Chapter 2 elucidates the terminology surrounding the study of fashion. Definitions and contexts from a variety of vantage points in usage by fashion/dress historians and cultural historians are dissected. We illuminate terms often conflated with fashion such as “costume” and “dress.” We explain why we prefer the term “fashion” during a time of change in the terminology; we note that the terms themselves seem to be subject to fashion.
In Chapter 3, fashion systems are explained through theories generated by Western scholars. We explicate key theoretical developments in dress and fashion scholarship in chronological order to help readers comprehend how historical context shapes fashion scholarship.
Chapter 4 illuminates the historiography of published scholarship on dress history, primarily in English. It reviews salient literature from the earliest costume books illustrated with engraved images to the present day’s abundance of fashion titles. It traces the rise of Eurocentrism in the study of dress history and the recognition in the 1980s of Eurocentrism as a problem in the study of dress. We look at how the old costume history became the new fashion history. The development of the field of cultural studies as it affects the study of fashion undergoes examination. We recognize the scholarship of authors who have been influential for the new fashion history and discuss the state of fashion history discourse at a threshold moment.
Part 2 presents case studies of fashion beyond the temporal and spatial boundaries of those normally included in standard histories of fashion. We selected locations to feature examples from around the globe, and from the earliest time periods evidencing self-decoration to our current period of globalized fashion. We stress that this book is not a global history of fa shion and that it is not universal in its coverage. Instead, we feature examples from our own research; for example, Linda Welters conducted ethnographic research in Greece and Latvia, and has analyzed archaeological textiles of New England native peoples; Abby Lillethun’s dissertation on batik includes Indonesia and West Africa, and she researches Bronze Age dress. We read widely on world dress, focusing on studies that incorporated the notion of fashion into their analyses, and our reading influenced our case selections. Some cases are brief in comparison to others. We illustrate the potential for further study of what has formerly been called “traditional dress” as part of a fashion system.
In Chapter 5, we give detail to the argument to include indigenous cultures in the fashion sphere. We reinforce the position that the impulse to decorate the body is a universal human behavior, and as such it extends to small-scale, nonindustrial cultures where fashion can occur (Cannon 1998). In light of the universal human behavior to decorate the self, we incorporate Jennifer Craik’s notion of the “fashion impulse” in considering the dress practices of indigenous cultures, including prehistory (2009). Because sources of information on the dress of indigenous cultures are extremely limited until contact with Europeans, the chapter discusses what can be deciphered through archaeology. The cultures discussed include a group from Paleolithic France, the Narragansett tribe of southern New England and other cultures across the Canadian fur-trade region, and from Meso- and South America. We include the effects of colonization, an outside influence rather than an internal dynamic.
Chapter 6 considers early trade networks in terms of their contributions to changing styles of dress in the Eastern Hemisphere. We believe that responses to innovations by ancient world consumers should be interpreted as fashionable behavior. A lively trade network between Mediterranean cultures began as early as the Bronze Age, which allowed for exchange of both materials and styles for dress. Trade expanded north, east, south, and west in ancient Eurasia. Examples of the trade in fashionable items and the trade’s effects from the Bronze Age to the eighteenth century include precious and semiprecious materials for jewelry, silk patterned textiles, evolving taste in textiles, and cross-cultural exchange of styles such as tailored garments. The Byzantine, Persian, and Ottoman Empires are highlighted. An example is made of the kebaya of Indonesia, which developed in the context of international trade.
Chapter 7 examines fashion systems in East, South, and Southeast Asia. The changing fashions of the courts of selected Asian cultures enlighten understanding of fashion outside the West prior to the current century. The examples are drawn from the dress histories of China, Korea, Japan, India, and Indonesia. While dress forms remained stable for long periods of time in many Asian societies, the textiles that comprised the outfits went in and out of fashion as did trims, embellishments, and hairstyles. Acknowledging that dress embraces all aspects of appearance, changing tastes in cosmetics are included.
Chapter 8 explores alternative fashion histories in Europe and America, that is to say, prior to the so-called birth of fashion in mid-fourteenth-century Europe, and beyond the court system. We contend that the date of the origin of fashion is not fixed to one time and region. We question the exclusion of folk dress from standard costume and fashion histories.
Chapter 9 extends discussions initiated earlier in the book about the spread of Western fashion from the Age of Exploration to the present, and of so-called non-Western influences on Western fashion. One type of fashion change occurred when the colonizers’ styles gradually displaced indigenous dress, although locales responded individually to the introduction of European fashions in fabrics and garment styles. The Pacific region, most notably Hawai’i, serves as an example. Other examples are drawn from sub-Saharan Africa. In the later twentieth century, few areas of the globe had not been introduced to Western fashion, and in the desire to be modern, youth everywhere created their own fashion microsystems. We propose that there is no “West” in terms of fashion anymore, either in contemporary fashion change or in the overarching history of fashion. At the same time, we recognize the influence of the local on fashion systems.
In Chapter 10, we offer concluding remarks. We summarize the major points and call on others to write new, inclusive fashion histories.
Each chapter begins with a quotation that emphasizes the chapter’s main points. Some of these are drawn from primary sources, while others come from research or secondary sources key to our argument.
Books in the Dress, Body, Culture series are generally illustrated in black and white. Further, the number of illustrations is limited to fifty. While all publications on such a visual subject as dress and fashion would be served by plentiful color images, the cost becomes an issue for a series that aims to advance the discourse on dress and culture through publication of many innovative viewpoints. This book incorporates just enough images to support its points.
Likewise, we did not conduct exhaustive reviews of literature for all of the geographic areas we discuss in this book. We concentrated, where possible, on those scholars who address fashion in history. We crossed disciplinary boundaries, but with the recent expansion of disciplines interested in fashion and its history, we may have missed some important new works. We apologize to any scholars we neglected to include in this book, which is intended as an argument to consider dress systems throughout the world as emblematic of the fashion process. Critical to the development of our ideas were scholarly conferences as well as museum exhibitions and catalogs. We look forward to continued discussion in the future.
PART ONE
UNDERSTANDING FASHION AND ITS HISTORY
2
THE LEXICON OF FASHION
There is a rage of fashion which prevails here with dispotick Sway, the colour and kind of silk must be attended to; and the day for putting it on and off, no fancy to be exercised, but it is the fashion, and that is argument sufficient to put one in, or out of countenance.
ABIGAIL ADAMS ON FASHIONABLE
DRESS IN LONDON
When Abigail Adams, the future First Lady of the United States, joined her husband, John, in London, she made the above observations in a letter dated July 26, 1784, to her sister Mary Cranch back home in Massachusetts (Ryerson 1993: 379). Her comments elucidate key features of the nature of fashion in
the West in the late eighteenth century. She saw fashion as a powerful force in society, almost a dictatorial one. She implied that a time element was involved and that styles were occasion specific. In other letters, she compared French styles to those of England and America, revealing that fashion in the West varied from place to place (Winner 2001). Surely prevailing dress practices outside the West shared these same qualities: changing styles of dress accepted by a group of people, at a specific time, and in a specific place.
Fashion means different things to different people. While this book considers fashion related to dress and appearance, the word also encompasses other cultural expressions such as furniture, interior design, the food we eat, even the novels we read. Regardless, the one feature that everyone agrees on is that fashion involves currency, implying change over time.
To consider the argument that fashion historically existed beyond the West and in premodern times, we must elucidate the terminology. This chapter explores fashion’s various meanings. We consider the range of its meanings as well as its synonyms and antonyms. Not all scholars interpret the terms in the same way; these varied interpretations are presented in the following sections.
Etymology of fashion terms
In this section, we dissect common fashion terms, going back to their first appearance in the English language and their changing meaning over time. This investigation of fashion terms in English is appropriate, although limiting, considering our discussion of terms in other languages below. We note that English is the most widely spoken language in the world after Hindi and the various languages spoken by the ethnic groups living in the People’s Republic of China. For this dissection of terms, we rely on the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which differs from a typical dictionary in that its objective is to trace changes in a word’s usage over time in addition to providing detailed definitions. Dictionaries such as Webster’s Dictionary or the Oxford Dictionary of English simply define commonly used words with short notes about origins. In the days before the internet, dictionaries generally consisted of a single volume. By comparison, the most recent printed version of the OED, which was published in 1989, numbers twenty volumes. The OED is available online (OED Online) and is free to patrons of any library with a subscription, including many public libraries.
Words equated with the term “fashion,” or used as descriptors for fashion, include “mode,” “dress,” “clothing,” “costume,” “toilette,” “apparel,” and “habit.” Additional words related to fashion, a term with broad meanings, include the more specific descriptors “taste,” “style,” “fad,” “classic,” and “trend.” Each of these terms is discussed below, along with some others. We include current debates on usage, noting that the terms themselves are subject to change over time.
Fashion and related terms
Fashion
Fashion is both a verb, as in “to fashion something,” and a noun, as in “to wear the latest fashion.” In the OED, fashion carries no fewer than fourteen different meanings. Relevant for the current discussion are the following: “manner, mode, way” and “a prevailing custom, a current usage, especially one characteristic of a particular place or period of time,” and “conventional usage in dress, mode of life, etc., esp. as observed in the upper circles of society; conformity to this usage.” And finally, “the mode of dress, etiquette, furniture, style of speech, etc., adopted in society for the time being . . . to be in the fashion: to adopt the accepted style” (OED 1989 s.v. “fashion”).
The word “fashion” derives from the Latin words factio, the act of making, and the verb facere, to make. This meaning correlates to one of the earliest definitions of fashion, to make something, to “fashion” something. By the late Middle Ages, fashion came to mean a “style, fashion, manner (of make, dress, embellishment)” as well as a “way or mode (of behavior)” (Kurath 1952: 358). The word in Middle English had various spellings (fassioun, faschyoun, faccioun, etc.). An early example of its use as a noun is dated 1475, when the peascod belly, the padded front of a doublet, appeared in Western fashion for men: someone was being advised to stuff his doublet with wool if he desired the “newe faccion” (Kurath 1952: 358).
These definitions show that fashion involves styles and ways of dressing confined to a moment in time and space. Fashion is both temporal and geographical. Fashion is often associated with modernity, as we shall see in later discussions. It is a sign that a people, a place is current, of the moment, up with the times, and thus it is a social expression. The OED illustrates the temporal nature of fashion with a 1739 example: “Taste and fashion with us have always had wings.”
One of the OED’s definitions associates fashion with “the upper circles of society,” which sheds light on interpretations of fashion among some academics. Several scholars view fashion as an expression of social hierarchy in the industrial era, a sartorial signal that separates the cognoscenti from the masses (Benjamin 1999; Lipovetsky 1994; Simmel [1904] 1954). It is true that most fashion histories focus on the dress of the elite, especially prior to 1800, simply because ample evidence of dress practices does not survive for those of lower social status. Sociologist George Sproles provides a more relevant explanation of fashion diffusion for contemporary society in that he views fashion as no longer simply emulation of the elite. New styles can be introduced at all levels of society, rendering fashion leadership more inclusive (Sproles 1974).
Note that none of the meanings of fashion in the OED exclude dress outside the West. The geographical designation of applying the term “fashion” in history only to the West possibly originates in the word’s Latin roots. However, this is not the only possible reason. Additional reasons for the widespread acceptance that fashion began in the West are discussed elsewhere and include its ties to the rise of capitalism, market economies, and socially mobile societies.
The temporal component—the underlying concept that fashion developed in moder n times—evolved presumably because the word “fashion” did not exist before the late Middle Ages, precisely when current scholarship has determined that “fashion” as a social phenomenon began. One problem with this interpretation is that the word’s usage is examined only in English. Other languages not derived from Latin, both ancient and modern, have words that imply changing forms in dress adopted at a given time and place. Take, for example, the Chinese words shiyang and shishizhuang, which appeared before 1100; the words meant “the prevalent style fit for the time” (Tsui 2016: 52–53). Even in Latin, there is a word implying something “of the moment.” That Latin word is modo, meaning “right now, present.” It evolved into the French and German mode, and the Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese moda (Paulicelli 2014: 5). In English, “mode” is a synonym for fashion.
Phyllis Tortora delves into the issue of temporality in her essay “History and Development of Fashion” (Tortora 2010). She explains fashion as acceptance of something by a large number of people, which implies a relatively short duration. The key element, she explains, is change. She does not specify the precise length of time meant by “short duration.” In other work, Tortora has suggested that fashion prevailed when styles “lasted less than a century” (Tortora and Marcketti 2015: 104).
For the purposes of this book, we employ the definition of fashion advanced in our previous work: “Changing styles of dress and appearance that are adopted by a group of people at any given time and place” (Welters and Lillethun 2011: xxvii). As applied to dress, fashion is then the dominant adoption pattern by a group of people in a particular geographic location. To be called fashion, a mode of dress need not be adopted by all of a society or even its majority; depending on its size a society may include subgroups that develop distinct fashions. Further, we do not put a specific time limit on the duration of a particular style; thus, change is not restricted to clothing or other styles that pass out of fashion in less than 100 years. If that were the case, the common business suit could not be considered fashion because it has been in use since the mid-nin
eteenth century.
Dress
Dress, like fashion, is both a verb and a noun. The OED presents a much narrower definition of the noun dress, a meaning that most people outside the academy would understand. Dress is defined as “a suit of garments or a single external garment appropriate to some occasion when adornment is required—a lady’s robe or gown made not entirely to clothe, but also to adorn.” The “Walking Dresses” seen in Figure 2.1 exemplify this definition; the fashion plate illustrates two women’s gowns inspired by neoclassicism, a major influence on the arts in the 1790s and early 1800s.
The OED also gives “dress” a more general meaning of “personal attire or apparel.” The period example of this definition, seemingly a critique on excessive interest in fashion, comes from 1638: “Your dresses blab your vanities.” Inclusion of “personal” in the definition suggests individual choice in creating an identity.
Figure 2.1 “Walking Dresses.” The Fashions of London & Paris During the Years 1804, 1805 & 1806. Richard Phillips: London. Historic Textile and Costume Collection, University of Rhode Island. The word “dress” appears more frequently than “costume” to label outfits in this book of fashion plates.
The word “dress” has been proffered as a more inclusive term than fashion in scholarly circles, a word that is distinct from fashion. Mary Ellen Roach-Higgins and Joanne Eicher suggested that the word “was broadly interchangeable with several other terms used by social scientists” such as clothing, adornment, and costume (Roach-Higgins and Eicher 1992: 1). They defined dress as “an assemblage of modifications of the body and/or supplements to the body,” arguing that modifications of the body include those both permanent and temporary such as scarification and makeup and that supplements to the body include such items as clothing, accessories, and handheld objects. They claimed that this definition of dress “is unambiguous, free of personal or social valuing or bias, usable in descriptions across national and cultural boundaries, and inclusive of all phenomena that can accurately be identified as dress.”
Fashion History Page 4