, innovative, and useful; we can display creativity and exemplify good taste in our fashion choices. And in dressing with taste and care we manifest both self-respect and a concern for the pleasure of others. There is no doubt that fashion can be a source of interest and pleasure which links us to each other. This sociable aspect of fashion along with the opportunities it provides to imagine oneself differently – to try on, quite literally, different identities – suggests ways of mitigating some of the ethical problems we have identified here. Fashion may cement friendships, express creativity, and be a spur to self-improvement and change.

Today, aspiring fashionistas have many opportunities to mix and match trends, decades, and styles. The exposure to ordinary people’s fashion sense and creativity provided by internet sites such as The Sartorialist, Style Rookie (a fashion blog by 14-year-old Tavi Gevinson) and New Dress a Day (a blog by a woman who makes a new dress each day from thrift store dresses that cost $1) have inspired many people to become their own stylists – to break out of the conformist mainstream conception of what is fashionable and to experiment with their own personal style in new and innovative ways. This suggests that fashion has the potential to become more subversive, more creative, less conformist and less expensive. In the area of fashion, being virtuous need not condemn us to a limited, boring, or conventional wardrobe. It is fully compatible with style and fun. To which, as philosophers and dedicated followers of fashion, we say, hooray!

NOTES

1 “The Nation: Fly me,” TIME magazine, November 15, 1971. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903213,00.html (accessed November 1, 2010).

2 See for example http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2009/11/22/the-environmental-impact-of-the-fashion-industry/ (accessed 8 December 2010).

PART I

BEING FASHIONABLE AND BEING COOL

ANYA FARENNIKOVA AND JESSE PRINZ

CHAPTER 1

WHAT MAKES SOMETHING FASHIONABLE?

What Can Be Fashionable? From Pugs to Poodle Skirts

The word is, Montauk is the new Hamptons this summer. East Hampton is overpopulated, overrun by celebrities, predictable, and just tired. Montauk is largely unscathed and full of surprises. It is the epicenter of all things new and cool. There you will meet the new “It” people: emerging artists, young designers, models, and socialites. You will learn that taupe is the new black, that the trendiest drink is a new-style dirty martini, and that global scenesters are personalities du jour. The look is something vintage, something Green, the hottest tune is 1980s electro-kitsch, and the mood is hipster cool. The list goes on and is instantly updated.

Judging by this description, just about anything can be fashionable: people, colors, pets, ideas, artistic styles, places, and moods. Even political ideologies, scientific theories, and mortuary practices come in and out of vogue.1 Here we will focus on fashion’s most familiar form: clothing. But we think that the account we will develop may extend to these other cases. The question we will ask is, what makes something fashionable? To answer this question, we will use a series of thought experiments and real world examples to draw attention to the attitudes and activities that drive trends.

As we will see, fashion is not just a matter of beauty. Even bad taste can be fashionable (see Rei Kawabuko’s recent work for Comme Des Garçons if you have doubts). And fashion is not just a matter of trends; a whole population can be unfashionable even if they go in for the same clothes. Nor is it simply a matter of what designers decree: Coco can be loco, Klein can decline, we can pass on Blass. What, then, makes one piece of clothing fashionable and another faux pas? Where’s the magic? We will argue that trends and trendsetters both matter, along with attitudes, aesthetic affiliations, and contexts. The challenge is showing that each of these variables plays a role without overstating or mischaracterizing their respective contributions.

Do Masses Matter? Robinson Crusoe’s Runway