Clothes and Style as a Form of Communication - Essay Example

CLOTHES AND STYLE AS A FORM OF COMMUNICATION Clothes and Style as a form of Communication Introduction Clothing and fashion behavior otherwise regarded as style has been considered linguistic with a symbolic aspect of some communication. Modern people have been accustomed to the way the clothes they wear dictate their lives as stylish but later they start to age become stale and eventually end up to be not stylish. Thus, the idea that fashion is current or latest is clearly understood in the modern setting of dressing where people understand that the clothes they wear have a meaning. Indeed, clothes are selected with a purpose of wearing according to the meaning believed to have or even the messages believed to send (Tortora, 2015). Again, the phrase appears to give an entire cultures implicit understanding of clothing and styles as communicative function. Normally, both clothing and the communicative function of style are perceived as a kind of being problematic and well understood in some culture. Majorly, an investigation into whether clothing behavior is, in general, a communicative adjustment to a particular culture will carefully be discussed herein. Basically, the paper examines the correlation in the communicative adaptability and the clothing tendency(Barnard, 1996). Clothes and Style as a form of Communication Clothing has a communicative function. In accordance to the understanding of the social psychology of dress, it is important that one understands that the total arrangement of outwardly detectable body modification inclusive of all material objects added onto it brings out the body supplement (May, 2013). In this case, the body modifications directly change the body, which includes making changes of the color appearance, supplements addition such as jewelry, clothing and hearing aids and a wide range of accessories. Some of the modifications in an individual may end up permanent like teeth straightening or even temporary such as deodorant. Thus, dress can alter how the body looks, feels, smells or even sounds. Clothing is taken to be a universal human behavior in that there are no societies where people do not engage in dressing behaviourism (Gott and Loughran, 2010). In defining clothing, it was noted that clothes provide to outright functions for humans, that is a modifier in the body process and as a medium of communication. When thinking about clothing in the dimension of modifier of the body process the focus is on the supplements and modifications that usually serve as interfaces between the general body and the large physical and the social environments in which human beings are found to live. When clothing protects the human body from impact of the surrounding then dress in this case is an interface, for instance, when one wears gloves for the purpose of protection of hands from cold, applying lotion in aid to protect the skin from damage by the sun rays or even wearing heavy jackets in the winter season (Chapman, 2013). In the above few stated cases, the clothing has been used genuinely for protection against unavoidable situations. However, the conception of clothing and style as a temporal sequence of looks and the general appearance that is assumed by some cultures may relatively be uncontroversial, the conception of the meaning and the communication that are presupposed by the notion that the fashion and clothing are meaningful or a communicative phenomenon definitely are not. For instance, presupposed in the unproblematic and clear accounts of the sort of meaning that some particular items of fashion and style and clothing have a message send. The meaning here is conceived as an expression of a certain message that is interpreted as some form of inner mental statement of a consent. Similarly presupposed in the above events of the sort of passing information that style performs lies the idea that communication is the transmission or even the conveying of the message from one place or individual to another(Barthes, 1985). Cloth and style communication as a reflection brings the idea that what people wear is a reflection or a mirror of something else perceived in the mind or rather could be the society’s economic or even the social structure or the cultural values. For example in this model of thought in communication people may claim that Victorian women wear tight clothing because they reflect their culture’s idea that they are taken to be weak and helpless. On the other hand, other people may interpret that upper-class Victorian women put on expensive dress and their lower class servants have cheap clothes simply because they directly reflect their economic structure in the society (Entwistle, 2009). However, the communication of gender in styles and dressing is the reflection of something else. Indeed is not a reflection of culture. For example, the Victorian women are not showing their culture view of them as weak, not independent and immobile. Based on the sender or receiver type of communication, messages are encoded by a sender and channeled to a decoder or receiver. Considering this theory’s origin in the field of telecommunication engineering, the paradigm case is that of telephony where the sender is the speaking individual channeled through telephonic equipment to the listener who is the receiver to decode on the other end of the line (Rai and Rai, 2009). Insofar as many analysts seem to agree that clothing and fashion have no language in any sense they may be taken to confer with the simple version of sender-receiver model cannot in any way explain fashion. However, it easy to find people confidently with the assertion that clothing and style are used as a means of transmitting certain message. Elizabeth Rouse for instance used this notion in her explaining fashion as she wrote about it conveying an impression. Additionally, it has been suggested that people often select particular items for dress following their personal or public meaning conveyed. It is with great caution that while fixed to the idea that there is some communication, ideally it is exactly like spoken or even written language. One has to rather prefer thinking of it in less precise terms in terms of esthetics or even as being like art. Such circumspection needs are distinguished from the approach of somebody like Alison Lurie in the language of clothes who has become so embroiled in a metaphor of dressing as a communication that takes up the direct comparison. People speak a lot through their way of dressing. Additionally, clothing is a unique style of communication designed to social standards and the self-expression. It is further suggested that dressing symbolically informs of peoples identities and their characteristics. In other words, he argues that people intentionally choose their clothing depending on their social behavior in different occasions to convey a particular message. Notably, information such as the status and credibility of other people, it is suggested that clothing is a factor so influential and a manageable means of expressing ones values. Davis (1994) has outlined and examined the effect of adjustment in the clothing behavior and have found out that often, young people use clothing to adjust to certain peer groups (Corrigan, 2008). The author suggests that individuals have been discovered to behave in the ways consistent with the social groups to which they belong. As such looking plainly on an individual dressed in a particular way one can easily interpret an impression that they belong to a particular social group. The mentioned group adjustments are also related to social values and clothing guidelines. A persons social values influence the display of dressing and personal values, which adversely influence the clothing awareness. Clothing adjustments again are on one hand explained by the social values. In the case of international students, intercultural adaption, social status and successful cultural interaction might take an upper hand in influencing their clothing behavior, as well as choices. Interested in the social psychology of dress researchers have spent considerably some time and efforts on investigating the effect of particular clothing with impression formation. On identifying the content of communication that individual link to clothing and style, their focus has remained on the dress and the stimuli that gets the impression of others surrounding them. In studying dress codes, Mary Lynn performed an analysis of closely 109 impression formation studies clearly to determine the sort of information that was conveyed in a particular dressing. In her finding, a big percentage of her study the content of information passed by dressing was competence, intelligence or power and nearly 67 percent the message passed was about character, mood or sociability (Rose and Richmond, 2011). A typical example related to her study is the investigations carried out on impression of intelligence as well as scholastic capability amongst high school students and their teachers. In such a setting, presenting participants with photographs of both male and female students varied such that half of the period the students were found wearing cutoff jeans with t-shirts while the other half of the period wearing suits. Definitely, for both students and teachers the dressing style would affect the impression formed. When wearing the jeans with t-shirts students are likely to have a lower rate of intelligence with also low scholastic ability than when they are dressed in the suits. In addressing the effect of the dress on impression to the surrounding, research have examined the behavioral impacts of the social perception. Analysis carried out has demonstrated that dressing significantly influence the behavior of those observing. The affected behavior, in this case, covers invasion of interaction territory, obedience, disclosure and aggression. For example, the way customers dress in some retail shops affects greatly how quickly sales people serve them. In western communities it is mostly assumed that individuals are free to select what to wear but in fact participation in those groups and formal and informal organizations can depict constraints on what exactly people wear (Woodside and Ko, 2013). Schools as well as workplaces normally restrain peoples dressing by implementing official and also informal dress code attached to particular dress regulations simply because it is believed that a particular dressing mode pass some implication. Undergoing through traumatic life experiences could also exert constraints on dressing and style. Interviewed survivors of sexual assault concerning their beliefs on how their dressing functioned in the context of their sexual assault, commented on the communicative function of the way of dressing explaining that they wore clothes in a manner that suggested consent to sexual intercourse. A good number opted to change the way dressing from the experience, which initially passed am impression interpreted by the surrounding otherwise. Indeed, the reason for their changing of dressing mode was to shield themselves from future assaults as the latter dressing influenced the people around them (Barthes, 1985). The informants indicated that they wanted to dress their bodies such that they drew attention of nobody. Their wish not to be noticed was an attempt to protect them from unexpected and unplanned sexual attention. Additionally, there are also internal effects on how individuals select to dress like personality characteristics, as well as salient identities. It is true that personality trait of narcissism is associated directly with an appearance that is so attractive and that requires grooming that entails costly and fashion clothing. Clothing generally taken as a relatively non-rapid fading sort of communication code could be completely and unambiguously recorded in use of the color photograph. Particularly picking on women’s dressing arbitrarily for study to focus on the preliminary investigation. In coding the ensembles in terms of systems developed and especially for unambiguous, objective description and exhaustive clothing a system stand a chance of producing numeric codes that that records the form of the clothing in question (Perrot, 2010). One of the important things about clothing depicted is the identity established by people. At least there are three unique levels of identity that dressing can convey to an observer that is cultural, personal and historical identities. For instance, a woman wearing a hijab identifies herself with a particular culture and religious norms (Rose and Richmond, 2011). In negotiating this aspect of identity in what an individual wears bring people closer to others or even distancing oneself from others. Looking at the human history one can see how important clothing has been in not only the ways of conveying some important information about self and the groups people are associated with but also in the methods of establishing particular social and cultural tendencies that provide a good face and the structure to the society. In some cases clothing have been used to protect the wearer from psychological harm like in the case one wears specific clothes or charms or even other lucky dress items to ward off evil spirits or attract some sort of good fortune. In this latter mentioned case of interface is between an individual and the socio-cultural environment and its implication is that particular clothing can be instilled with some type of social power with must have a specific means of communication to the unseen spirits. From history of the Garden of Eden, it gives an example of the way the dress controls extends far beyond tentacles of the formal government and restricted by a rich variety of rationale (Emmons, Hendrix and Lomholt, 2012). Originally, both Adam and Eve were unclothed but then were found covering their genitals using fig leaves to gain modesty. Ever since, dress has been used as a means of establishing identity and communication with people around. Research concerning communicative adaptability of clothing behavior is very important in ensuring alternative methods apart from language, to effectively change into to a culture, which is of benefit for international interactions and especially for student in abroad I. urge to live successfully and enjoy life in such like institutions(Davis, 1994). Conclusion Clothing classified as one of the most common forms of nonverbal means of communication are of different types that individuals wear to convey nonverbal cues about an individual behavior, personality, financial status, as well as economic background. An individuals dressing style can be taken to demonstrate the mood, culture, level of ones confidence, interests or even pass an impression of the religious beliefs. In the same way, clothing can communicate the sort of nationality a person or a particular group is for example in the traditional festivities men from Scotland often wore kilts to show and specify their culture. Despite the communicative perception of one nationality and beliefs, clothing can be used as a silent cue to attract others. People may shower themselves with fashion and styles so that they attract people whom they have an interest. In such a case clothing is used as a form of self-expression where people flaunt their power, sex appeal, wealth or even creativity. Finally, the way a person chooses to dress tells a lot about the personality, clothing expresses a clear picture of which one is because it is typically rooted from deep internal motivation, which could be emotions, culture or previous experiences. It clearly draws a picture of who one is or who they want to be in a particular setting, again it shows the kind of people one is likely to associate with. References Barnard, M. 1996. Fashion as communication. London: Routledge. Barthes, R. 1985. The fashion system. London: Cape. Chapman, R. 2013. Smart textiles for protection. Philadelphia, PA: Woodhead. Corrigan, P. 2008. The dressed society. London: SAGE Publications. Davis, F. 1994. Fashion, culture, and identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Emmons, P., Hendrix, J. and Lomholt, J. 2012. The cultural role of architecture. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Entwistle, J. 2009. The esthetic economy of fashion. Oxford: Berg. Gott, E. and Loughran, K. 2010. Contemporary African fashion. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications. May, S. 2013. Case studies in organizational communication. Los Angeles: SAGE Perrot, P. 2012. Fashioning the bourgeoisie. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Rai, U. and Rai, S. 2009. Effective communication. Mumbai [India]: Himalaya Pub. House. Rose, C. and Richmond, V. 2011. Clothing, society and culture in nineteenth-century England. London: Pickering & Chatto. Solomon, M. 2013. The Psychology of fashion. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. Steele, V. 2010. Encyclopedia of clothing and fashion. Farmington Hills, MI: Charles Scribners Sons. Tortora, P. 2015. Dress, Fashion and Technology. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Woodside, A. and Ko, E. 2013. Luxury Fashion and Culture. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Read More