(note: this is the result of over a year of thinking about this topic. I finally feel like it is the right time to post about it. It is basically an extension of my conversation with boatshoe in the comments after my last essay post, which frankly I think is more interesting than the post itself.)
Semiotics is the study of signs. It first gained recognition with Ferdinand de Saussure, in his seminal work "Course in General Linguistics." While most of the ideas in this work were anticipated by earlier linguists, it is renowned for the way in which he presented these ideas. The basic premise is that language is a system of signs, made up of signifiers and signifieds. So, for example, the letter "a" in English refers to the phonetic sound "ah." Most of the time. Because it could also refer to the article "a," the grade, or it could even be mistaken for an "o," or, in the case of the capital letter, "A," it could be an upside-down "V." And it goes on and on. The second basic premise is that this system of language is arbitrary. The signifier doesn't always correspond to a certain signified, and, worse and more confusingly, it doesn't always correspond to the signifier meant by the person doing the signifying. When I write a "C" on my cup at work, I want it to signify to my co-workers that it is my cup. But when my co-worker adds "oser" to the end of that, it means that my signifier "C" didn't signify "C" to that person, but it signified "L" to him. Hence the joke. This basic premise gave rise to many developments, including the maddening terrain of Jacques Derrida, deconstruction.
But this post isn't about deconstruction. It is about the semiotics of trad. You see, once people realized what Saussure was saying, they realized that semiotics could apply to many areas. There are many branches of semiotics, including musical semiotics, biosemiotics, and even fashion semiotics. Roland Barthes, one Derrida's early compatriots wrote a little about fashion semiology. But I've never read it. So this is mostly mine.
If clothing (starting broadly) is taken as a system of signs, we can begin to determine how our clothing choices signify things about ourselves to others. Because for a long time now, no-one has been able to say that they don't care about what they wear. Or that they don't think their clothing says something about them. If we build upon my previous post about costumes, we can start to sort this out.
Every person wears some sort of costume. It could be the everyman costume, the trad costume, or the workwear costume. These costumes say something about that person. That they want to fit in, that they like the 50's, or that they like the 20's (very broad generalizations). But regardless of the costumes they wear, everyone who chooses to wear clothes (and even those who choose not to wear clothes) chooses their clothes for a specific purpose. And to say that they choose them because they think it looks cool is a cop-out. Sure, I may think that patch tweed blazer Giuseppe passed on earlier was so cool, but the reason I think it is cool is really what I'm after here. I choose to wear trad clothes (tweed sacks, khakis, loafers, bowties, etc.) because I want to dress like a young adult dressed in the past. I think I also dress this way because there is a bit of rebellion in it, since almost no-one in college dresses this way now. So it is a way to stand out in a tasteful way. Also, my commitment to wearing quality new and used clothes represents a commitment to sustainable, repairable goods.
To me, the signifier-signified relationship between my clothes is: trad stuff is tasteful, respectful, but also has an edge that I like, and they represent quality and value. Sounds good right? To me it does.
But the problem is that almost anyone else who sees me wearing my trad rig is going to have a far different opinion. They might think I'm trying to look older to impress girls (like that would work), they might think I look stuffy and unapproachable, they might think I look like a world class douche, they might think I'm in a fraternity (really the same as that last one right?), or that I'm trying to fit in with the SC crowd.
The point being that I do not control what my clothes say to someone else. There is no one meaning that a tweed jacket conveys to everyone. The signifier/signified relationship is arbitrary.
Another example. I think a tweed or cord suit would be about the sweetest thing ever. One reason is that I think it gives of a cool professorial vibe that I like to give off. But, as everyone who has been on a college campus lately knows, no professor dresses like that. So who knows what people would think if they saw me in a tweed or cord suit.
Shoes are another example. I think tassel loafers are great. A perfect cross between the formal nature of oxfords and the casual nature of pennies. However, some people (looking at you Patrick) view the tassels as the worst kind of needless accessory. And apparently now in the DC area, tassel loafers go hand in hand with sneaky/sleazy lawyers (source: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/03/garden/the-politicization-of-tasseled-loafers.html ).
And recently on the Ivy Style blog, there was a post about raccoon fur coats. Many of those leaving comments raved about them and their desire for them. I happen to think it would be the height of idiocy to wear something like that in 2009. They are impractical, very ugly, and have too many negative connotations. But what the hell, right? I'm the guy who wants to wear a corduroy suit, so what do I know?
See? This is why it is impossible to say that one's clothes are not a costume. While you may sit pretty in your chosen costume and never imagine that it is anything other than good style and taste, almost anyone else is going to associate each part of your outfit with something different than you do. And to them it all adds up to a costume.
Remember earlier when I said that this post wasn't about deconstruction? Well I lied a little bit. Or rather I made myself to be a liar with what I wrote after that. Because really what this whole post is, is a deconstruction of trad. Feel free to deconstruct your own style.
10 comments:
Conor, I like it.
I bought into that decon crap a long time ago but then I read a review of "tenured radicals" by roger kimball in an issue of "maximum rock-n-roll" about 15-years ago and it was a real eye opener. I ditched my grunge look a went trad.
for another view point on derrida and his cronies: http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005745
Conor-- This was an excellent post. Very well thought out and well written with a lot of interesting ideas and reflections on why we all are so interested in what we wear.
Interesting post. What clothing communicates is I think, like language and music, relative to another person's point of view and also relative to the contexts of culture, geography, social class and time. Madras patch shorts (or a reasonable knock-offs) can be found at Target now. They've become popular in North American culture. It certain places in America, they were always popular. What would people think if you were wearing madras patch shorts in Tehran? In Tokyo? In New York City 50 years ago, or 10 years from now? It's all relative.
I like this as an extension of your previous post, it's really approaching the core of reasoning in individual style and dress.
I think that everyone, consciously or not, at some time must and will wear a costume in their lives (excluding halloween).
If I understand what you are saying, at all times, to any given observer, we are always wearing a costume. Somebody, at some time, must have made everything we wear an identifiable outfit associated with a certain time or location. Even a t-shirt and gym shorts worn at home while relaxing could be considering a contemporary workout or athlete's costume. But then again, everything has always been relative to the observer.
However, for the sake of fun and argument, I'm wondering how your logic will hold up against my father. He works from home and doesn't care at all what he wears. He will wear anything so long as it is clean. He dresses completely randomly, no rhyme or reason with his dress. There is no coordination, fashion does not even enter his mind. You cannot say he is wearing an "American" costume because it is most likely that people in other countries dress with the same disregard for style. Or perhaps, this is the non-costume costume. How would you describe this phenomena?
Just some food for thought. I'm really liking the new thought provokers, I find myself pondering them even when I'm not in front of my computer. But then again, I'm really big on social psychology.
ethelrod, JP, and TPP, thanks.
David: I would say your dad dresses in the costume of comfort. He wears things that are comfortable to him since he will be around the house. Thus, he wears the costume of someone who works from home.
Conor, Nice little think piece there. My kids' school could use some more guys like you.
The messages sent and received by clothes are complex and often conflicting. What is more is that they are just a part of the even more complex messages that are projected by one's overall demeanor.
As an example, whenever I see a particularly outlandish chap, rare around here I admit, I may or may not care for his sense of style but on a less conscious level I'm always impressed by his nerve. And whatever someone's impression of me, the clothing plays a supporting roll to whatever expression I may have on my mug. It is the facial expression that decides whether I'm pewee herman or dick cheney on any given day. The clothing rounds things out, but does not define.
These things are complex indeed, but on a simpler note just remember that you've got to wear something.
To those who commented that everything must be relative, of course, I don't think the post meant to say otherwise, but that's my take.
Nonetheless, cultural relativism and social constructivism should be at least understood, if attempting to make a "it's all realtive" argument.
Thoughtful post Conor, rather enjoyable.
Someone just took a junior-level lit-crit course and freaked out.
You seem to be talking less about semiotics and more about cultural convention and symbolism. Sign and symbol and similar, but it is important to recognize the distinction. For example, you want a corduroy suit, because you enjoy the "professorial" vibe with which it would imbue you. You note, however, that no professors you encounter dress in this matter. This not not necessarily mean that the corduroy suit has lost its professorial connotation, rather, and perhaps on the contrary, the cord suit has fallen from favor particularly BECAUSE it retains the cliche of a pipe-smoking, bearded professor. The cord suit is not a signifier for professor (as the word "professor" itself is), it is a symbol of the professorial.
In response to the question "who knows what people would think?" my guess is that you have a pretty good idea of what they might think.It is precisely the absence of actual cord-suited professors that gives the outfit its appeal for you. The "edge" of which you speak derives from the scarcity of those dressed like you. If there were 100 Conors running around college campuses, you wouldn't need to worry about what people though of your dress because odds are they wouldn't notice.
I am growing increasingly skeptical of trad tendencies to bemoan the current standards of dress, particularly on college campuses. It is really only a thinly veiled means of self-congratulation.
You say you want to dress like a young adult "in the past," but a deconstructionist would be highly wary of such a phrase as "in the past." In the past WHERE? You don't look much like a young adult in 1818. And you probably don't look much like a young adult in Wyoming in 1932.
Thanks Erica and lw.
Anon: Junior level lit was three years ago, senior level lit was last year. I've been freakin' out for years.
Good points. I suppose that cord suit could still = professor, but that the way it is looked upon has changed. Ie it used to = good in the general populace but now it = bad. And that = good for me.
And "a deconstructionist" would be highly wary of being labeled a deconstructionist, I would think. But you're right, it was a sloppy phrase. I want to look like a college student in the 50's.
And I really couldn't care less how college students dress nowadays, but you can't really help but notice how they do.
I would say that it isn't just trads, but almost every style/clothing-conscious person here. And it is hardly thinly veiled.
Conor--
Apologies if last post sounded embittered. More the result of having to type hurriedly and in secret while at work than of any animosity toward you or trads of any kind.
The point i was trying to make, and perhaps failing to convey the first time around, was that the "edge" of which you speak stems directly from an awareness of how OTHERS perceive or might perceive the garments, and thus functions very much WITHIN a linguistic or semiotic framework. Essentially, you speak the same sartorial language as those around you, and this language is very much reliant upon geographical and temporal context. This does mean that you are unoriginal or lacking in edge. Rather, you are a clever manipulator of the semiotics of dress. Saussure and Derrida were both very interested in binary oppositions, and mens' dress in particular is heavily reliant on said oppositions: city/country, professional attire/sportswear, daywear/eveningwear.
Post a Comment