Fashion as a Visual Expression: The Nuances of Femininity - Case Study Example

Fashion as a Visual Expression: The Nuances of Femininity, Feminism, and ‘The Beauty Myth’ Introduction Fashion is perhaps the most visual domain within which to see the same objects or articles appearing in various shapes, styles, and forms. In addition, fashion is perhaps the most visual domain within which to see items of clothing being used to create, express, and communicate one’s identity (Bennett 2005). Such variety of fabrics, cuts, shades, styles are used to create and express identities and, therefore, the outer form of the pieces of clothing may be justified by the presence of various cultural and social groups. Thus, as stated by Bennett (2005), “Fashion provides one of the most ready means through which individuals can make expressive visual statements about their identities” (p. 96). This essay discusses this statement with regard to the concepts of femininity, feminism, and ‘the beauty myth’ by Naomi Wolf. Fashion, Femininity, Feminism, and ‘The Beauty Myth’ Most apparently, Bennett is trying to argue that fashion is a type of nonverbal communication. It is easy to see that even when articles of clothing are coated with words, like catchphrases, logotypes, or trademark name for instance, there remains a degree of nonverbal communication that goes beyond the exact messages of those catchphrases or trademark names (Barnard 2002, 29). There are several scholars who take into consideration numerous instances of terms or phrases being used on fashion, tracing their connections to calligraphy, foreign languages, punk, and graffiti, for instance. Fashion makes use of these expressions to offer willing consumers more ways to visually communicate themselves (Barnard 2002, 29). The issue then comes up as to whether, since they are types of nonverbal expression, fashion could be viewed as being somehow similar to written or verbal communication. For instance, when Umberto Eco declares to be communicating through his attires he perhaps implies that he is following fashion to perform the same kinds of tasks as he makes use of verbal expression to perform in other circumstances Essentially, the symbolism of Eco appears to indicate that fashion is created into something similar to a language (Barnard 2002, 29). Alison Lurie, in The Language of Clothes, seems to think that there is an open similarity. She argues that there are numerous distinct expressions of fashion, each espousing its own language. In view of this, fashion is the counterpart of word and could be assembled into ‘expressions’ (p. 29-30). For instance, as explained by Barnard (2002), Lurie proposes that an individual having hardly any clothes, will have little opportunity to build more ‘expressions’, communicating merely the crudest ideas, whilst a fashion trendsetter could have a huge reservoir of words at his/her liking and will have more opportunities to express a broad array of messages (p. 29). However, it is vague, from the arguments of Bennett and Lurie, which communication paradigm is being applied. As argued by Fiske, there are two major theories in the communication discipline and, although each would espouse a wide-ranging description of communication as expression through meanings, each interprets that description in a quite distinct manner (Warren & Fassett 2010). The first theory is ‘process’. In the ‘process’ theory communication is viewed as a message transmission, and value is placed on how sender and receiver creates and interprets, and how they make use of the media and other channels in communication. The second theory views communication as formation and transfer of messages (Warren & Fassett 2010, 175). According to Kuhn (2005), value is placed on the role of communication and on the social and cultural setting where in communication is performed. It is based on the discipline of semiotics, an area focused on symbols and their associations with reality. Neither Lurie nor Bennett explains adequately to clarify which of these two theories they support. Unfortunately, communication is not simply about transferring meanings. In order to recognise fashion as a visual expression of one’s identity or as a form of nonverbal communication it is not enough to recognise communication or expression as the mere transmission of meanings. Nevertheless, as regards to the ‘process’ theory, an article of fashion would be the medium where in an individual would visually declare something to another individual with an eye to influence that other individual (Barnard 2002). In view of this, fashion, therefore, is the channel where in an individual transmits a message to another individual. It is through fashion that an individual plans to convey their ideas and express their identities to another individual. Within this perspective the message or meaning is the purpose of the sender and it is this that is expressed by fashion in the process of communication (Damhorst, Miller-Spillman, & Michelman 2005). According to Barnard (2002), the aspects that are highly integral to this theory of communication are the purpose of the sender, the effectiveness of the process of exchange, and the impact on the receiver. In contrast, fashion has been associated with visual expressions of femininity which, several feminists claim, are naturally repressive. First-wave feminism engaged in clothing revolution, igniting the disputed and brief fad for the Bloomer attire, yet leading more enduringly to debates over the dangers of stretched or tight clothes (Kuhn 2005). Proponents of second-wave feminism, such as Betty Friedan, opposed cultural and societal criteria of beauty dictated by the mass media and the larger patriarchal society, which, as argued by Lorrain Gamman, obliged women “to see themselves in fragments through male eyes” (Kuhn 2005, 32). Consequently, according to Jeffreys (2005), several feminists avoided ‘feminine’ objects like high heels, sexy outfits, cosmetics, and others, which they believed are instruments in the commodification and objectification of femininity. Nevertheless, the opposition to fashion was quite narrow to continue for so long; at some point in the 1980s, several feminists started to think about the potential advantages of self-fashioning (Kuhn 2005). However, other feminists still stick to the belief that “fashion and cosmetics are part of a male conspiracy to oppressively regulate the internalisation of ‘femininity’ and thus keep women in their place” (Kuhn 2005, 33). These feminists see fashion as an expressive visual statement, but not about one’s unique identity, but about the cultural and societal standards of beauty. Naomi Wolf notably described ‘the beauty myth’ as a “violent backlash against feminism that uses images of female beauty as a political weapon against women’s advancement” (Wolf 2002, 3). At present, claims about fashion’s political features still rant and rave; there is conflict between the notions of adopting fashion as keeping alive a ploy that pushes women to take part in their own subjugation, on the one hand, and as visually expressing free and unique individuality, on the other (Macdonald 1995). Basically, Wolf contradicts Bennett’s argument that fashion is an expression of identity. Wolf argues that fashion is a tool in conditioning femininity so as to preserve the dominance of males in society. Moreover, through a study of fashion publications, Wolf (2002) asserts that cultural standards make females dependent on outside acceptance, approval, and evaluation, substituting established sexual and religious prohibitions with new kinds of oppression. As argued by Wolf (2002), the beauty myth that people recognise nowadays surfaced when women were on the brink of cutting loose from the fetters of domesticity. The status quo was on the verge of capsizing, and the businesses, like the fashion industry, that strengthen the machinery of capitalism reacted by marketing the beauty myth. Women were on spectacle to a greater extent, in movies, in advertisements, almost everywhere. From then on, the fashion industry has become stronger as an institution (Kuhn 2005). This may explain why Bennett believes that fashion has become one of the most available medium through which individuals can visually express themselves. Still, Wolf eloquently explains how this beauty myth has burdened modern women (Wolf 2002, 10): The more legal and material hindrances women have broken through, the more strictly and heavily and cruelly images of female beauty have come to weigh upon us. During the past decade, women breached the power structure; meanwhile eating disorders rose exponentially and cosmetic surgery became the fastest-growing specialty... pornography became the main media category, ahead of legitimate films and records combined, and thirty-three thousand American women told researchers that they would rather lose ten to fifteen pounds than achieve any other goal... More women have more money and power and scope and legal recognition than we have ever had before; but in terms of how we feel about ourselves physically, we may actually be worse off than our unliberated grandmothers. The saying ‘bra-burners’ is being applied as an abbreviated way of bringing up a feminist perspective rather than an account of past events. As argued by Evans and Thornton, bra burnings at the opening conventions of the Women’s Liberation Movement in America started as hearsay (Barnard 2002, 141).Whether these items of clothing were really burned is irrelevant. What is important about the saying is that it suggests a stance to be adopted on the issue of fashion. This stance is, essentially, that fashion which propagates and perpetuates traditional gender stereotypes, identities, and perspectives are to be rejected or break away from (Thornham 2002). It is the stance that claims that fashion is to be resisted or defied by tearing it down on the rationale that they create, express, and perpetuate repressive and unjust gender relations and identities. Fashion was viewed by feminists as creating and propagating an image of femininity that was artificial and limiting and that had to be destroyed or avoided (Kidwell & Steele 1989). The early Women’s Liberation Movement, in contrast to Bennett’s argument, viewed fashion as expressing a principle of femininity. These feminists view fashion as dictating what a woman is or could grow to be and as adhering to different standards or stereotypes, every single one of which were seen as disagreeable. As a result, the Women’s Liberation Movement condemned or rebuffed fashion (Thornham 2000). According to Barnard (2002), to be resistant to fashion is this manner, therefore, is to be a supporter of feminism in the sense that in rejecting fashion, one is turning down the gender perspectives, stereotypes, and identities created, expressed, and perpetuated by fashion. Femininity, as regards to fashion, is a far more visible and sophisticated sphere than masculinity. There is a much richer array of items of clothing, and selections within each array, for females than for males (Hall 1997). Furthermore, clothes for young girls are advertised based on adult fashion and are representations and expressions that exposes youngsters to mature practices of femininity at a premature age, and open discussions about whether a specific style is appropriate for children demonstrate that there is a prevalent idea that untimely exposures to the suggestions and expressions of mature femininity are unsuitable for children. Nevertheless, fashion forms a particular gendered figure in that clothes for young girls are usually confining and repressive, like tights and skirts, whilst clothes for young boys are more appropriate for physical activity and active lifestyle, like pants, t-shirts, etc (Kuhn 2005). Furthermore, femininity forces one to become skilled at specific methods of body expressions. Numerous of the ‘adjectives’ related to femininity, such as submissive, reserved, nurturing, alluring, denote particular body expressions. Body expression engaged in creating a perfect form of femininity includes thorough preparation and manipulation, such as cosmetic improvement, dieting, and body modification. The degree to which a woman will strive to attain her model of femininity is definitely recognised as an indication of her dedication to her ideal figure. Hence, the formation of a gendered identity is an intentional and complicated method (Hall 1997). Fashion models represent the most severe practices of femininity, as they turn to extreme methods of deprivation and self-denial (Macdonald 1995). Thus, in relation to Bennett’s argument, fashion is a visual expression of one’s identity in that fashion involves reforming the self and the body as dictated by the society and the media. One’s identity is visually expressed or fashioned in the coveted qualities of femininity: submissiveness, meekness, and nurturing. Furthermore, femininity in fashion is expressed by body practices that turn the body into a sight for the pleasure of others in a practice of spying or voyeurism. Feminine styles are created to be watched, spied, or censured by others, which precisely explain why females who violate rules of female dressing are more prone to be criticised than males who violate dressing rules (Kuhn 2005). Therefore, fashion is a visual expression of one’s identity in that it encourages an exterior look that fears the rejection of society. Conclusions Andy Bennett’s statement that fashion is a visual expression of one’s identity has theoretical and practical connotations, as shown in the discussion. It has based on a historical development of the concepts of femininity, feminism, and beauty. However, what is more important is that Bennett’s argument cannot be understood superficially or literally; one has to take into account the feminist discourses that revolve around the issue of gender stereotypes and identities in order to fully understand the message of Bennett’s argument. References Barnard, M. (2002) Fashion as communication. London: Routledge. Bennett, A. (2005) Culture and everyday life. London: SAGE. Damhorst, M., Miller-Spillman, K., & Michelman, S. (2005) The meanings of dress. London: Fairchild Publications. Hall, S. (1997) Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices. London: SAGE. Jeffreys, S. (2005) Beauty and misogyny: harmful cultural practices in the West. London: Routledge. Kidwell, C. & Steele, V. (1989) Men and women: dressing the part. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Kuhn, C. (2005) Self-fashioning in Margaret Atwood’s fiction: dress, culture, and identity. New York: Peter Lang. Macdonald, M. (1995) Representing women: myths of femininity in the popular media. New York: E.Arnold. Thornham, S. (2000) Feminist theory and cultural studies: stories of unsettled relations. London: Arnold. Warren, J. & Fassett, D. (2010) Communication: A Critical/Cultural Introduction. London: SAGE. Wolf, N. (2002) The beauty myth: how images of beauty are used against women. New York: Perennial. Read More