Clothing is Not Superficial Argumentation - Essay Example

To What Extent Do You Agree with Daniel Miller’s Argument that “Clothing is Not Superficial”? Total Number of Words: 3,001 Introduction In general, anthropologists are known for their personal interests in analyzing the significance of material things in this world (Hicks and Beaudry, 2010, p. 1). In relation to the study between material objects and people, Daniel Miller has publicly shared his personal thoughts and ideas such that “Clothing is Not Superficial”. Specifically the arguments made by Miller was one of a kind in the sense that he decided to make use of ‘clothing’ as a symbol, sign or a pseudo language that tells people more about who we really are as a person (McHugh, 2012, p. 4; Miller, 2010). It means that whatever material object a person may possess is not at all superficial but insightful (May, 2013, p. 144). To make it easier for us to understand Miller’s arguments on clothing, it is best to first define the term superficial. Basically, the term superficial was defined by Merriam-Webster (2015) as “concerned or affecting only the outer part or the surface of something”. In relation to clothing, the term superficial could mean that a person excessively cares about how he or she looks in public. It is also the same as how one person would perceive the way other people are wearing clothes. So, what is the truth behind Miller’s argument that clothing is not superficial? Does clothing per se accurately represent people based on who they really are as a person? To what extend can clothing be considered as something superficial? If clothing is something that is purely superficial, then why do some people spend so much money on clothing and style? Considering all these questions, the next part of this paper will focus on discussing the extent to which I have agreed with Miller’s argument on clothing and its representation to the inner and physical self. The Extent of Agreement that “Clothing is Not Superficial” Miller (2010) mentioned that “clothing is not superficial”. It means that clothing does not only affect only the physical aspect of people who wear clothes but also other non-physical aspects in life. Therefore, to be able to clearly understand Miller’s argument, one has to go beyond what normal eyes can see. In the first part of his writing, Miller was able to use clothing as a representation of people’s confidence in oneself, gender issues, social class status, educational attainment, culture and tradition, confidence in oneself, the kind of job or occupation a person has, and so many more (Miller, 2010, p. 11). I strongly agree with the idea that a person can make use of clothing as a way of expressing oneself to other people. For instance, depending on the person’s mood and personality, some women would prefer to wear sexy clothing in case she feels inspired and highly motivated in life. Often times, women who wear sexy clothing are the ones who are more confident about their physical appearance. On the contrary, there are also cases wherein some women would prefer to wear plain jeans and T-shirt. In some cases, women who prefer to wear plain jeans and T-shirt does not necessarily mean that they literally lack self-confidence. According to Miller (2010, p. 39), the clothing preferences of each person can expose their “true inner and relatively constant self within”. Personally, I do not agree with this particular statement since there are instances wherein the process of wearing clothes can say something untrue about us. In reality, people’s choices or preferences in clothing do not accurately say anything whether or not a person is really confident about himself. Likewise, people’s preferences in clothing do not also accurately say so much about other people’s social class status, educational attainment, cultural background and/or tradition. For instance, people with lower class social status may choose to wear elegant and expensive clothing which could at some point creates a misrepresentation about their social status in life. On the contrary, there are also people with higher social class status who choose to wear inexpensive clothing on a daily basis. In general, wearing inexpensive clothing may not always mislead other people about their real socio-economic background in life because of the way they speak and act. In other words, there will always be a limitation as to how clothing can literally expose a person’s true inner self. With this in mind, I strongly agree with Miller (2010, p. 11) when he clearly stated that “on the surface is found the clothing which may represent us and may reveal truth about ourselves, but it may also lie”. Often times, the people’s choices of topic to talk about say so much about their educational background, hobbies, and what they know in life. Even if people with lower class social status in life choose to wear elegant and expensive clothing, their true self can be revealed as soon as they start to talk, socialize and mingle with other people. The same is true with people’s cultural background and/or tradition. People’s choice on clothing can be used to cover up the real cultural background of a person. Of course, not unless the people would choose to wear clothing that is in accordance to their culture and tradition. For example, people in Malaysia may choose to wear Malay baju kebaya, Chinese cheongsam, or the Indian saree depending on their cultural background and traditional practices (Tourism, 2015). In this particular case, clothing can be superficial. Since the practice of wearing traditional clothing is only optional, one can easily argue that clothing is not superficial most of the time. In relation to the semiotics theory behind the idea that clothing is superficial, Miller (2010, p. 14) mentioned that it is presumed that there is a link between the inner and external self. Personally speaking, I do not agree with the idea that there is a close relationship between the inner and external self. Given the fact that clothing is not superficial most of the time, one can say that the thought or idea that there is a link between the inner and external self is not always true. The reason why I do not agree with this particular statement is because people have the freedom to choose. For some reasons, people can always choose to cover up their true inner self with the kind of self that they intend to show or reveal to other people. This explains why the physical self will not always be a good basis of who or what a person really is. Miller also pointed out the fact that clothing can serve as a representation of gender (Miller, 2010, p. 11). Perhaps, the clothing preferences of a person can say a little something about their gender. For instance, women who are sexy and feminine may choose to wear short dresses as compared to women who are overweight or obese. On the other hand, most men may choose to wear jeans and polo shirt. Within this context, one can argue the fact that clothing, in relation to gender, can be superficial. However, there are also some cases wherein a lesbian would be forced to wear feminine clothes because of fear of how other people would accept her unique sexual preferences. Within this context, one can argue that clothing is not always superficial since choices on clothing can be used to cover up their true sexual orientation. Miller (2010, p. 11) also suggest that clothing can be used as a representation of people’s educational attainment. Seriously, I do not agree that clothing can be used as a representation of people’s educational attainment. Given the fact that a person’s preferences on clothing is highly dependent on their mood means that anybody with a very high educational attainment could feel very much comfortable wearing informal clothing. With this in mind, not all people who wear ragged clothes are uneducated or have a very low educational attainment. On the contrary, people with low educational attainment could be more at ease wearing corporate or business attire. Therefore, given these examples, one can easily argue that clothing can be a misrepresentation of a person’s true educational background. According to Miller (2010, p. 11), “there is a real or true self which lies deep within us”. Therefore, regardless of the type of materials used in making clothes or fashion statement, one can easily say that the mood and personality of a person can significantly affect the type of clothing he or she prefers to who wear. As we all know, mood and personality of people are both something that could arise out of feelings, sentiments, and the inner self (McHugh, 2012, p. 4). All these three (3) aspects such as feelings, sentiments, and the inner self are not always clearly visible in the eyes of people. Without applying careful observation and analysis behind a person’s attitude and behaviour, one may experience difficulty in seeing things beyond the physical appearance of a person. Within this context, I strongly agree with Miller’s argument that clothing is really not superficial at all. On the contrary, there are also few cases wherein I do not agree with the thought that clothing is not always superficial. I gave this stand because there are cases wherein clothing on the surface can literally represent something about us. For instance, Miller (2010) mentioned that “the Emperor’s New Clothes” is all about a story that talks about vanity. If one is to observe the real design and clothing materials used in making the Emperor’s clothes, one can easily point out and differentiate the Emperor from his subordinates. In line with this, Miller (2010, p. 11) pointed out the fact that the process of wearing the Emperor’s clothing somehow gives them the sense of “dignity, glamour, and refinement”. Within this context, one can easily argue that clothing can also be superficial in this sense. The same is true with regards to the practice of wearing traditional clothing such as Malay baju kebaya, Chinese cheongsam, or the Indian saree (Tourism, 2015). However, anybody with different cultural background can also choose to wear any of these three (3) types of traditional clothing (i.e. Malay baju kebaya, Chinese cheongsam, or the Indian saree). Therefore, in this particular case scenario, one can argue that clothing is really not superficial at all. In fact, human beings will always have the option to choose what and how they want to show or represent themselves to other people and the world (Miller, 2010). On page 12, Miller (2010) stated that “there is no true inner self”. Personally, I do not agree with this particular statement because each person clearly has an inner self that differentiates him or her from other people. In my point-of-view, it is the inner self that somehow dictates people what type of clothing we should wear based on how or what we would like other people to think about us. To sum it up, Miller (2008, p. 287) pointed out the idea that the process of learning more about material culture is important because man-made objects such as clothing can create the end-users more than a man could create material objects. Furthermore, Miller mentioned that the close relationship between man-made objects and men in general affects their life in terms of socialisation (May, 2013, p. 145). Often times, culture can say so many things about self and that the process of modifying one’s own image through the use of clothing could result to the misinterpretation of the true self (May, 2013, p. 145; Miller, 2010). Within this context, I support Miller’s idea that the process of modifying one’s own image through the use of clothing could result to the misinterpretation of the true self. However, there will always be a limitation with regards to the extent in which clothing could result to the misinterpretation of the true self. Perhaps, such limitation could affect only the first impression that people has on another person. As soon as the person starts to talk more about self, the real cultural background of a person could overshadow their own preferences when it comes to clothing. Discussion Dant (1999, p. 2) explained that material things are very much a part of the social interaction that creates social structure in our daily living. It simply means that material things such as clothing are significant part of the physical and social world. This explains why anthropologists have been trying to examine or analyze the close relationship between people and objects, and vice versa (Gell, 2013, p. 12; Hicks and Beaudry, 2010, p. 1). As such, it is under the study of material culture that seeks to explain the relationship between material things and its close relationship with a person’s identity, life in general, or death (Attfield, 2000, p. 9). In general, clothing is merely an object that can be used to cover the physical self. Although the use of clothing can be a good representation of who we are, there are also cases wherein the use of clothing can misrepresent people in public. Within this context, one can easily argue that clothing can either be superficial or not at all superficial, depending on the person who is using a specific kind of clothing. To some extent, Miller’s title “Why Clothing is Not Superficial” can be misleading without reading his overall argument to the fact. Based on the title alone, one can create the thought or idea that Miller was mainly pointing out the fact that clothing is not superficial. Upon reading his entire argument, it is clear that Miller acknowledged the fact the clothing can either be superficial or not at all superficial when he stated the fact that “on the surface is found the clothing which may represent us and may reveal truth about ourselves, but it may also lie” (Miller, 2010, p. 11). In fact, Miller’s argument about the fact that clothing can either be superficial or not at all superficial was strongly in accordance to the real-life examples I have presented earlier such that clothing can either accurately represent or misrepresent not only our true inner selves but also our cultural background or socio-economic background in life. Literally speaking, it is true that clothing can be viewed as merely a surface representation of a person. However, often times, clothing alone does not necessarily represent the true meaning of inner self. Within this argument, one can say that clothing alone is superficial because people who belong to lower social class could wear expensive clothes or shoes that they can hardly purchase given the limitations of their own savings. In some cases, there are people who would pay close attention and gives more importance to the superficial side of clothing simply because they want to look glamorous and more confident about themselves (Miller, 2010, p. 12). However, there can also be times wherein clothing can be considered as non-superficial. For example, a person tries to see the real inner self based on the type of clothing a person is wearing. Unfortunately, there some people around the world that pays so much attention about the superficial side of clothing. With regards to the use of clothing and make-up, there is really nothing wrong with trying to look good on a superficial level. However, one should always be able to look through beyond the physical aspect of self. One of the most difficult things to do is to be able to get to know a person without any pretentions or disguise. By being able to look through beyond the physical aspect of self, one can easily and accurately know more about the true colour of each person without being mislead by what the person is trying to show from their physical attributes. Therefore, it is very important to keep in mind that clothing can either be superficial or non-superficial. Conclusion There is a relationship between clothing and the way people would interact in the social world. Often times, clothing can be superficial in the sense that the process of wearing traditional clothing can say so much about the cultural background of a person. However, this is not always true since anybody outside the same culture and tradition can wear traditional outfits for fun. Despite the link between clothing and self, one can easily argue that clothing is not at all superficial because it is not enough to accurately tell other people about who a person really is particularly with regards to their sexual orientation in life, socio-economic background, educational attainment or the nature of their profession. To sum it up, clothing can either be either superficial or non-superficial depending on the way clothing is being used in real-life context. Often times, people’s preferences in clothing can be highly motivated by their own emotions, feelings, and current mood swings. However, for some people, clothing is just plain superficial in the sense that they would prefer to wear nice clothes just to give them a higher level of self-confidence. Likewise, there are also other cases wherein people may choose to wear specific clothing just because it is required in their chosen profession. Meaning, the type of clothes these people wear does not necessarily represent their true inner self. This partly explains why Miller has argued that clothing is not superficial as compared to what most people thought it is. Perhaps unintentional, some people may choose to wear specific clothing not to misrepresent themselves to other people, but to conform to what is required to them by the society. For instance, some people wear clothes in order to earn other people’s trust and support in their chosen profession or in things that they love to do. Since people’s choice on clothing can be very misleading, it is always best for people to learn to see people beyond what they wear. In the process of doing so, one can easily avoid being misled by simply learning more of the true inner self. For instance, it is way much better to communicate with people to make them reveal their true self rather than judging other people based on the type of clothing they wear. References Attfield, J. (2000). Wild Things: The Material Culture of Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg. Dant, T. (1999). Material Culture in the Social World. Buckingham: Open University Press. Gell, A. (2013). Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. May, V. (2013). Connecting Self to Society: Belonging in a Changing World. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. McHugh, J. (2012). Sandalwood and Carrion: Smell in Indian Religion and Culture. NY: Oxford University Press. Merriam-Webster. (2015). Superficial. [Online] Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superficial [Accessed 24 February 2015]. Miller, D. (2010). Stuff. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Miller, D. (2008). The Comfort of Things. Cambridge: Polity Press. Tourism. (2015). Traditional Attire. [Online] Available at: http://www.tourism.gov.my/en/us/about-malaysia/culture-n-heritage/traditional-attire [Accessed 24 February 2015]. Read More