How Societal Views Shape the Way We Dress - Essay Example

?How Societal Views Shape the Way We Dress The story of Adam and Eve being banished from the Garden of Eden first implied the need for clothes to cover their naked bodies. This was upon their realization that they were naked and suddenly became embarrassed about being seen so vulnerable in their nakedness. They are usually depicted with leaves to cover their private parts. This early reference to a need to cover the body has much implication on what clothes mean to people. One is for biological purposes to protect the human body from too much heat or cold, as first done by prehistoric people (Gilligan, 2010). Another one is to fulfil social expectations and impact people’s standards of living (Corrigan, 2008). Although clothing is a basic need for survival in terms of biological needs, it is society and culture which dictate how we design and wear clothes based on many factors. Some of these factors are class or status, gender, occasion, religion, time, occupation, comfort, age, ethnicity, geography, power, economics, etc. (Corrigan, 2008). For this essay, we limit our discussion to the factors of comfort, age, gender and status, and how these affect the way we dress. Comfort How we dress in our comfort zones usually reflects which styles we are most likely to adopt when there is no societal pressure to look our best and just be comfortable being ourselves. Corrigan (2008) contends that clothes can be an expression of an individual’s bodily oppression/liberation or state of health considering the style a person uses as allowed by the degree of freedom permitted by society. For example, the use of a starched collared shirt or a whalebone corset may be worn by a generation of “repressed” individuals held tightly by their clothes. It serves as a reminder of how disciplined they should be and not be frivolous in their ways. Being constrained in the way one is dressed holds their bodies in socially acceptable shape. If one does not have such a shape, then plastic surgeons are on hand to directly correct the offending body part that makes the person socially unacceptable (Corrigan, 2008). In this perspective, clothes play a huge role in terms of discipline and social uprightness. Another way one can view it is such clothes of restraint are typically worn by people of higher status. Dress that is constraining in one way or another connotes more prestige because it is associated with mental labor instead of physical labor. “The tie versus the open collar, expensive delicate materials as against cheap robust cloth, shoes designed for grace and elegance rather than the health of the walking foot. Clothing is not entirely adapted to the demands of bodily comfort because that would set the body above the abstracting intelligence attracted by form, line and texture – the intelligence that sees itself as managing the world rather than as producing ‘stuff’ at the behest of others (Corrigan, 2008, p. 160). From this, it can be conjectured that comfort can be sacrificed by people only to show others that they are “dignified.” It is ironic how this explains why people attend social functions struggling to walk in uncomfortable but glamorous shoes and gowns that make them look as if they live in luxury and comfort; even at that particular time, physical comfort may elude them. Age Dressing according to age is considered socially appropriate. It is shocking to see women well over their fifties clad in skimpy clothes that are more suited to younger women. At the same time, the young are expected to wear more colourful and “fun” outfits that bespeaks of their youth. Sometimes, adolescents trying to emulate their much older idols may wear clothes that make them look older just so they can feel more associated with them. Boys do not have as many issues as girls when it comes to dressing up, and have limited choices in terms of garments to wear. Girls are more prone to “objectification” by society. Objectification theory contends that constant exposure to objectifying experiences leads young women to objectify themselves, meaning they internalize societal messages that they are viewed like sex objects whose attractiveness is evaluated according to society’s narrow standards of beauty (Frederickson & Roberts, 1997). This standard is typically represented by the Barbie doll, which has a perfect proportionality. Clothing functions as a way to socialize girls into sex objects as dictated by society through their exposure to media (Goodin et al., 2011). Hence, younger girls are pressured to wear clothes which are not age-appropriate to them such as low-cut and revealing dresses, skirts with high slits, and sexy shoes with high heels to make them look much older and “sexier”, thus more attractive according to societal standards. These clothes emphasize the womanly shape that is considered sexy and fashionable. Such objectification of young girls is taken advantage of by fashion marketers, selling more mature and more sexualizing clothes to younger girls who wish to be seen as older women (George, 2007). Merskin (2004) adds that blurring the line separating fashion for young girls and older women benefits the fashion and advertising industries because of societal objectification of women. Young adolescent girls are shown in provocative clothes and poses in advertisements while more mature women are depicted as innocent, vulnerable young girls. Such woman-girl hybrid is intended to attract the male fascination just to sell more products in the female market, who may wish to be considered as desirable to men (Goodin et al, 2011). A study on the effectiveness of various ages of models in selling clothes revealed findings that older women tend to purchase clothes modelled by older models because they viewed the models as more believable, qualified and credible and they could relate better to models who are closer to their age range (Kozar, 2012). Carrigan and Szmigin (2000) recommend older models who may look young for their age and possess a youthful, dynamic personality as more effective in selling more clothes and accessories. These women are seen to be dressed appropriately because they have already achieved much in life and are already knowledgeable about their own fashion preferences; hence, they dress for success. Gender Men and women dress differently according to characteristics believed by society to be innate in their gender. This is more obvious during childhood when boys are dressed to manifest strength and confidence while girls are dressed to look cute and fragile. A study by Nelson (2000) on children’s Halloween costumes found that there were few gender-neutral costumes (9%) and those for girls only had a few choices, usually exemplifying feminine passive beauty (12% for beauty queens; 16% for princesses and 4% for brides). Boys’ costumes were designed for heroes with supernatural powers or skills. This example has implications on the fact that clothing is one of the most significant indicators of gender identity (Barnes & Eicher, 1992). As grownups, men work towards wearing clothes that show their machismo and flair. Even casual clothes are made to look manly by emphasizing their physique such as muscle shirts that cling to their body muscles and fit jeans to outline their manly legs. Women’s clothes come in various styles, but most of it highlights the wearer’s femininity and grace. These are reflected in the kinds of fabric and cuts used to implement the style of the dress. Status Clothes also indicate the status held by a person in society. In olden times and even in contemporary times, royalty is always draped in the finest fabrics by the best wardrobe designers. These lush fabrics are often accessorized with valuable jewels to further emphasize the status of the wearer. In some societies, however, a distinguishing garment or accessory identifies people of a certain status, such as the wearing of a sash or crown for royal leaders. Clothes can determine the hierarchy of people. Simple cuts sewn in lower quality fabrics and of less ornate designs are worn by ordinary people who hold no position in society. Boris (2010) discussed how moving up one’s status in life means also license to wear signature clothes to set one apart from the rest and to prove that the individual is good enough for his or her new class status. For example, being welcomed to the executive world means donning a more expensive and better quality suit or corporate outfit and corresponding designer labelled shoes and accessories. Being shabbily dressed is not acceptable for a person of higher status; hence, he or she should be more conscious of the way he carries himself in all aspects, including how he clothes him/herself. Building and maintaining one’s corporate image determines how others will treat him. An interplay of various factors in choosing to dress oneself is inevitable in contemporary times. People have clothes for different times of the day, weather conditions, occasions and celebrations that also reflect their age, gender, status and preference or need for comfort. The basic function of clothing to cover and protect the body from nature’s elements should first be fulfilled before any other sociological implication should matter to the individual. However, for some people, there is more concern for how society regards the way they dress because it determines how they should be treated as people. Indeed, this is a far cry from pre-historic times. We have gone a long way since Adam and Eve first donned leaves as the first human clothes! References Barnes, R., & Eicher, J. B. (Eds.). (1992). Dress and gender: Making and meaning in cultural contexts. New York: Berg. Boris, E. (2010). Feminist currents. Frontiers, 31(1). Carrigan, M., & Szmigin, 1. (2000). Advertising and older consumers: Image and ageism. Business Ethics: A European Review, 9, 42–50. Corrigan, P. (2008). The dressed society: Clothing, the body and some meanings of the world. Sage Publications, Ltd. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. George, L. (2007, January 1). Eight-year-olds in fishnets, padded “bralettes” and thong panties: Welcome to the junior miss version of raunch culture. Maclean’s, 119, 37–40. Gilligan, I. (2010). The prehistoric development of clothing: Archaeological implications of a thermal model. Journal of Archaeological Method Theory, 17, 15–80. Goodin, S. M., Van Denburg, A., Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2011). “Putting on” sexiness: A content analysis of the presence of sexualizing characteristics in girls’ clothing. Sex Roles, 65, 1–12. Kozar, J. M. (2012). Effects of model age on adult female consumers' purchase intentions and attitudes for an age-specific product, clothing. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(2). Merskin, D. (2004). Reviving Lolita? A media literacy examination of sexual portrayals of girls in fashion advertising. The American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 119–128. Nelson, A. (2000). The pink dragon is female: Halloween costumes and gender markers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 137–144. Read More