WUNRN
Fashion,
Gender, Sex & Power
20 October 2013 - By , | Interview
"Fashion is symbolic, expressive,
creative and coercive," write feminist scholars Marjorie Jolles and Shira
Tarrant in the introduction to their 2012 book Fashion Talks: Undressing the
Power of Style. (SUNY Press) "It is a powerful way to convey
politics, personalities and preferences for whom and how we love. Fashion
encourages profound rebellion and defiant self-definition. Yet fashion can
simultaneously repress freedom by introducing and disciplining the body and by
encouraging a problematic consumer culture."
Not surprisingly, most feminists have an ambivalent relationship with
fashion, on one hand wanting to assert a personal style while on the other
bristling at standards that limit what is considered attractive or beautiful.
This push-pull, say Jolles and Tarrant, illustrates why it is imperative that
we analyze and decode the messages that fashion projects. That said, both
authors stress that the use of style to signal membership in a particular group
- be it the business world, a biker gang, hipsterdom or sex work - should be of
interest to everyone, male and female, cis and trans, of all ages, races and
social classes. Indeed, as Tarrant laughingly told Truthout, "We all get
dressed in the morning."
And, of course, we do. Whether we wear hijab and abaya, five-inch heels
and spandex, or baggy sweats and T-shirts, our fashion choices present a
shorthand clue about who we are, a way for neighbors, colleagues and folks on
the street to size us up. Indeed, what we're wearing is likely one of the first
things we notice when we meet one another, which is why, Jolles and Tarrant
argue, it is so important to think about. What's more, as both "a tool of
agency and source of constraint," fashion tells us something about group
dynamics and the human need for creative expression and conformity.
Jolles, a professor of women's and gender studies at Chicago's Roosevelt
University, and Tarrant, a professor in the Women's, Gender and Sexuality
Studies Department at California State University, Long Beach (and the author
of Men
and Feminism and When Sex Became Gender, among other
texts) spoke to Truthout by telephone earlier this month.
TRUTHOUT: Feminists active in the late 1960s and 1970s
are widely portrayed as having no interest in fashion, as if they considered it
a repressive tool of patriarchy, meant to limit their autonomy and freedom. Is
this accurate? Furthermore, does increasing interest in clothing and
accessories in any way mirror the LGBTQ community's push for marriage rights,
as if to say, 'See, we're not so different from you.'
JOLLES: There is really nothing to tell about the
casting off of fashion. Fashion never went away in any moment of feminist
activism, and I don't think feminists ever stopped caring about it. I challenge
the narrative that says that women stopped caring about how they dressed and
then started to care again a few decades later. Gloria Steinem had a signature
style. Style has always made political statements.
I recently did a reading at a
TARRANT: Certainly, renewed feminist interest in
fashion can be read as an effort to say, 'See, we've assimilated. We blend.' At
the same time, a great deal of cultural analysis falls into, 'It's my choice,
my free will to dress as I want,' or 'You've been duped by the patriarchy.' The
reality is that fashion is actually both of these things. That's the point of Fashion Talks.
Freedom and constraints can and do exist simultaneously. We leave it to the
reader to decide if a miniskirt is subjugation or self-expression. It's the
same thing with the abaya. Fashion can be both liberating and confining.
TO: People pass judgment all the time, assuming that
how a woman dresses invites rape or abuse. It also assumes that if a man wears
saggy pants and angles his cap a certain way that he is up to no good. How can
we topple these ingrained, but baseless, ideas?
JOLLES: Slut Walks have taken this on but there
are bitter debates in academia and in popular culture and feminist media over
whether they actually achieve anything. Some think that refusing to be shamed
for dressing in a way that is generally considered provocative or alluring is
powerful social commentary. Others think that the Walks do nothing to change
the public perception of women who wear skimpy or revealing clothing. They're
asking what it means when someone is called a slut. What values are encoded in
the term? Is it enough to claim, 'I'm proud to be a slut?'
While this issue has not, and may never be, resolved, we know that major
stuff happens in the process of styling the self. Those of us who know what it
is like to be either invisible or highly visible cannot deny the impact of
fashion and style. We have not yet figured out what it means to wear makeup,
different types of clothing, or sensible or stylish shoes, but we know that it
can't be as simple as, 'You're playing into the patriarchy' if you enjoy
feminine things. This is an un-rigorous read. It's also not okay to just say,
'I want to wear it so it has to be OK, no matter what.'
TARRANT: We are immersed in a culture that
encourages judgments about women and women's bodies whether we're feminists or
not. Take Miley Cyrus. What she wears or doesn't wear gets framed as a moral
issue. Feminism asks us to look at issues as political, but as long as we keep
with a moral framework, there will be judgment. That's our challenge as
feminists, to keep the lens focused on the political implications and meanings
of our assumptions and thoughts.
Tiana Parker, the 7-year-old
When we talk about women's bodies, self-confidence and fashion choices,
there is always a serious political component to the discussion.
Self-confidence is political. If you are applying for a job, or are asked to
speak in class, if you've been told you're not pretty enough, have bad hair or
are stupid, it impacts your ability to take up space and then talk.
Slut Walks have tried to undo some of the stigma and shame foisted onto
women's bodies. A wide array of people attended the first one in
TO: Some feminists have labeled your focus on fashion
and style frivolous, especially in light of the ongoing 'war on women.' How do
you answer them?
JOLLES: One of the central places where people
are instructed to express themselves is in how they decorate their homes and
bodies. Everyone has to participate. The choice to opt out is not available.
Actually, opting out is a style.
Some people argue that what we wear has nothing to do with politics,
that they can be feminists and wear short skirts, for example. But we have to
remember that a short skirt is never meaningless. The wearer may mean 'My body
is my own,' or 'I will make you reckon with me as a feminist wearing a short
skirt.'
There is also typically a link between spike heels and whore-hating,
linking disdain for heels with disdain for sex workers. We have to interrogate
that just as we have to interrogate why we get out of our clothes and shoes as
soon as we get home from work. It all has meaning. Life is not separated into
hard politics or frivolous entertainment.
TARRANT: Yes, fashion can be seen as a luxury. It
can even be considered a luxury to talk about it. Likewise, style can be
perceived as trivial, but neither is unimportant. Of course there are many
serious issues facing us: racist legislation, cutbacks on access to
reproductive choice, resurgent sexism, cuts to education, voting restrictions,
poverty. But I see fashion as an equally important feminist issue. When we talk
about style, we ask where we get our messages about what outfits to buy. As
feminists, we need to have conversations about consumption and production. Who
is making this stuff? How are they being treated? We need to have critical
conversations about marketing, advertising and the objectification of women. We
can look at whether a woman going to a bar in a low-cut top and push-up bra so that
guys will buy her drinks can be a feminist. How do we feel knowing that she
takes pleasure in being seen as sexy? Is she making a real choice? This
conversation introduces the subject of power and addresses what real power is.
When people don't have real power or authority, they often resort to
manipulation. Can we stop blaming the woman and calling her a slut? Can we
instead ask what her behavior has to say about politics, power and sexuality?
What you wear does not necessarily lead to political change but our
weight, our hair and our clothes can be a way into assessing political
realities. When the conversation veers into, 'Isn't she asking for it when she
goes out dressed like that?' we have an opportunity to redirect the
conversation and look at who is not being held responsible: men. Why do so many
men see women as existing only for their sexual gratification? What have men
been taught about women and girls to lead them to this conclusion? We're not
supposed to talk about men's complicity in sexism, just like we're not supposed
to talk about white privilege when we talk about racism, but we have to.
We need to have the big conversations about gender, race, beauty, age,
sexuality and style. After all, we present ourselves every single day.