Having Your Lifestyle and Eating the Consequences Too

In an effort not to drag out these fashion and feminism articles for those of you who do not enjoy this, I announce that this is the last article summary of the type I will be posting for awhile.  The next installment in the series will be my abstract. 

Groeneveld, E. (2010). Be a feminist or just dress like one: BUST, fashion, and feminism as lifestyle. Journal of Gender Studies, 31, 179-190.

Groeneveld critiques the third wave feminist magazine BUST’s reclaiming of feminist stance towards fashion.  The magazine endorses the idea that feminism should not dictate what women wear; dress is a personal choice and an expression of self. Groeneveld acknowledges that the second wave feminist stance being pushed against does not allow for the creative and fun side of fashion. Groeneveld also examines the implications of the third wave views advanced by BUST, noting the magazine’s desire to serve as an entry point to the women’s movement and create a more accessible brand of feminism. Her thesis is that BUST’s position validates stereotypes of second wave feminists rather than recognizing the complexity of their position, which serves to undermine feminism.  The second part of the thesis is that “lifestyle feminism” might draw women in, but it also limits examination of systems of institutionalized discrimination.  Groeneveld shows how the second wave feminists had legitimate concerns about capitalist consumerism, and that choice exists on levels other than individual consumption.

Groeneveld’s discussion is interesting to me because she explores the intersection of fashion and feminism and second and third wave views.   She illustrates that there is more to consider in fashion choices than creativity and self-expression. Groeneveld argues that while there is value in the assertion that fashion and feminism are not exclusive of one another and also in inviting a larger audience of women to join the feminist conversation, but that this cannot be done to the exclusion of ignoring injustice and politics. Women cannot separate themselves from the political implication of their actions, no matter what the intention of their actions.  

Mixin' in Some Quantum Physics

Parkins, I. (2008). Building a feminist theory of fashion: Karen Barad’s agential realism. Australian Feminist Studies, 23, 501-515. 

Agential realism: yes, it's a bit intimidating. But it's worth the effort. Hopefully I am not butchering the intended message. 

Parkins examines the relationship between garment and wearer, and where the power in that relationship lies.  She speaks of this relationship as dynamic: clothing can translate a wearer’s meaning, and women make negotiations with garments. What will I look like in this? What will it say about me? Parkins reminds us that fashion choices, while dependent on the individual, also possess socially situated meaning.  In other words, a garment has a life and meaning of its own. 

Parkins also presents fashion as an industry. As an industry,  it is constantly outdating itself in order to generate profit.  While women decide what meaning their clothing has to them and conveys for them, they also wear meaning imparted by the industry.  If negotiated well, fashion can be a bridge between culture and feminism, if one can exist in the tensions and ambiguities.    

Parkins’ article is relevant because she positions fashion as both an industry and a medium of personal expression.  She uses feminism to connect culture and feminism and recognize that there is a way for the two to communicate. Parkins’ article made intriguing points about the strength of women’s connections to fashion. She advises feminists that if is necessary to recognize the strongholds of fashion in women’s lives, and to use their position to help women discern which attachments are useful and which are harmful.

Western Fashion For All

The posts schedules are written in sand, not stone:) My mind is bursting with fashion articles at the moment, so I might as well plunge ahead.  The next article takes us in a different direction. It seemed a semi-logical next step since we talked about Cosmo editor Hurley Brown.  On a side note, I find it interesting that the Latin American version of the magazine adopts Hurley Brown's hated-by-second- wave-feminist-expression "Cosmo girl"as its title.

di Casanova, E. (2003). Women's magazines in Ecuador: Re-reading "la Chica Cosmo." Studies in Latin American popular culture, 22, 89-102.

In Ecuador, fashion is for the upper class, the privileged, di Casanova tells us.  La Chica Cosmo is the Western magazine Cosmopolitan's attempt to create global consumers.  di Casanova has two major criticisms of this magazine and the Western fashion industry.  First, she asserts that there is a deliberate attempt to exploit the middle class female, appealing to her to distinguish herself from her lower class peers and develop style and consumption habits like her upper class peers.  Of course, middle class status is more precarious than upper class status.

di Casanova's criticism is most directed at the glorification of European culture and looks.  Selected Latin American models have decidedly "white" features and are displayed with European trappings.  She points out that this underscores racist messages that dark skin and Indian features are not desirable.  The whole idea of Western fashion imposing its values on Latin American women uncovers the legacy of colonialism.  di Casanova fingers Western fashion as an agent of Northern Imperialism.

di Casanova's message is useful in discussing that fashion does not exist solely for women's enjoyment.  Marketing and production have other motives. Some of the things di Casanova argues are the same criticisms of Western fashion magazines for Western women: certain qualities are deemed beautiful and desirable connoting that everything else is not, having style makes you more powerful and elevated (even if you can't afford it, at least you look good), etc.

That was my attempt at portraying di Casanova's article in a neutral manner. Thoughts?

Ready, Set, Fashion!

Here we go,  embarking on a journey of exploring fashion and feminism.  You can thank my instructor for approving my paper topic.  My paper is going to explore whether or not a "real" feminist can be into fashion.

This is how I thought we would proceed.  For the next couple of weeks, I am going to present you with about five or six journal articles, giving you the summary of what they say, and how I think they relate to the topic. (Comments encouraged, welcomed, etc.)  I also hope to give you a summary and some information about actual facts about the workings of the fashion industry and garment making.  Ultimately, I will post the paper - or a way to get to the paper so as not to bore you if this just sounds like one big snoozefest to you.  My professor challenged us to submit the paper to a conference for extra credit (this is our capstone course).  I just might go for it.  We'll see.  Your comments might get a citation!  (Just so you know, the chances of this paper getting accepted to any respectable conference are  slim to none).  Sound kind of fun to the fashionistas and/or nerdy among us? :) Now for today's article:

Scanlon, J. (2009). Sexy from the start: Anticipatory elements of second wave feminism. Women’s Studies, 38, 127-150.  

Scanlon presents the tension between second and third wave feminists over views of fashion.  She begins by noting that the very concept of “waves" allows the image of simultaneously identifying with and breaking from the past.  Third wave feminists are a diverse, not easily defined group, but generally see themselves as making right of some of the second wave’s wrongs.  In the case of this article, the wrong would be believing that fashionable, "sexy," dress undermines women's power and ability to be taken seriously in the work place.

     Scanlon points to Helen Gurley Brown, long time editor of Cosmopolitan magazine, as the forerunner of Third Wave’s embrace of fashion.  Scanlon’s thesis is that the line between second and third wave fashion is blurrier than the either/or scenario it has been considered; Gurley Brown is an agent of blending the two.  Gurley Brown, like second wave feminists, pursued power for women in the workplace.  She disagreed, however, that it would come in dressing like a man, and instead endorsed mini-skirts, make-up, and high heels.  She asserted that dressing femininely is powerful, and that women do not dress for men; they dress to in ways that make them feel confident and good about themselves.  Gurley Brown was just as in favor of women’s independence and assertion of self as any second wave feminist, but thought that women defined that by the way they chose to dress.  Third wave feminists have continued her beliefs by maintaining that a woman can project any image they please, and are not at the mercy of anyone, be it men or second wave feminist’s, ideas of who they should be.  

Scanlon’s work is useful to my topic because she addresses not only the dilemma of whether or not fashionable dressing is fitting for feminists, but also because she attempts to show a hint of a possibility for middle ground between staunch second wave and freer third wave ideologies.  She does not quite give second wave feminists a fair portrayal of their reasons for shunning fashion, and focuses intensely on the merits of third wave ideas, almost endorsing third wave fashion views as the solution, or, as the evolved and better product of second waves beliefs.  

I am trying to stay fairly neutral when I do these article presentations in hopes of generating some great discussion...