BA1 CLASS READING - INTRODUCTION TO THEORY - FASHION AND IDENTITY - this reading is extracts (...) from the set text.

CHAPTER 1 - THE FASHION IMPULSE, FROM FASHION - THE KEY CONCEPTS. JENNIFER CRAIK. 2009.

The expanding universe of fashion coincided with the rise of mercantilism and consumerism as the acquisition and trade of material goods expanded, and thus the possibility of literally fashioning an identity and way of life out of consumer objects. In turn, these material possessions became symbols of well-being and of social status. In an effort to control the multiplication of material culture, political regimes enacted laws know as sumptuary laws across Europe to regulate the ownership and display of material goods, for example, luxury items, certain colours, garments and accessories ...

In 1294, Philippe passed a sumptuary law in France relating the number of robes one could have to one's income and status (Heller 2004:320). Thus a duke, count, and baron (and their wives) could have four robes per year, and a knight and banneret had three, while prelates, squires, dames, chatelaines, and knights were permitted only two. The cost of cloth was also prescribed for each group. While a sliding scale of fines was prescribed for infractions, there was the possibility of renouncement too. Enforcement seems to have relied on top-down directives to heads of households and informers, who could report transgressions. Public shaming and ridicule may also have been powerful incentives to persuade people to adhere to the laws. Subsequent laws proscribed gifts of robes too as the quest for visible demonstration of social status and role drove the tension between enforcement and flouting of dress regulations. According to Helle (2004: 333) 'Sumptuary laws testify to the anxiety as well as the innovations engendered by this increased competition for visibility.' She concludes that these regulations were not just about enforcing customary dress but about fashion:

Rather, it should be clear that fashion for any man of wealth or position was well developed, accepted by the society, and even expected. The causes of tension were the bulges and wrinkles in the hierarchy: when decisions were designated to be made by a single person for others, but those others wanted to make decisions for themselves. This is fashion in its essence: the desire to make decisions about personal display for oneself, seeing them as a means of personal expression. (Heller 2004:339)

While many of the laws were directed at members of court society, the burgeoning bourgeoisie was also targeted because it was 'acquiring symbols in its quest for greater status and wealth, which the high nobles and the royalty found threatening' (Heller 2004:343). By controlling the value of cloth and number of robes one could possess, the king was responding to increased visible consumption, which was challenging traditional courtly display, and the vestmental evidence of income (in the form of ignoring the regulations) suggested that hierarchical categories 'seemed to be constantly shifting, and income did not always correspond either to status or consumption' (Heller 2004:348). 

Such sensitivities to escalating social upheaval were also apparent in Elizabethan England, where Queen Elizabeth 1 enacted the Statutes of Apparel in 1574, prescribing the types of fabrics, colours, and garments that women of different status could wear ...

These statutes related to the cost of materials and status accorded to different colours and garments. A similar set of edicts related to men's clothing. ... Dress regulation was often the product of political control; for example, the 1746 Dress Act banned the wearing of Highland dress (including the tartan or kilt) in Scotland in an effort to quell the quest for independence by Scottish clans. Although such dress quickly disappeared as everyday dress, Highland clubs adopted the outlawed dress, and by the time the act was repealed in 1782, the kilt had become acknowledged national dress. Thus, the desire to eliminate a mode of dress resulted in its elevation to the symbolic costume of national politics. ...


Europe was not alone in officially regulating fashion. Many - if not most - societies have at some stage attempted to prescribe who can - and cannot - wear what and when. During the Qing dynasty in China, for example, there were highly coded regulations concerning what members of the royal court could wear in terms of colour, design, and fabric ...


While only the royal family could wear dragon symbols, civic officials were also codified by animal symbols in the Qing dynasty: first rank wore the crane, second the golden pheasant, third the peacock, fourth the goose, fifth the silver pheasant, sixth the egret, seventh the mandarin duck, eight the quail, and ninth the paradise flycatcher (Cammann 1952:196). These symbols ensured instant identification as to rank and role. (Craik, 2009, pp.28-31).

REFERENCE

Craik, J. (2009) Fashion - the key concepts. Oxford: Berg.