Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Catherine Lucas: January 2012

Marcel Mauss: The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies

A Critical Review

Introduction

This essay will critically explore Mauss’ theories and findings relating to gift reciprocation, honour, and the concept of ‘free’ or ‘pure’ gifts without agenda. In the process of doing so I will incorporate the usage of these concepts by a variety of theorists writing on contemporary themes of gift use and exchange in modern societies. Although Mauss’ most acclaimed work in the influence of following anthropologists and sociologists, “The Gift” has encountered many criticisms where certain hypothesises appear to conflict with contemporary practices. Although focused on archaic societies, I will endeavour to show throughout the essay in a balanced manner, how we can use Mauss’ ideas in an enduring way when looking at certain aspects of economical and gift exchange systems in contemporary anthropology.

In order to begin to explore these three areas, we must first understand the ‘Potlatch’, the system through which gifts are exchanged, encompassing the acts of giving, receiving and most importantly in the text, the way they are reciprocated. As Mauss has it:

“The potlatch itself, so typical a phenomenon, and at the same time so characteristic of these tribes, [Melanesian and Polynesian] is none other than the system of gifts exchanged.” (Mauss, edited in 2001, p.45)

Particularly focusing on the Polynesians, Mauss shows us how from the development of this “whole system of gifts and this form of exchange” (ibid, p.26) we can trace societal meanings of generosity and responsibility of wealth. Generosity is the focus of the first part of the essay, and from this we look at concepts of honour. Finally, we can engage with contemporary criticisms to challenge theories surrounding the notions of ‘free’ gifts.

The Obligation to Reciprocate: Generosity and Greed

Mauss explores the obligations on us to give gifts and more importantly to reciprocate that which is given – in either equal or greater value than that which was received. In each given example of the practices and rituals of gift giving in a diverse variety of societies, (Hindu, Germanic, Roman, etc.) although the practice of gift exchange and the reasons behind them may differ, Mauss consistently impresses on us the constant re-encountering of the obligation to reciprocate gifts. The value of the returning gift is essential to maintaining alliances between parties and partial relations; giving too much may incur as much offence to the recipient as returning goods or services with too little value.

Mauss’ method of impressing this upon us through examples and folk tales of social ramifications from these errors serve to put the practical aspects of these theories into context. Mauss also uses the original native word in the subsequent Mother language for these exchanges, which are crucial to understanding the original symbolic meanings of the gift exchange.

If there is one criticism that I must give to his attempts, it is to the lack of consistent translation that Mauss is occasionally guilty of when evaluating words against others from different languages. For example, in exploring Germanic terms alongside Hindu, the un-translated words may be compared for the intricacies in their meanings, without re-evaluation of these given words. The denseness of information requires careful translation references on the part of the reader, in order to glean a full understanding of their symbolic connotations.

However, it should be noted that Mauss attempts simple translation of the root and the inherent symbolic meaning of unfamiliar words wherever necessary to differentiate a classification of ‘gift’.

Out of the obligation to give gifts, one can further explore the symbolic nature of generosity. Looking at wedding gifts in Germanic societies, Mauss gives a keen example of this symbolism by looking at the meaning behind the giving tradition: “In a few places the generosity of these gifts is proof of the fertility of the young couple.” (Mauss, 2001 ed. p.78) Generosity versus greed is an integral theme to the underlying moral intention inherent in gift exchange. A recurring notion is that “the recipient puts himself in a position of dependence vis-à-vis the donor” (ibid p.76) and by this notion Mauss illustrates the intricate moral balance inherent in gift exchange.

If we view the gift exchange as a moral contract there must be moral implications to how much is given and why. Gifts of too great a value, in the wrong context, may denote ill feeling towards the recipient of the object or service rendered. It shows a vulgar display of wealth intended to ‘flatten’ the recipient, and implies a challenge of further reciprocal wealth.

This display is very different to generosity of given wealth. It is a display intended to challenge rivals. Mauss explores the fear of being ‘beaten’ by superior gifts in his initial exploration of the Potlatch and its three main obligations, “to give, to receive, to reciprocate,” by focusing on the element of prestige acquired by giving a gift of high value. It is the issue of being obligated to accept a gift you fear being unable to match in reciprocation that is the focus here.

As Mauss asserts:

“The obligation to accept is no less constraining. One has no right to refuse to attend the potlatch. To act in this way is to show that one is afraid of having to reciprocate, to fear being “flattened” [i.e. losing one’s name]…to admit oneself beaten in advance…”(Ibid p.52)

To be ‘beaten’ by a gift is to show inferior wealth, and also inferior generosity by failure of appropriate reciprocation. Mauss uses direct and firm language when expressing this idea, further cementing its importance in the theory. The physicality of the language – the notion of being ‘flattened,’ implies a physical presence of this shame on the beaten party, and the resultant sore effect on their societal standing.

Honour and Wealth

Gregory cites Mauss’ influence on anthropological interpretation of “competitive gift exchange systems” in his essay on ‘gift exchange …in contemporary Papua’ (Gregory, 1980) in which he explores the symbolic ‘destruction of wealth’ in ritual gift offerings to gods as well as other men, and the idea that wealth that is distributed generously will be revisited on them. He suggests that better than the giving of wealth to other men, the giving of it to gods enforces a faith in the power of the gift exchange and the power of the obligation to reciprocate the gift, even if it is not in a material sense. He looks to wealth gathered by the Church and by charitable organisations, and the faith from the benefactor that these gifts will be used in a manner befitting the sacrifice. In practice, he sees that monetary wealth in particular is used for many other uses by the beneficiary than that which it was intended.

It is interesting to note that this essay looking at a contemporary although to some extent tribal society (village societies in Papua New Guinea) that still carries rituals as a part of its symbolic nature, does no longer fully align with the ideologies surrounding generosity and greed that Mauss perceives in archaic societies, particularly in Melanesia and Polynesia, which are noted influences in how Gregory approaches his subject.

Mauss refers to both Polynesian and Melanesian archaic societies where he addresses these questions of “honour and credit” (Mauss, 2001 ed. p.42) and its importance in the ‘system’ the gift and the reciprocated gifts are generated through. As symbols of social standing, Mauss argues that that which is exchanged serves “to reflect somewhat directly the manner in which the subgroups…feel that they are everything to one another.” (Ibid, pp.42-3.) The notion of honour acquired or maintained through generous giving is the driving force between relations with other groups, just as it is in the contemporary society Gregory explores. Giving wealth is a honourable institution, but further to this what we can take from Gregory’s use of Mauss is that giving without a full sense of how the wealth will be used (here we may read: monetary wealth,) is more honourable still.

Critics of Mauss and Defenders of the ‘Free Gift’

A key contended theme of the text is the rejection of the concept of ‘free gifts’ – donations willingly given without necessity of reciprocation. Mary Douglas explores it immediately in the foreword of the 2001 edition. The rejection of free gifts is contended in Laidlaw’s essay “A Free Gift Makes No Friends” (2000), in which he cites the ‘neglect’ to explore free gifts as a product of Mauss’ theories and their influence on cultural anthropologists since. Laidlaw uses the free or ‘pure’ gift as the main emphasis on the subject of the Gift, rather than Mauss who focuses on the gift exchange and the concept of contracts. Largely focused on religious donations or sacrifices, Laidlaw argues that Mauss’ emphasis on the importance of reciprocation destroys the symbolic nature and pure intent of the donation. He argues that the theory of seeking recognition by giving cheapens the intent of such a gift.

In the course of Laidlaw’s exploration of the ‘free gift’, he refers to Derrida (1992), who sets out the ‘conditions’ of so-called ‘free gifts’ in order to pursue some form of examination. His first condition is that the free gift cannot be reciprocated at all. This immediately forms a rift with Mauss’ strong analysis of the obligation to reciprocate on moral terms. Laidlaw suggests that a reciprocated gift immediately establishes an “‘economic’ cycle…and make[s] is part of an interested exchange…” (Laidlaw 2000, referring to Derrida, 1992), and that to avoid this exchange one must not see the gift “as a gift,” (ibid) but to ignore its occurrence. This he feels is the only way we can prevent the advent of a ‘debt’ that must be paid off.

One must ask whether such a theory is possible in practice, and Laidlaw unfortunately fails to offer any fully non-reciprocal practical example of this idea in action. Even if the gift is not socially acknowledged or physically reciprocated, the gratitude that may be extended towards the giver, even in silence, may not be reliably measured, and is this gratitude in itself not a form of intellectual reciprocation? I shall therefore leave Laidlaw’s critique to the side at this juncture.

Perhaps a better critic of Mauss to explore here is Titmuss, whose 1997 book “The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy” focuses on modern blood donations. Titmuss argues that anonymous blood donations may be “the closest approximation in social reality to the abstract concept of a ‘free human gift.’” (Titmuss 1997, p.140) Although he shows awareness that blood donors have “some expectation and [need] assurance that a return gift may be …received at some future time,” i.e. if they require a blood transfusion in the future they hope that others will have donated, they have no guarantee of this.

Where blood donation passes between strangers, Titmuss argues: “in terms of the free gift of blood to unnamed strangers there is no formal contract …and no explicit guarantee of or wish for a reward or return gift.” (Ibid) In this theory, the gift ‘exchange’ has no place in the context that the gift is given.

I can agree with Titmuss’ criticism to a point. Anonymous donation is without explicit contractual exchange between the donor and recipient, however to underline his argument Titmuss closes that these donations are “acts of free will; of the exercise of choice; of conscience without shame.” (Titmuss 1997, p.140 l.36-7)¨*

Looking at the action with its psychological implications, I cannot agree that any choice with an element of conscience can subscribe to an ‘act of free will.’ Rather, there are free-obligation acts, where the recipient through anonymity is free of obligation to reciprocate the gift. Mauss rarely makes reference to anonymity in gift-exchange in “The Gift,” which may be an oversight and worth exploring further.

Further to this, I would suggest that the donor is tied to the giving of this ‘free’ gift through conscience; he fears that without his own participation in the donation scheme he may not receive blood himself if required. In this manner the donor is tied to this gift, even when it is the closest example of a ‘free’ gift; and this returns us to Mauss’ theories concerning morality as examined above. Mauss in his exploration of Classical Hindu Law in “The Gift” keenly illustrates the theory of belief in that any gifts given even ‘freely’ and in “charity and hospitality” are hoped to be revisited on the giver at some point: “In this world and the next, what is given away is acquired once more.” (Mauss, ed. 2001. p.73, quoting a Hindu text.)

Conclusion

“It is common knowledge that men present themselves publicly by the conspicuous presentation if gifts. Generous contributions to a charity have always been a source of prestige in the United States…especially…when such gestures are made by individuals rather than corporations…” says Schwartz (1967)

The social standing created through gift exchange is a key element of Mauss’ dialogue and as we have explored, the influence of these theories continue to exert their authority on anthropologists and sociologists today. However, few have attempted the feat achieved by Mauss of encompassing so many societies and their rituals into one area of social exchange.

The elements of this discourse discussed in this essay do, I feel, review the key areas inherent in studying concepts of ‘the gift.’ As Mauss himself concludes, this study encompasses “…science of customs [and]…moral conclusions,” where the gift serves as a tool to analyse the use of “wealth amassed and then redistributed,” and how these exchanges can be used to theorise the symbolism of gifts, behind their practical outcomes of “mutual respect and reciprocating generosity.” (Mauss, ed. 2001, pp.106-107.)

Words: 2,525

References

Derrida, J (1992) Force of law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority (M. Quaintance, Trans.) in D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, D.G. Carlson (Eds) USA (New York): Routledge.

Godelier, Maurice (1999) The Enigma of the Gift. USA: Polity Press and University of Chicago. First published as L’Énigme du Don (1996) France: Librarie Arthème Fayard.

Gregory, C. A. (1980) Gifts to Men and Gifts to God: Gift Exchange and Capital Accumulation in Contemporary Papua in ‘Man, New Series,’ Vol. 15, No. 4 (Dec., 1980), pp. 626-652 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland

Laidlaw, James (2000) A Free Gift Makes No Friends, in ‘The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute,’ Vol. 6, No. 4 (Dec., 2000), pp. 617- 634 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland

Mauss, Marcel (1925; 2001 ed.) The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Routledge.

Michaels, A. and Pierce, P. (1997) Gift and Return Gift, Greeting and Return Greeting in India. On a Consequential Footnote by Marcel Mauss in ‘Numen,’ Vol. 44, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 242-269 Published by: BRILL

Schwartz, B. (1967) The Social Psychology of the Gift in ‘The American Journal of Sociology,’ Vol. 73, No. 1 (Jul., 1967), pp. 1-11 Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Strathern, Marilyn (1988) The Gender of the Gift. USA: University of California Press

Titmuss, Richard M. (1997) The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. UK: LSE Books


 

¨ *Note: Later, in chapter 16 of “The Gift Relationship,” Titmuss acknowledges that when Mauss “was in his seventies, blood transfusion services were in their infancy.” (p.276) We can only speculate on how Mauss would have aligned this form of donation with his theories on gift exchange and obligatory reciprocity.

Please accept apologies for any lack of quotation marks as they did not come straight over from the Word document I wrote the essay in. I have tried to fill them in wherever needed, however I may have missed a couple. Please do not plagarise this essay if you feel the urge, your degree ain’t worth it especially for my scribblings.

Advertisements

Is Ethical Fieldwork Possible?

Catherine Lucas: February 2010

 

Introduction

To approach this question, we must focus on certain common dilemmas faced by researchers in the field. For the purposes of this essay, I will investigate the following: how can field researchers obtain information morally when in difficult or dangerous situations? and, what can we do when personal safety or the continuation of our research, is in jeopardy?

I refer to two ethnographies from different times, situations and subjects, both facing the same problems of ethics concerning the use of covert research, questions of power balance, and protection of both the informants and the researcher themselves. These two ethnographies are Tearoom Trade (Laud Humphreys: 1970), and Mumbai Slums and the Search for ‘A Heart’ (Atreyee Sen: 2004)

In order to examine the ethics of the former study in hindsight of the field, I will be analysing the comments made by Punch in 1986, who explored in depth how to identity and overcome problems in fieldwork. His insights, I believe, lend useful understanding to the dilemma faced by Humphreys during his research, and consequently have a bearing on how I will approach and analyse Sen’s ethical issues in Mumbai.

Deception and lies:

The moral predicament of ‘Tearoom Trade’ (Laud Humphreys: 1970)

Through his research tactics Humphreys reinforces an image already prevalent in some circles that social scientists are sly tricksters who are not to be trusted…involving deception and manipulation… (Donald Warwick, in Bulmer: 1982:58)

Tearoom Trade (1970) covered covert research conducted by Humphreys in the late 1960s under the guise of being a homosexual man interested in engaging in casual sex in public toilets. He infiltrated a group using an alias and established himself as their ‘watch-queen’ – the man who would watch for police. During this time he took covert notes using a hidden recorder and was meticulous in his details, which included the license plates of the men involved. He later altered his appearance and used the information to conduct a ‘health survey’ on the men he had tracked from his findings. Although his research was an aid to understanding sexual practices, his methods left a lot to be desired and faced harsh criticisms.

Warwick’s comments lead us to wonder whether Humphrey’s methods of covert research led anthropologists and sociologists following after him to suffer from the legacy of so-called ‘deceit’ he left behind. Punch, in his 1986 examination of ethical fieldwork, questions whether some research subjects ought to be off limits altogether, which is another query raised by the content of Humphreys’ findings on homosexuality. His work was slammed by some critics not only for its methods of undeniably devious covert observation, but also for the immoral sexual nature of its content. Punch refers to Humphreys’ work as “well-known, if not now notorious,” (1986:31) so it is clear that his work has gained some notoriety amongst fellow anthropologists in a manner both humorous and as a subject of controversy. However, in 1980 Galliher notes that a strict ethics system for researchers may serve to protect certain subjects from being exposed, and that this could lead to harm rather than prevent it (cited by Wax, see references).

Covert research could be conducted by an academic in the interest of exposing the nefarious practices; but, even then, for some social scientists, certain areas are simply taboo because association with them is morally repugnant. (Punch: 1986:31)

It is clear here that Punch is referring to Humphreys’ research, however he does go on to admit that what some researchers may consider immoral subjects to explore, others may simply view as new challenges. This is one of the primary issues when determining whether a subject should even be considered morally acceptable to investigate: Humphreys, for example, may have seen no reason not to research ‘cottaging’ (secret meetings for casual homosexual sex in public toilets), indeed today we might not see it as such a shocking subject in comparison to the 1970s.

From this angle, then, perhaps we should consider the merits, if there are any, of covert research in this context, before dismissing it out of hand. Being such a secretive and taboo subject at the time, I do not believe that Humphreys would have encountered many men, particularly those apparently happily married, who would have accepted being interviewed on their casual homosexual encounters. Posing as the ‘watch-queen’ (guard) of the public toilet these encounters took place in may seem underhanded, elusive and immoral; however I do not think Humphreys would have collected such detailed data without securing this position.

The first area of true contention, starts I believe, with the use of a ‘health survey’ by Humphreys to collect further details on his subjects. To find the homes of these subjects, he also used the car plate numbers of men he had observed at the public toilets whilst working as ‘watch-queen,’ and recorded. This I feel is a gross violation of the trust the men bestowed on the ‘watch-queen,’ and damages the ethicality of his study more greatly than any of his former actions.

The problems encountered by Humphreys over the question of how to enter the field to carry out the research at all, is a problem Punch describes as a ‘situational dilemma.’ Referring to Humphreys’ work on Tearoom Trade in particular, however, Punch is quite contemptuous of the conscious use of covert and what he views as immoral methods. His main problem is also the recording of car number plates in order to track the men being observed. The idea of the group under observation being ‘relatively powerless’ (1986:34) highlights the issue of a wildly unbalanced power-play situation. Humphreys’ methods were not only covert, but also relied on not being discovered by the group in question, leaving them powerless to object to or approve the situation. Punch is inflexible in his insistence that some form of ‘informed consent’ should be adhered to, even if the true knowledge of the research is made clear to only one person.

Examining ethics in violent field settings:

‘Mumbai Slums and the Search for ‘A Heart’’ (Atreyee Sen: 2004)

While living and working with these women, I found myself a helpless, often frightened bystander to various forms of factional ‘war.’ Would, should, could I prevent this overt use of violence and threats? …The eerie spectre of ethics continued to haunt my work… (Sen: 2004:1)

Sen’s fieldwork was carried out in the slums of Mumbai and focused on the violent women’s movements that were rallying alongside the Hindu nationalists there, against the men they believed were making working conditions extremely oppressive and dangerous for women and children. Sen’s fieldwork took her close to the dangers of rape and physical harm, which she also witnessed amongst others. Her ethical dilemma became whether it was moral to simply sit on the sidelines, observing the violence being done to her newfound peers, or whether it was ethically unsound from an anthropological viewpoint to make any interjections.

She cites her aim as an anthropologist was to ‘make sense’ of her surroundings and “learn why young and old women in Mumbai slums became Hindu nationalists and engaged in collective, communal violence and urban conflict.” This violence was often in gang form against men in the community and also against other women who opposed their actions. Kondo’s 1990 description of how the fieldwork setting gradually becomes a familiar place you attach your familial emotions to, helps Sen to describe how attached she became to the women she was both researching and living alongside; how attached she became to the people around her: “…the ‘setting’ eventually becomes populated with people you grow to know, sometimes to love…” (Kondo 1990:7) This attachment to the ‘subjects’ of her field research made Sen increasingly unable to remain within the more stringent rules of ethics.

Some of the initial difficulties encountered in conducting her research, arose simply because the ethical manner of keeping all persons informed if they were being observed or recorded made her a target of suspicion. She was accused of being a ‘Bengali researcher rat’ by some of the movement’s leaders, as her data collecting began to arouse distrust in those around her. Given the delicate and dangerous situation of this fieldwork, therefore, we may forgive Sen for adopting what she refers to as “‘covert urban research.’ [Which] …gave rise to several paradoxes and grave ethical dilemmas.” (2004:3) She pretended to be an upper class Hindu woman in order to gain access to people she might otherwise have been unable to interview, and also used this role to protect herself personally.

However, when discussing the ideas raised by the ‘Sena’ women of the movement, she was careful never to offer any of her own opinions, which would not only have hindered her research but may have introduced a moral dilemma for the women being interviewed. Sen’s methods may seem unethical in part due to the by definition immoral practice of covert research, but on the other hand, her choice to do so was motivated not only for her own safety, but to protect others and to keep her findings as untarnished by her own status in the field as possible.

I made every effort to be fair to the Sena women and their circumstances. However in doing so I represented just one side of the on-going arguments concerning justice, revenge, forgiveness and freedom, and my work does not discuss the victims of the Bombay riots or their impotence while watching the Sena women wreak havoc and display their power. (Sen: 2004:4)

Sen readily admits the one-sided nature of her research findings, which was, I assume, a product of keeping herself seemingly ‘on the side’ of the Sena women, rather than putting herself in the middle of the conflict. I cannot see a problem with this, as the fact that she acknowledges this setback is useful enough an explanation. Her experience shows that although the field researcher must present as balanced findings as possible, they may be unable to do so in a situation that puts their own life at risk. For Sen, to fraternise with the other side of the conflict could also harm her allowance to collect information.

Threats on her life were also made, should she misuse the information she had gathered for any other use than that she relayed to the Sena women. She was “tailed by a Sena ‘detective’ for days before [she] …was allowed to live in the slums,” and this highlighted the power struggle between anthropologist and informer: Sen possessed information that gave her power over the Sena women, yet they also possessed the threatened power of violence against her and the ability to cut her off from further information. She constantly felt the push-pull of her work and her own quality of life during the fieldwork period, noting that she “…did not keep that [emotional] distance from the Sena women and whilst this made my ethnography richer it made my life poorer. A researcher who lived partially in fear of her subjects.” (2004:4)

Sen was also unable to conquer her own personal emotional reactions to certain events around her, where violence occurred that she had to witness, or where she watched children being taught to act violently. In the latter case she intervened, which on reading her account I believe she found relieving: “…just for a while, I felt I had suspended notions of cultural relativism and objective ethnography and climbed down from the role of ‘the non-interventionist anthropologist.’” (2004:5)

This admission of freedom in intervening against a violent action shows Sen not as an anthropologist but as a human being first. Unfortunately, there are many arguments we could explore as to the ethicality of this intervention, not least of all that had this action had a unfavourable outcome, it could have not only hindered or halted the research Sen was involved with, but also might have had a more fatal outcome for the researcher herself.

Although Sen did intervene on the actions of her subjects in this one circumstance, her notes suggest that she generally attempted to remain a placid observer to all
situations, even where violence occurred. She is not insensible to the fact that silence is often taken as alliance with a cause, a fact that she addresses at the close of her paper:

Through their construction of me as a friend, a sympathiser and an agent of the bhari duniya, the wider world, did they also construct an image of the duniya that would support their aggression? (2004:6)

The power balance throughout Sen’s fieldwork remained more securely in favour of the Sena women than the anthropologist studying them. Would it have harmed Sen personally to take affront with what was happening in the Mumbai slums? We can only truly focus, after the event, on the information gathered. This information, although somewhat one-sided in content, nonetheless represents a strong insight into the inner-workings of a dangerous political movement, and in this case we might more readily bend the rules of ethics. In addressing whether ethical fieldwork was possible in the case, I cannot say that it was unethical, as Sen clearly acts in a manner she believes safest to both herself and her subjects, whilst diligently attempting to expand her access to greater in-depth research.

Conclusion

Punch notes that in some cases of fieldwork it may be “situationally inappropriate to repeat continually that purpose [of the research] and to identify oneself.” (1986:37) By this he means that the researcher may be unable to constantly introduce themselves as an anthropologist, and should use the rule to do so as a guideline that may be varied under difficult circumstances.

In Sen’s case, it would have been dangerous to continually announce herself as a researcher, although she did ensure that those she interviewed were aware that she was making a study of them. If we look at Humphreys, on the other hand, he makes no attempt to suggest that he is conducting research, and in fact consciously hides this by adopting disguises.

Despite his dubious methods it cannot be denied that Humphreys’ research gave us a far greater understanding of human sexual activities outside of ‘normative’ practices. At the time of Tearoom Trade’s publication, the AIDs epidemic was about to hit, and until that time barely any attention had been given to ‘cottaging’ or the idea that married men might perform homosexual activities in secret. The main issue to contention must be whether or not his records ensured to sufficient degree the confidentiality of his subjects, for as Punch stresses: “What is trivial to us may be of vital concern to the researched.” (1896:48)

Words: 2,432.

Essay produced for Goldsmiths College, London. 2010.

 

 

Bibliography/References

Hunt, Jennifer. C. (1989) Psychoanalytic Aspects of Fieldwork. Sage University Paper.

Laud Humphreys (1970) Tearoom Trade. UK: London. Gerald Duckworth & Co.

MaCall and Simmons (eds.), (1969) Issues in Participant Observation. USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Punch, Maurice. (1986) The Politics and Ethics of Fieldwork. Sage University Press pp.29-48

Sen, Atreyee (2004) ‘Mumbai slums and the search for ‘a heart’: Ethics, ethnography and dilemmas of studying urban violence,’ in: Anthropology Matters Journal 2004, Vol 6. (http://www.anthropologymatters.com)

Wax, Murray. L. ‘Some issues and sources on ethics in anthropology,’ from: Cassell, J. and Jacobs, S.E. Handbook on Ethical Issues in Anthropology. (http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/toc.htm)

The ‘Hoodie’ Debate

I know I’ve been neglecting this blog.

Unless you have been living under rock in the Arctic Circle,
you will have, if not followed, then at least heard the story of the recent
London Riots, which spread quickly across the city and even strayed over into
areas of Manchester and Medway.

Not so long ago, David Cameron launched his ‘hug a hoodie’
campaign, the idea being to target underprivileged kids, or ‘youths’ as MPs and
media like to term them, and show them that government policies had their ‘best
interests’ at heart, and were committed to providing them with a brighter
future post-recession.

Today, Mr Cameron along with many others in government and
let’s be honest, across the media too, have begun to wonder whether the ‘hoodie’
itself has a large part to play in taking the blame for facilitating the recent
unrest. It should be noted that not all of the violence, looting and general
thuggery committed during the Riots should be cast solely at the door of ‘youths,’
and children, as there were many adult offenders, from disenchanted
school-teachers to kids of bankers. However, the majority of offenders were
wearing the ubiquitous garment in question.

I’ve just been watching tonight’s One Show (watch it now on
BBC i-player if you fancy seeing what I’m referring to), where they asked
whether the hoodie (the garment that is) should be banned. A surprising number
of the random members of the public they questioned seemed to think it might be
a good idea – though I am wary of editing here – and a quick role playing test
where one of their middle-aged crew members tried to see whether passers-by
would talk to him with or without one on. No one wanted to talk to him hooded
up.

The hooded sweatshirt has to be seen as separate from the Hoodie.
The Hoodie is what has become a personification of a thug who commits so-called
‘mindless’ violence, possibly in a gang, and has no time for authority, maybe
because they think that the system they are being told to support has let them
down. And they wear a hooded sweatshirt to help obscure their identity while
carrying out these acts. The hooded sweatshirt itself can’t do all these
things. It’s just a garment, albeit one that has picked up as a symbol for
societal threat.

However, that’s not to say that we don’t understand the power
that the wearing of a hooded sweatshirt affords us in certain situations. If
you see someone walking down the street in sunshine with their hood up, let’s
be honest it looks a bit odd. But after dark, the impact of wearing a
face-obscuring garment like this brings on a whole other issue. Body studies
have continually stressed the importance of human interactions, if not through
the whole face then certainly the eyes and mouth. In the UK where we are
predominantly not wearing veils and other covering clothes for the majority of
areas in the country, being confronted with a person whose identity is obscured
is an unsettling experience.

I own a hooded sweatshirt, and I don’t know anyone who doesn’t.
Even my mother who is 54 has one.
Usually I don’t wear the hood up, but I am well aware of its power. I
used to walk to my university in the middle of the night to do my printing
(excellent when you’ve just finished and want to skip the morning queues). I
had a massive, baggy hooded sweater I would wear walking down there alone at
night. It was big enough to comfortably mask my laptop, often concealed
underneath, and my face. Taking a glance at me as I walked past, you would be
hard-pressed to identify whether I was male or female, whether I was a threat –
actually, anything at all. There was a conscious aim to be anonymous, yet with
a lingering threat of potential violence. Of course, I did not intend to attack
anyone, but I sought to deter anyone who might have attacked me if I had
sauntered down there as an obvious young girl on my own.

I think the conclusion we might draw from that experience is
that unfortunate as it is, we still expect violent behaviour to stem from men
rather than women, particularly if acting alone and not protected by a gang.

I am at a loss really as to how to end this post of
Hoodie-musings, but I think it’s fair to say that it is prohibitive to give
this item of popular clothing undue ‘power’ to make us uncomfortable.

News

I realise, of course, that this blog has been severely neglected of late, and this is down to two primary reasons:

1. I spilled sugary tea all over my laptop and haven’t been able to do so much as turn it on for nearly 3 months now. Finally, at the end of this week I should be the proud owner of a new HP – thanks to the parents for help!

2. Basic lack of material.

…. Actually no, that 2nd is probably the worst excuse ever from an anthropology student, so let’s backtrack: There are some critiques of recent fashion/fragrance advertising at my sister blog ‘Catherine Lucas Design’ (filed under Art Reviews), which may be of interest not only for those engaged in fashion theory and/or advertising techniques, but also sociology.

Once I am securely back online and not borrowing IT access from parents/friends/uni/work, I also hope to revive this blog and get the debates going again. I also plan to change the site header as soon as I have access to Photoshop again; withdrawal from my beloved Adobe Creative Suite brings its own special forms of pain.

Over but not out.

The Anthromodeologist.

 

Recently I was asked to reccommend some academic texts for the study of fashion alongside a cultural studies/anthropological theme. You can find the answer on the ‘about’ comments page, however I thought it might also be useful to paste it in here as a post too.

The following books are listed alphabetically by author, because that’s not only fair, but also it would be impossible for me to advise anyone on what books could be of most use to them. It depends entirely on the information you’re looking for, and the aims of your theoretical research. However, I do have a large personal library of academic texts surrounding anthropology and gender in particular, as well as fashion theory, and these have inevitably become interlinked with feminist texts, media and PR critical analysis, and various other intermingling topics, particularly psychoanalytical of late.

If you’re thinking about looking at the subject of fashion and culture, however, these texts might be a good starting point – I know they were for me:

Barthes, Roland (2004), The Language of Fashion. Berg Publications
Barthes is concerned with semiotics – i.e. the idea that everything can be taken as a sign or symbol for something else. I personally used this book to help me research Dandyism, of which this book has a short chapter, examining not only the techniques of this dressing style, but also its social ethos and political symbolism. The book is not very long, so I see it (perhaps mistakenly) as an additional add-on to Barthes earlier work, ‘The Fashion System,’ which is also excellent.

Crane, Diana (2000), Fashion and it’s Social Agendas: Class, Gender, and Identity in Clothing. University of Chicago Press.
This book examines clothing not only as a mode of self expression, but as a mode of non-verbal reaction against social norms. It examines views on class and gender in particular, with a keen focus on outward expression of sexual orientation. I found the chapter “Fashion Images and the Struggle for Women’s Identity’ particularly impressive whilst researching for an essay on advertising in women’s fashion, and the notion of ‘building’ and embodying identities. However, the book also touches on political elements such as global markets, class and control, and also, unlike many books about fashion, devotes an entire section to a very interesting exploration of masculine identities as impressed through dress.

De Beauvoir, Simone (1949, republished 1997) The Second Sex. Vintage Classics.
Good lord, where to start on this book? It’s vast, for one thing. My own tattered but faithful copy looks like a hedgehog on acid, it has so many coloured tab markers in it! Helpfully segregated into two ‘books’, and these into various parts with their own chapters, De Beauvoir’s book is one of the most important books (in my very humble opinion) to study when looking at not only Gender studies, but also the social construction of ‘woman’ from infancy, through childhood, to adulthood, with the section on motherhood particularly interesting as it examines the idea that a mother is not a natural transitional identity, but must be in some ways socially formed. Anyway, I can’t go on about this because we would be here for many days!

Moore, Henrietta L (1988), Feminism and Anthropology. Polity Press.
It is very difficult to discuss Fashion, in an Anthropological sense, without looking at Feminism. I have a love/hate relationship with the subject, however it is important to understand certain movements of feminism (the so-called ‘waves’ are very different from each other and should influence the way we view movements in fashion and embodied identity differently). Moore’s book looks to the main social issues surrounding and impacting feminism, such as changing family structures, the viewing of and status of women in the workplace, and what ‘women’s work’ is or has evolved as, and perhaps most importantly, examines feminist critques in anthropology itself. The book has come under a lot of criticism, not all of it complimentary, but this by no means makes it less useful reading.

…Those are my ‘big four,’ if you will, for the specific area of focus on fashion and anthropology, however the following are equally important and very often influence my reading:

Butler, Judith, (1999) Gender Trouble. (Routledge)
Cole, Shaun (2000) Don We Now Our Gay Apparel: Gay men’s dress in the twentieth century. (Berg)
Vinken, Barbara (2005) Fashion Zeitgeist: Trends and Cycles in the Fashion System. (Berg)
Wolf, Naomi (1991) The Beauty Myth: How images of beauty are used against women. (Vintage)

Various other theorists of interest:
Sophie Woodward (women and everyday dressing)*; Emma Tarlo (muslim and faith dressing and it social and political signifiers)*; Hannah Arendt (theories of loneliness); Valerie Steele (fashion theorist and historian); Joanne Entwistle (the dressed body); Donna Haraway (theories of cyborg and techonology in the social sphere); Ariel Levy (feminism); Germaine Greer (feminism); Frances Pine (women’s work and family roles in rural Poland)*, etc etc etc!

Also, if you have access to JStor or AnthroSource, these are invaluable search engines for academic articles and readings, as well as academic book reviews. Most universites have access to these and they are brilliant. I like to download and save interesting readings, even if I just think they might be of use at some point though not necessarily for what I’m researching at the time.

I hope all of this is useful to anyone looking into this subject area! If you have your own reccommendations, please leave comments for other people to be informed – and to inform me too!

(*okay, I’m biased, these three have been tutors of mine…)

After rediscovering and posting my 2006 piece on fashion photography and advertising – which focuses essentially on what is now known as the ‘size zero debate,’ I thought I’d do a search of ‘thinspiration’ on wordpress to see what others have come up with. The myriad results were interesting.

The following links I am not going to fully critique; they each approach the idea of thinspiration in a different manner, and are therefore equally academically interesting to me, particularly from a psychoanalytical view…

The first link is from ‘Portraitdunefemme”s blog:

http://portraitdunefemme.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/thinspiration/ the piece is simply entitled ‘thinspiration’ and is mainly pictures of models and celebrities – there’s some pretty extreme thinness towards the middle photos. Selected quote: “No, no. I am not anorexic. I just find their form of… inspiration to be… inspiring. Looking at photos of thin, beautiful women makes me want to exercise and watch what I eat.”

‘Coup de Gras’ seems to be a blog that has a focus on weightloss, as there is a ‘weight loss barometer’ at the side of the page.

Again, the post is simply entitled ‘thinspiration,’ however this one examines the word and attempts to give it some different meanings. Selected quote: “I like to use “thinspiration” as any quote that reminds me why I want to lose weight, live a better life, etc.” However, as the piece is about weight loss, I’m not sure the meaning of the word is altered. The link is here: http://coupdegras.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/thinspiration/

The third link is to “23 and somewhat nornal.”

This very short post links to an interesting youtube video about ‘Sacrifice’ – ie. sacrificing eating, to anorexia. http://drema101.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/thinspiration/ I found her revalation that although she ‘knows it’s wrong,’ just looking at thinner women makes her wonder whether she is overweight.

‘Anti-Thinspiration‘ is an educative blog that teaches women what thinspiration sites are, and their dangers. For anyone looking to research this academically, I believe there would be an interesting source of amateur work here – the message boards of this blog are thoughtful and informative too.

The post I am referencing is entitled ‘What is Thinspiration?’ and can be found here: http://antithinspo.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/what-is-thinspiration/ They also give information on ‘reverse thinspiration’ images, which show overweight people in a bid to show women and men the perils of overeating. This site does contain some rather gruesome (in my opinion) ‘thinspo’ images, however I am impressed by the large warning on their site: ” WARNING: The following post contains images which may be triggering to those suffering from or recovering from an eating disorder.”

Finally, please, if you don’t want to have to look at thinspiration skeletal images but do want to read a very impressive critique of fashion advertising and thinspirational sites, please visit the blog ‘This is Not a Diet,’ which is witty and intelligent.

The post I accessed is called ‘Grown Women have Curves’. Selected quote: “In the midst of the obesity epidemic we are facing, it is no wonder that we are obsessed with the opposite of obesity: emaciation.  We’ve lost sight of the line between a healthy, natural female shape and an obesity problem.  The more we obsess over Skinny, the fatter we become.” Find the full article, complete with some beautiful images, here: http://notsobigk.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/grown-women-have-curves/

(Catherine Lucas, May 2006)

The Impact of Fashion Photography on Consumer Choices and Embodiment of Identity.

The manner in which we, as consumers, choose to dress, depends heavily on the psychological effects imposed upon us by images projected daily on us. These images may come in advertising, or photographic media, and even in film and music videos but generally none influence us so potently as images of fashion photography, which generate so many conflicting ideas of what it is socially acceptable to look like in terms of physical attributes, and which garments we should be wearing.

“Lakoff and Scherr… claim that fashion photographs generate enormous dissatisfaction among women because they create unrealistic expectations that most women are unable to meet.”[1]

The gangly, unblemished, fresh yet slightly androgynous form of Kate Moss[2] posing awkwardly in the Calvin Klein Obsession adverts is not an image easily forgotten by those who have seen it. The photographs are iconic, an emblem of the brand, incorporated into its heritage, and stands out as one to inspire a generation of waif-wannabes. Websites not only guarding against the dangers of anorexia nervosa, the condition in which people feel that they must starve themselves to lose weight, no matter how thin they become, but also websites promoting so-called ‘thinspiration’[3], in which those promoting anorexia and associated images as an ideal of beauty, use the image of Kate Moss in these adverts as either a deterrent or an incitement to desirable appearance. This is an extreme reaction to a fashion photograph and proves the incredible lasting impact (for good or bad) of some prominent or ‘iconic’ images.

 

According to Diana Crane (professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania) the goal of fashion “is to project images that are intended to attribute meanings to items of clothing.” Fashion photography serves to create an idealised ‘character’, a connection between the model and the clothing, which influences self-perception and social standing. For example, in the magazine advertisements for the ‘Dior Addict’[4] fragrance, the model’s image is distorted, and her pose purposely wanton and sweaty, glamorising the idea of a drug-induced ‘trip’. However, as Crane puts it, “fashion photographers have synchronised their themes and images with those that circulate in youth cultures and…the media…”[5] Fashion photographers have observed an already present, underlying glamorisation of drug culture in youth society and the general media, and have used it to their own advantage. By generating a high-impact advertisement that will be seen in all the key fashion and lifestyle magazines, the photograph is promoting not only the product, but also an elusive and (allegedly) exciting area of society. Those influenced by the advert might not only buy the fragrance, but also adopt elements of the clothing and lifestyle into their own identity.

Dior 'Addict' Magazine Advertising

It is not only advertising which may use fashion photography in influencing not only what we wear, but also out ideals of celebrity culture and social standing. Elizabeth Hurley became the centre of great media attention in 1994, when she accompanied Hugh Grant to the premiere of ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’ wearing a stunning Versace evening gown secured at the sides with gold safety pins.[6] The image of this then largely unknown actress, and the stunning dress she was wearing, instantly dominated the media headlines. The images of this dress have achieved iconic status, a place in fashion history in their own right. Women craved the elegant yet sexually provocative styling affected by these photographs.

Elizabeth Hurley

Through the huge attention to the paparazzi shots of this ensemble, Hurley’s figure, trim yet curvaceous in the right areas, became the ‘perfect’ body, and one that women believed might actually be attainable, rather than that of Kate Moss. However, one commentator, the author of ‘Is being Thin really that Great?” says of Hurley:

“The patron saint of thin, Elizabeth Hurley, never seems to tire of offering titbits of advice on maintaining her Twiglet proportions. Last week, she ‘revealed’ she is always hungry, hardly eats a thing and will occasionally allow herself to pig right out on six raisins. It’s the ‘six’ that gives her away as a total obsessive.”[7]

According to a report in the Times,

The crazed system across the media that prizes celebrity thinness and leads “style icons” such as Liz Hurley to announce that if she looked as “fat” as Marilyn Monroe she would kill herself, needs to be thoroughly upended. Because Kate Moss is thin she is prized and paid millions to lead “campaigns” across the media, rather than identified as an ill- educated drug addict who managed to miss her only child’s third birthday because she was in a drying-out clinic.”[8]

Clearly, behind the woman [Hurley] idolised by many is just another woman driven by images of ‘perfection’ and fearing degradation in society –one of the severe and prominent dangers of the ‘celebrity culture’. Hurley’s ‘obsessive’ nature may be compared to those of other celebrities who are suffering from or have in the past suffered from publicly scrutinised eating disorders. Anorexic or bulimic celebrities such as Mary-Kate Olsen and Calista Flockheart have obviously had their diet inspiration influenced by fashion photography of models such as Kate Moss and Jodie Kidd[9] on the catwalk –they’re ‘all bones,’ and this is promoted! It is little wonder that these images show up on ‘thinspiration’ sites.

'Thinspiration' Sample Image

Jodie Kidd on the Catwalk

However, it is not only the state of our bodies that are influenced by fashion photography. More affluent consumers, and celebrities in particular, often try to remake the catwalk ensembles, as is particularly commented on in the pages of ‘Vogue’, announcing ‘it’s a look’[10] as stars and women of social standing hanker after the same ‘it’ bag, dress, shoes, etc. The success of the Birkin bag, Chloe Paddington bag and the Fendi Spy bag are prime examples of a ‘trend’ in action. After the bags were shown and photographed on the catwalk, they became the key ‘hot item’ for any serious follower of fashion, with huge waiting lists and even more extravagant price tags.

However, it is not solely the fashion photographer (although notable fashion photographers such as Mario Testino are revered for their talents, the pioneers of a whole fame status of their own) who is responsible for the fashion photography that influences us. Behind the fashion photograph may be photography sitting and art directors, stylists, make up artists, fashion designers, and of course the choice of model is also pivotal to the success of a fashion photograph. The choice of model lends a different effect to the whole photograph, as he or she must be completely compatible with the clothing and set choices. For example, though Kate Moss has achieved global recognition and superior model status, in some cases she would not be as suited to a shot as Lily Cole.[11] For this reason, it is fruitless for a ‘normal’ woman to attempt to completely emulate a look she has seen on the catwalk or in fashion photography: the look will never be quite right, never exactly the same, and if she does not accept this, her paranoia could lead of obsession, examples of which we have already discussed.

Lily Cole in a magazine spread

Kate Moss is a clear example of a model and style icon whose fashion choices clearly influence those who see her photos in terms of how to dress and in some sense, to behave. In a survey carried out by a social experiments researcher, journalist Kate Finnigan said, “You can’t deny that Kate Moss never gets it wrong and Sienna Miller is working it. They have that cheeky, just-picked-this-up-off-the-floor style that so many ordinary British girls have – except they’ve got more money.”[12] Photographed constantly wearing a lot of clothing from high street giant TopShop, Moss’ photographs, whether paparazzi shots or choreographed, have influenced thousands of British women and also tourists into shopping there, also paving the way for the high street phenomenon –suddenly it has become the height of ‘cool’ to mix extremely cheap, throwaway fashions with occasional designer pieces. In the afore-mentioned survey, Finnigan listed TopShop as one of her most frequent stores to buy in, showing a direct correlation between her admiration for Moss’ style and her own buying habits.

 (Note: this piece was originally written before Kate Moss’  Topshop line was launched.)

Throwaway fashion directly influenced by the fast-moving catwalk trends and fashion photography seen in magazines such as Vogue, Tatler, Glamour, etc, has had a huge cultural impact –A vest from Primark, at £2, can now be teamed with the coveted Fendi Spy bay, and the bargain will be flaunted just as much as the luxury purchase, according to ‘steal her style’ articles and the influence of photographs showing supermodels and celebrities doing the same thing. 

Shoppers have become much more savvy, claims Top Shop brand director Jane Shepherdson: “They want to be able to buy the things celebrities are wearing or they want to be able to buy into the trends that they’ve seen from the catwalk as quickly as possible.”

Top Shop’s move towards fast fashion increased sales by 20% last year.”[13]

Looking back on the history of fashion, and its promotion through photographs of ‘the right’ model, Twiggy[14] (born Leslie Hornsby) may be seen as a notable, earlier example.

 

She was named “The Face of ’66” by the Daily Express. In the mid 60’s at 16 years of age, Twiggy became internationally known as the world’s first supermodel, her photographic modelling success epitomising the age.”[15]

The first official ‘superwaif’ supermodel, she not only influenced a whole new wave of ‘skinny’ fashion, but the iconic fashion photography images of her, also promoted the miniskirt, babydoll dress[16], and 60s mod look, now all firm staples of the ever re-emerging Sixties’ fashion trends. 

“Twiggy was the personification of “Swinging” London (or Mod London, if you prefer); she adorned the cover of virtually every magazine except Field and Stream, and was on hand for all the “in” parties and public events always decked out in the trendiest frocks. A 1967 TV special revealed this supermodel to be a giggly, somewhat airheaded cockney kid, but this “everygirl” quality only enhanced her charm.”[17]

There is no doubt that Twiggy ‘changed the face of fashion’ –even almost fifty years on, she remains an icon of British fashion and the Sixties’ image- one whose photographs still serve as an inspiration of style for women today.

'Twiggy' in the 1960s

The Sixties mod look became a collective identity between the consumers who pursued this trend. Hundreds of women began shopping at Mary Quant[18] and the Biba Emporium[19] based on the looks promoted by Twiggy and the related fashion photography. The success of the miniskirt in particular stands testament to the longevity of these trends and the fashion photographs that inspired them. In 1993, Lutz and Collins acknowledged, “…a magazine photograph is ‘a dynamic site at which many gazes or viewpoints intersect’…”[20] Therefore, consumers many draw on parts of a fashion photograph as inspiration towards what they see as their own individual look and identity. The women who followed the Sixties’ mod look may have done so after looking at photographs of Twiggy in a miniskirt, but at the same time have felt that they were inventing their own personal look, in keeping vaguely with the current trend but not duplicating it directly.

In answering a questionnaire on the subject of the influence of fashion photography on our collective and individual styles,

“Some women suggested that fashion photographs should be viewed as a form of art and fantasy rather than as representations of fashion: “It’s like a dream, because you know that 90 percent, probably 98 percent of the clothes are unattainable.”

However, one woman admitted she was susceptible to trends: “I think if you’re flipping through a magazine and you continually see the same type of outfit on different pages, you might, I might try to alter what I’m wearing. Because you see it’s like a new trend.””[21]

This research shows that although many women realise they may never duplicate the looks they admire in fashion photography, they may still aspire to do so. In other cases, they may be influenced ‘unconsciously’, and might “be inclined to wear a particular combination of clothing, without remembering the source of the idea.”

We may conclude from all this, that fashion photography holds an enormous influence over what ‘we’ (as consumers) wear on a day-to-day basis, whether we make a conscious effort to do so or not. The majority of us probably perceive ourselves as individual dressers, even as pioneers of style in our own social groups, rather than admitting to following a collective identity. The psychological impact of constant media throwing fashion, celebrities, trends and the ever obscure pursuit of ‘cool’ as us every day, may affect our choices far more than we are willing to admit. Yes, perhaps it is ‘obsessive’ that Elizabeth Hurley sees six raisins as a gross battering to her ideal diet, but can any of us honestly say that we have never looked at a picture of her and wished we could take the clothing or even a body part and swap it with our own?

Ultimately, what is truthfully going through out minds is probably this, a quote from a white undergraduate interviewed over the impact of fashion photography, spoken in a sudden burst of honesty:

“I know I’ll never, never be able to look like her, and it really pisses me off.” [22]


[1] “Fashion and it’s Social Agendas” –Diana Crane, 2000. p 205.

[5] “Fashion and it’s Social Agendas” –Diana Crane, 2000. pp 202-203.

[7] http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2005/01/30/is_being_thin_really_that_great.php

[8] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2124939,00.html

[12] http://www.antiapathy.org/socialexperiments/index.php?i=32

[13] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3086669.stm

[15] http://www.twiggylawson.co.uk/biography.html

[17] http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=72246&mod=bio

[18] See picture reference: http://www.maryquant.co.uk/imgs/page/shops/par_shop.jpg

[20] “Fashion and its Social Agendas’, Diana Crane 2000. pp 209-210.

[21] “Fashion and its Social Agendas.” Diana Crane, 2000. p 214

[22] “Fashion and its Social Agendas.” Diana Crane, 2000. p 215