Joanne Entwistle Fashion and the Fleshy Body: Dress as Embodied Practice

Introduction There is an obvious and prominent fact about human beings, notes Turner (1985: 1) at the start of The Bod and !ociet , the have bodies and the are bodies" #o$ever, $hat Turner omits in his ana% sis is another obvious and prominent fact: that human bodies are dressed bodies" &ress is a basic fact of socia% %ife and this, according to anthropo%ogists, is true of a%% human cu%tures that $e 'no$ about: a%% cu%tures dress the bod in some $a , be it through c%othing, tattooing, cosmetics or other forms of bod painting ((o%hemus 1988) (o%hemus and (roctor 19*8)" +onventions of dress transform f%esh into something recogni,ab%e and meaningfu% to a cu%ture and are a%so the means b $hich bodies are made decent, appropriate and acceptab%e $ithin specific conte-ts" &ress does not mere% serve to protect our modest and does not simp% ref%ect a natura% bod or, for that matter, a given identit ) it embe%%ishes the bod , the materia%s common% used adding a $ho%e arra of meanings to the bod that $ou%d other$ise not be there" .hi%e the socia% $or%d norma%% demands that $e appear dressed, $hat constitutes dress varies from cu%ture to cu%ture and a%so $ithin a cu%ture, since $hat is considered appropriate dress $i%% var according to the situation or occasion" The fe$ mere scraps of fabric that ma'e up a bi'ini are enough to ensure that the fema%e bod is decent on beaches in the .est, but $ou%d be entire% inappropriate in the boardroom" Bodies that do not conform, bodies that f%out the conventions of their cu%ture and go $ithout the appropriate c%othes are subversive of the most basic socia% codes, and ris' e-c%usion, scorn or ridicu%e" The strea'er $ho strips off and runs across a cric'et pitch or soccer stadium dra$s attention to these conventions in the act of brea'ing them: indeed, fema%e strea'ing is defined as a pub%ic order offence, $hi%e the f%asher, b comparison, can be punished for indecent e-posure" /s these e-amp%es i%%ustrate, dress is fundamenta% to microsocia% order, and the e-posure of na'ed f%esh is, potentia%% at %east, disruptive of that order" 0ndeed, na'edness, in those e-ceptiona% situations $here it is deemed appropriate, has to be carefu%% managed (nude bathing in the 12 and other .estern countries is regu%ated and restricted) doctors must pa c%ose attention to ethica% codes of practice, and so on)" !o fundamenta% is dress to the socia% presentation of the bod and the socia% order that it governs even our $a s of seeing the na'ed bod " /ccording to #o%%ander (1993), dress is crucia% to our understanding of the bod to the e-tent that our $a s of seeing and representing the na'ed bod are dominated b conventions of dress" /s she (1993: -iii) argues, art proves that na'edness is not universa%% e-perienced and perceived an more than c%othes are" /t an time, the unadorned se%f has more 'inship $ith its o$n usua% dressed aspect than it has $ith an undressed human se%ves in other times and other p%aces" #o%%ander points to the $a s in $hich depictions of the nude in art and scu%pture

correspond to the dominant fashions of the da " Thus the nude is never na'ed, but c%othed b contemporar conventions of dress" 4a'ed or semi5na'ed bodies that brea' $ith cu%tura% conventions, especia%% conventions of gender, are potentia%% subversive and are treated $ith horror or derision" +ompetitive fema%e bod 5bui%ders, such as those documented in the 1986 semi5documentar fi%m (umping 0ron 00: The .omen, are fre7uent% seen as monstrous (2uhn 1988: 18) see a%so !chu%,e 1999 and !t :artin and ;ave 1998)" #o$ever, $hi%e dress cannot be understood $ithout reference to the bod and $hi%e the bod has a%$a s and ever $here to be dressed, there has been a surprising %ac' of concrete ana% sis of the re%ationship bet$een them" 0n this artic%e, 0 $ant to f%esh out a stud of the dressed bod that attempts to bridge the gap that e-ists bet$een theories of the bod , $hich often over%oo' dress, and theories of fashion and dress, $hich too fre7uent% %eave out the bod " 0 $ant to suggest some of the connections that can be made bet$een the various theorists in these re%ated areas, suggesting ho$ one might ma'e a stud of the dressed bod " 0n doing so, 0 s'etch out a theoretica% frame$or' that ta'es as its starting5point the idea that dress is an embodied practice, a situated bodi% practice that is embedded $ithin the socia% $or%d and fundamenta% to microsocia% order (<nt$ist%e =999a)" .hi%e emphasi,ing the socia% nature of dress, this frame$or' a%so asserts the idea that individua%s>sub?ects are active in their engagement $ith the socia% and that dress is thus active% produced through routine practices directed to$ards the bod " 0n order to capture this sense of dress as both socia%% structured and embodied and practica%, 0 sha%% dra$ on a $ide range of theoretica% resources" The main discussion $i%% focus on the uses and %imitations of both the structura%ist and post5structura%ist approaches, since these have been inf%uentia% in recent ears in the socio%ogica% stud of the bod " 0n particu%ar, the $or' of :ar &oug%as (19*3, 1986), :arce% :auss (19*3) and :iche% @oucau%t (19**, 1988) offers fruitfu% insights into the $a in $hich the bod is rendered meaningfu% b cu%ture" #o$ever, such approaches are %imited $hen it comes to ac'no$%edging the f%esh bod and its e-perientia% dimensions" The a%so neg%ect to account for ho$ structures and ru%es resu%t in actua% embodied practices, sometimes $ith the effect of reducing individua%s to puppet5%i'e actors" 0n contrast, the phenomeno%og of :aurice :er%eau5(ont (19*8, 1981), $hich begins $ith the idea of the bod as the e-istentia% ground of cu%ture (+sordas 1993), is suggestive of the $a s in $hich dress can be understood as an embodied practice" These theoretica% traditions ma seem at odds $ith one another) and indeed, according to +ross%e (1998), the have been considered incommensurab%e b some" #o$ever, as he argues, the offer different and comp%ementar insights into the bod and embodiment in societ " @o%%o$ing +ross%e (1995a, 1995b, 1998) and a%so +sordas (1993, 1998), 0 sha%% argue that an account of dress as a situated bodi% practice can dra$ on the insights of these t$o different traditions, structura%ism and phenomeno%og , and indeed must do so" &ress as both a socia% and a persona% e-perience is a discursive and practica% phenomenon" / stud of the dressed bod thus re7uires understanding of the socia%% processed bod that discourses on dress and fashion shape, as $e%% as of

the e-perientia% dimensions of embodiment $herein dress is trans%ated into actua% bodi% presentation" 0n addition to these t$o paradigms, ;offman (19*1, 19*=) and Bourdieu (1986, 1989, 1996) are particu%ar% usefu% in that the both bridge the gap bet$een these traditions and ac'no$%edge ho$ socia% structures are reproduced at the %eve% of bodi% practices" Ad-dressing the Literature 0f na'edness is unru% and disruptive, this $ou%d seem to indicate that dress is a fundamenta% aspect of microsocia% order" .hen $e dress $e do so to ma'e our bodies acceptab%e to a socia% situation" ;iven this issue of socia% order, it seems strange to find %itt%e discussion of dress $ithin socio%og and other discip%ines that have been concerned $ith this on both a macro and a micro %eve% (for e-amp%e in the $or' of (arsons and ;offman)" This $ou%d seem strange given that the force of pressure on the bod to conform has a mora% imperative to it as $e%%" &ressed inappropriate% $e are uncomfortab%e) $e fee% ourse%ves open to socia% condemnation" /ccording to Be%% (19*8), $earing the right c%othes is so ver important that even peop%e not interested in their appearance $i%% dress $e%% enough to avoid socia% censure" 0n this sense, he argues, $e enter into the rea%m of fee%ings prudentia%, ethica% and aesthetic, and the $or'ings of $hat one might ca%% sartoria% conscience (19*8: 18A 19)" +%assica% socia% theor fai%ed to ac'no$%edge the significance of dress, %arge% because it neg%ected the bod and the things that bodies do (Turner 1985)" The emergence of a socio%og of the bod in the %ast t$ent ears $ou%d seem an obvious p%ace to %oo' for %iterature on dress and fashion) but, as $ith mainstream socio%og , it too has a%so tended not to e-amine dress (as noted above, Turner does not discuss dress in his account of bodi% order)" :oreover, the %iterature on fashion and dress, coming out of histor , cu%tura% studies and other fie%ds, has paid %itt%e attention to the bod , focusing instead on the communicative aspects of adornment (adopting a rather abstract and disembodied %inguistic mode% from !aussure) and e-amining the spectacu%ar, creative and e-pressive aspects of dress rather than the mundane and routine part it p%a s in reproducing socia% order (Barthes 1985) #ebdige 19*9) Burie 1981) (o%hemus 1996)" Bet$een these bodies of %iterature, bet$een the theorists of the c%assica% tradition and those theorists of the bod $ho tend to over%oo' dress, and those theorists of fashion and dress $ho have focused rather too much attention on the artic%es of c%othing, the dressed bod as a discursive and phenomeno%ogica% fie%d vanishes" <ither the bod is thought to be se%fevident% dressed (and therefore be ond discussion) or the c%othes are assumed to stand up on their o$n, possib% even spea'ing for themse%ves $ithout the aid of the bod " /nd et the importance of the bod to dress is such that encounters $ith dress divorced from the bod are strange% a%ienating" .i%son (1985) grasps this $hen she describes the unease one fee%s in the presence of manne7uins in a costume museum" The eeriness of the encounter comes from the dust si%ence and sti%%ness of the costumes, and from a sense that the museum is haunted b the spirits of the %iving, breathing humans $hose bodies these go$ns once adorned"

Cur e-perience of the costume museum, a%ong $ith our sadness $hen confronted $ith the c%othes of dead re%atives, points to the $a s in $hich $e norma%% e-perience dress as a%ive and f%esh : once removed from the bod , dress %ac's fu%%ness and seems strange, a%most a%ien, and a%% the more poignant to us if $e can remember the person $ho once breathed %ife into the fabric" The bod and dress operate dia%ectica%% : dress $or's on the bod , imbuing it $ith socia% meaning, $hi%e the bod is a d namic fie%d that gives %ife and fu%%ness to dress (<nt$ist%e and .i%son 1998)" Thus the dressed bod is a f%esh , phenomeno%ogica% entit that is so much a part of our e-perience of the socia% $or%d, so thorough% embedded $ithin the micro5d namics of socia% order, as to be entire% ta'en for granted" .ith a gro$ing %iterature emerging on fashion, dress, the bod , embodiment, and performativit , it seems a%most a c%ichD to insist that fashion and dress operate on the bod and that, b imp%ication, the bod and dress are no$ a crucia% arenas for the performance and articu%ation of identities" /nd et the precise re%ationship of the bod to dress and dress to the bod remains unc%ear and under5theori,ed" 0n the discussion that fo%%o$s, 0 $ant to suggest the theoretica% resources that can be brought to bear on the ana% sis of the dressed bod as situated practice" Situating the Dressed Body in the Social orld

&ress %ies at the margins of the bod and mar's the boundar bet$een se%f and other, individua% and societ " This boundar is intimate and persona%, since our dress forms the visib%e enve%ope of the se%f and, as &avis puts it, comes to serve as a 'ind of visua% metaphor for identit ) it is a%so socia%, since our dress is structured b socia% forces and sub?ect to socia% and mora% pressures" 0f, as :ar &oug%as (19*3, 1986) has so forcefu%% demonstrated, the boundaries of the bod are dangerous, it is therefore no surprise that c%othing and other forms of adornment, $hich operate at these %ea' margins, are sub?ect to socia% regu%ation and mora% pronouncements" 0t is no surprise either to find individua%s concerned $ith $hat to hang at these margins" &oug%as articu%ates this re%ationship bet$een the individua% bod and the socia% forces pressing on it, arguing that there are t$o bodies: the ph sica% bod and the socia% bod " !he summari,es (19*3: 93) the re%ationship bet$een them in 4atura% ! mbo%s: the socia% bod constrains the $a the ph sica% bod is perceived" The ph sica% e-perience of the bod , a%$a s modified b the socia% categories through $hich it is 'no$n, sustains a particu%ar vie$ of societ " There is a continua% e-change of meanings bet$een the t$o 'inds of bodi% e-perience so that each reinforces the categories of the other" /ccording to &oug%as, the bod is capab%e of furnishing a natura% s stem of s mbo%s (19*3: 1=)" This means that the bod is a high% restricted medium of e-pression, since it is heavi% mediated b cu%ture and e-presses the socia% pressure brought to bear on it" 0ndeed, the bod becomes a s mbo% of its cu%tura% %ocation" !he gives the e-amp%e of %aughter, arguing that the socia% situation determines the degree to $hich the bod can %augh: the %ooser the socia% constraints, the more free the bod is to %augh out %oud" 0n this $a , the bod and its functions and boundaries s mbo%ica%% articu%ate the concerns of the particu%ar group

in $hich it is found" #er ana% sis (19*3) of shagg and smooth hair a%so i%%ustrates this re%ationship bet$een the bod and the situation" !hagg hair, once a s mbo% of rebe%%ion, can be found among those professiona%s $ho are in a position to criti7ue societ , in particu%ar, academics and artists" !mooth hair, ho$ever, is %i'e% to be found among those $ho conform, such as %a$ ers and ban'ers" This ana% sis can of course be e-tended to the ana% sis of dress and adornment" The dressed bod is a%$a s situated $ithin a particu%ar conte-t, $hich often sets constraints as to $hat is and $hat is not appropriate to $ear" The degree to $hich the dressed bod can e-press itse%f can therefore be s mbo%ic of this %ocation: for e-amp%e, the more forma% and conservative the occupation, the more constraints set around the bod and thus on dress" Therefore traditiona% or conservative occupations are %i'e% to have stricter codes of dress and necessitate the $earing of a suit, $hi%e more creative professions $i%% set fe$ restrictions on the bod and dress" :auss (19*3) has %i'e$ise discussed the $a in $hich the ph sica% bod is shaped b cu%ture $hen he e%aborates on mundane techni7ues of the bod , and these have some potentia% for understanding the situated nature of the dressed bod " The techni7ues he out%ines are not natura%, but the product of particu%ar $a s of being in the bod that are embedded $ithin cu%ture and his e-amp%es a%so point to the $a s in $hich these are gendered" .a s of $a%'ing, moving, ma'ing a fist, and so on, are different for men and $omen because, in the ma'ing of mascu%ine and feminine, cu%ture inscribes the bodies of men and $omen $ith different ph sica% capacities" :aussEs techni7ues of the bod have obvious app%ication to dress and the $a in $hich dress modifies the bod , embe%%ishing it and inf%ecting it $ith meanings that, in the first instance, are gendered" /%though he sa s %itt%e about dress, he does note ho$ $omen %earn to $a%' in high hee%s that $ou%d be difficu%t and uncomfortab%e for men, $ho are genera%% unaccustomed to such shoes" 0%%ustrative of this particu%ar techni7ue in her e-aggeration of it is :ari% n :onroeEs sasha ing gait in !ome Bi'e 0t #ot, $hich $as apparent% the product of high hee%s cut diagona%% at each side" These %op5sided shoes enab%ed her to generate the $igg%e that constituted part of her performance as the se-ua%% provocative !ugar +ane" /%though the donEt ac'no$%edge :aussEs $or', #aug et" a%" (198*) provide amp%e evidence of the $a s in $hich femininit is reproduced through various techni7ues, bodi% and sartoria%" The argue that the fema%e bod and its $a s of being and adorning are the product of particu%ar discourses of the bod that are inherent% gendered" These discourses are e-p%ored through the $or' of @oucau%t) and 0 $ant to suggest some of the $a s in $hich his concept of discourse, $ith its emphasis on the bod , cou%d be uti%i,ed for ana% sis of the situated nature of the bod "@ashion and the @%esh Bod : &ress as <mbodied (ractice 3=9 0n &iscip%ine and (unish @oucau%t (19**) argues that bodi% practices are part of the capi%%ar %i'e operations of po$er $hich $or' to render bodies doci%e, obedient" .hi%e feminists such as :c4a (199=) and &iamond and Fuinb (1988) argue that @oucau%t ignores the issue of gender, the a%so point out that his theoretica% concepts can provide feminists $ith a frame$or' for understanding the $a s in $hich the bod

is acted on b po$er>'no$%edge" 0ndeed, @oucau%tEs notion of discourse can enab%e the ana% sis of fashion as a discursive domain that sets significant parameters around the bod and its presentation" @ashion (defined here as a s stem of continua%% changing st %es), $hich sets out an arra of competing discourses on image and is the dominant s stem governing dress in the .est, has been %in'ed to the operations of po$er, initia%% mar'ing out c%ass divisions, but more recent% p%a ing a crucia% ro%e in po%icing the boundaries of se-ua% difference" /%though uti%i,ed b .i%son (199=), @oucau%tEs $or' on the bod has not been usefu%% emp%o ed in the ana% sis of fashion as a te-tua% site for the construction of the bod , a%though it $ou%d seem that it $ou%d have some app%ication" @ashion, particu%ar% as it is %aid out in the fashion maga,ine, is obsessed $ith gender (.i%son 1985: 11*), and constant% shifts the boundar bet$een the genders" This preoccupation $ith gender starts $ith babies and is p%a ed out through the %ife c c%e, so that st %es of dress at significant moments are ver c%ear% gendered ($eddings and other forma% occasions are the most obvious e-amp%es)" !uch st %es enab%e the repetitious production of gender, even $hen gender appears to brea' do$n, as $ith androg nous fashion, and are aided in part b the repetition of gendered st %es of bodi% posture routine% reproduced in fashion maga,ines" .hi%e these st %es of being reproduce gender as a bod st %e, the are a%so open to subversion through e-aggeration and parod , as But%er (1999, 1993) has forcefu%% suggested, a%though some of the most e-aggerated performances, such as drag, cou%d be said to reinforce rather than undermine conventions of gender (;amman and :a'inen 1996)" 0n addition, @oucau%tEs insights into the $a s in $hich bodies are sub?ect to po$er and discursive% constituted can be uti%i,ed to sho$ ho$ institutiona% and discursive practices of dress act upon the bod , mar'ing it and rendering it meaningfu% and productive" @or e-amp%e, st %es of dress are regu%ar% emp%o ed in the $or'p%ace as part of institutiona% and corporate strategies of management" This is e-p%ored b @reeman (1993), $ho dra$s on @oucau%tEs notion of po$er, particu%ar% his idea about the panopticon, to consider ho$ dress is used in one particu%ar conte-t, a data5processing corporation, &ata /ir, as a strateg of corporate discip%ine and contro% over the fema%e $or'force" 0n this corporation a strict dress code insisted that the predominant% fema%e $or'ers dress smart% in order to pro?ect a modern and professiona% image of the corporation" 0f their dress does not meet this standard the are sub?ected to discip%inar procedures b their managers, and ma even be sent home to change their c%othes" The enforcement of this dress code $as faci%itated b the open5p%an office, $hich 'ept the $omen under constant survei%%ance b the ga,e of managers" !uch practices are fami%iar to man offices a%though the mechanisms for enforcing dress codes var enormous% " (articu%ar discourses of dress such as smart or professiona% dress, and particu%ar strategies of dress such as the imposition of uniforms and dress codes at $or', are uti%i,ed b corporations to e-ercise contro% over the bodies of the $or'ers $ithin" This is true of menEs dress for $or' as much as it is of $omenEs" The ma%e suit, perhaps the most forma%% coded dress for men toda , e-erts itse%f

$ith considerab%e force over the bodies of men in a $ide range of occupationa% settings, $hi%e %ooser codes of bodi% presentation are often set over the bodies of professiona%s, $ho, rather than being to%d $hat to $ear, are e-pected to have interna%i,ed the codes of the profession" @or e-amp%e, the discourse of po$er dressing, $hich 0 have ana% ,ed e%se$here (<nt$ist%e 199*, =999a, =999b), sets out c%ear codes of dressing for success) but its adoption b professiona%s is %arge% dependent upon their having interna%i,ed a particu%ar notion of themse%ves as enterprising sub?ects" The discourse on po$er dressing ca%%ed upon career $omen to thin' about and act upon their bodies in particu%ar $a s as part of an overa%% pro?ect of the se%f (;iddens 1991) in order to ma-imi,e oneEs chances of career success" The ru%es of such dressing as de%ineated in dress manua%s and maga,ine artic%es set out a strateg of dressing for $or' that re%ies on technica% 'no$%edge of dress and its effects (the term $ardrobe engineering, devised b the most famous e-ponent of po$er dressing Gohn T" :o%%o (1989), captures this technica% and instrumenta% concern)" /s 0 have demonstrated, @oucau%tEs frame$or' is 7uite usefu% for ana% ,ing the discursive aspects of dress" 0n particu%ar, his notion of discourse is a good starting5point for ana% ,ing the re%ations bet$een discourses on dress and gender as the are constituted in fashion te-ts and organi,ationa% strategies of management and are suggestive of particu%ar forms of discip%ine of the bod " #o$ever, there are prob%ems $ith @oucau%tEs notion of discourse as $e%% as prob%ems stemming from his conceptua%i,ation of the bod and of po$er, in particu%ar his fai%ure to ac'no$%edge embodiment and agenc " These prob%ems stem from @oucau%tEs post5structura%ist phi%osoph , and these 0 no$ $ant to summari,e in order to suggest ho$ his theoretica% perspective, $hi%e usefu% in some respects, particu%ar% for te-tua% ana% sis, is prob%ematic for a stud of dress as a situated bodi% practice" 0n other $ords, his theoretica% concepts do not stretch to the ana% sis of dress as an embodied practice" @oucau%tEs account of the socia%% processed bod provides for ana% sis of the $a in $hich the bod is ta%'ed about and acted on) but it does not provide an account of dress as it is %ived, e-perienced and embodied b individua%s" @or e-amp%e, the e-istence of the corset in the nineteenth centur and the discourses about the supposed mora%it of $earing one (the terms %oose and strait%aced used to describe a $oman refer to the $earing of a corset, and i%%ustrate, if metaphorica%% , the %in' bet$een this artic%e of c%othing and mora%it ) te%% us %itt%e or nothing about ho$ Hictorian $omen e-perienced the corset, ho$ tight% the chose to %ace it, and $hat bodi% sensations it produced" #o$ever, it $ou%d seem that b investing importance in the bod , dress opens up the potentia% for $omen to use this for their o$n purposes and e-perience p%easures that are perhaps the reverse of dominant ones" #o$ever, as Iama,anog%u (1993) argues, $hi%e the notion of reverse discourse is potentia%% ver usefu% to feminists, it is not deve%oped fu%% in @oucau%tEs ana% sis" !o $hi%e the corset is seen b some feminists (Ioberts 19**) as a garment setting out to discip%ine the fema%e bod and ma'e her doci%e and subservient, an e-7uisite s%ave, 2un,%e (198=) has argued in re%ation to fema%e tight%acers that these $omen $ere not passive or masochistic victims of

patriarch , but socia%% and se-ua%% assertive" 2un,%eEs suggestion is that $omen more than men have used their se-ua%it to c%imb the socia% %adder, and that tight5%acers e-perienced se-ua% p%easures from the tight% %aced corset that $ent against the dominant norm of the Hictorian $oman as ase-ua%" 0f his ana% sis is accepted, these particu%ar Hictorian $omen cou%d be said to i%%ustrate the $a s in $hich po$er, once invested in the fema%e bod , resu%ts in the responding c%aims and affirmations, those of oneEs o$n bod against po$er " " " of p%easure against the mora% norms of se-ua%it , marriage, decenc " " " (@oucau%t 1989: 58)" 0n other $ords, i%%ustrative of reverse discourse" #o$ever, this issue %ies dormant in @oucau%tEs o$n ana% sis, part% because @oucau%tEs particu%ar form of post5structura%ism is not sensitive to practice" 0nstead it presumes effects, at the %eve% of individua% practice, from the e-istence of discourse a%one" #e thus reads te-ts as if the $ere practice rather than a possib%e structuring inf%uence on practice that might or might not be imp%emented" 0n assuming that discourse automatica%% has socia% effects, @oucau%tEs method, as Turner (1985: 1*5) notes, reduce(s) the individua% agent to a socia%i,ed parrot $hich must spea'>perform in a determinate manner in accordance $ith the ru%es of %anguage" 0n fai%ing to produce an account of ho$ discourses get ta'en up in practices, @oucau%t a%so fai%s to give an ade7uate e-p%anation as to ho$ resistance to discourse is possib%e" :oreover, his ana% sis %ac's sensitivit to the bod as the environment of the se%f and tends to assume a notion of the passive bod , thereb fai%ing to e-p%ain ho$ individua%s ma act in an autonomous fashion" 0f bodies are produced and manipu%ated b po$er, then this $ou%d seem to contradict @oucau%tEs concern to see po$er as force re%ations that are never simp% oppressive" !uch an account might %ead to the discussion of fashion and dress as mere% constraining socia% forces and thus neg%ect the $a individua%s can be active in their se%ective choices from fashion discourse in their ever da e-perience of dress" The e-treme anti5humanism of @oucau%tEs $or', most notab% in &iscip%ine and (unish, is 7uestioned b :c4a (199=) because it does not33= Goanne <nt$ist%e a%%o$ for notions of sub?ectivit and e-perience, and she proposes that his %ater $or' on techno%ogies of the se%f offers a more usefu% theoretica% frame$or'" #o$ever, as she herse%f %ater ac'no$%edges (:c4a 1999), @oucau%tEs notion of sub?ectivit as deve%oped in his techno%ogies of se%f is disconnected from his ear%ier $or' on the bod , and is thus strange% disembodied" 0n terms of producing an account of embodiment and of agenc , :c4a suggests that BourdieuEs notions of the habitus and the fie%d are more productive" 0f the dressed bod is to be understood as a%$a s situated in cu%ture and as an embodied activit %ocated $ithin specific tempora% and spatia% re%ations, then these concepts from Bourdieu offer much potentia%" 0 sha%% discuss BourdieuEs $or' in more detai% be%o$" @urther prob%ems arise from @oucau%tEs rather ambiva%ent notion of the bod : on the one hand, his bio5po%itics $ou%d appear to construct the bod as a concrete, materia% entit , manipu%ated b institutions and practices) on the other hand, his focus on discourse seems to produce a notion of the bod that has no materia%it outside the representation" !uch a vaci%%ation is prob%ematic, since the 7uestion of $hat constitutes

a bod is one that cannot be avoidedJdoes the bod have a materia%it outside %anguage and representationK The bod cannot be at one and the same time both a materia% ob?ect outside of %anguage and a so%e% %inguistic construction" This refusa% to deve%op an onto%og of the bod fits $ith @oucau%tEs genera% refusa% of a%% essence, as Turner (1985) notes" #o$ever, Terence Turner (1998: 3*) goes so far as to suggest that @oucau%tEs bod is more contradictor and prob%ematic in terms of his o$n c%aim to criti7ue essences: it is a feature%ess tabu%a rasa a$aiting the animating discip%ines of discourse " " " an a priori individua% unit disarming% reminiscent of its arch5 riva%, the transcendenta% sub?ect" 0f, as it seems, @oucau%t errs on the side of the bod as a discursive construct this $ou%d appear to undermine his aim to produce a histor of bodies and the investments and operations of po$er on them" .hat is most materia% and most vita% about a bod if not its f%esh and bonesK .hat is po$er doing if not operating on, contro%%ing or dominating the materia% bod K #o$ever, if the bod has its o$n ph sica% rea%it outside or be ond discourse, ho$ can $e theori,e this e-perienceK #o$ can one begin to understand the e-perience of choosing and $earing c%othes that forms so significant a part of our e-perience of our bod >se%fK .ith these issues in mind, +sordas (1993, 1998) detai%s the $a for$ard for $hat he ca%%s a paradigm of embodiment, $hich he poses as an a%ternative to the paradigm of the bod that characteri,es the structura%ist approach" This methodo%ogica% shift re7uires that the bod be understood as the e-istentia% ground of cu%tureJnot an ob?ect that is Lgood to thin' $ithE but as a sub?ect that is Lnecessar to beE (1993: 135)" The bod , in phenomeno%ogica% terms, is the environment of the se%f, and therefore something acted upon as part of the e-perience of se%fhood" This is in contrast to the semiotic mode%, $hich considers the bod as a s mbo%ic and discursive ob?ect $or'ed on b cu%ture" +sordasEs e-press aim is therefore to counter5ba%ance the strong representationa% bias of the semiotic>te-tua% paradigm found in $or's such as that of &oug%as (19*3, 19*9), @oucau%t (19**) and &errida (19*8)" +sordas ca%%s for a shift a$a from a semiotic>te-tua%ist frame$or' to a notion of embodiment and being in the $or%d dra$n from phenomeno%og " #e notes ho$, of a%% the forma% definitions of cu%ture that have been proposed b anthropo%og , none have ta'en serious% the idea that cu%ture is grounded in the human bod (+sordas 1998: 8)" Thus the phenomeno%ogica% concern $ith embodiment starts from a different premise to structura%ist and post5structura%ist accounts of the socia% $or%d, positioning the bod as the e-istentia% ground of cu%ture and se%f (+sordas 1993)" #e argues for a stud of embodiment that dra$s on the phenomeno%og of :er%eau5(ont (19*8, 1981) as $e%% as BourdieuEs (1989) theor of practice" #is paradigm of embodiment thus mar's a methodo%ogica% shift a$a from a concern $ith te-ts to a concern $ith bodi% e-perience and socia% practice" /ccording to +sordas, both :er%eau5(ont (19*8, 1981) and Bourdieu (1989, 1996) shift the concern a$a from the bod as an inert ob?ect to an idea of the bod as imp%icated in ever da perception and practices" / simi%ar distinction is dra$n b +ross%e (1995a, 1995b, 1998), $ho argues that the socio%og of the bod is concerned $ith $hat is done to the bod , $hi%e carna%

socio%og e-amines $hat the bod does (1995b: 63)" #e, too, identifies this %atter tradition $ith the $or' of :er%eau5(ont , but %oo's a%so to ;offman $hose account of microsocia% interactions positions the bod as the centra% vehic%e of the se%f" 0n the fo%%o$ing section, 0 $ant to detai% the theoretica% and methodo%ogica% assumptions under% ing a paradigm of embodiment, dra$ing on the $or' of :er%eau5(ont , and suggest ho$ phenomeno%og might enab%e a stud of dress as situated practice" 0 $ant a%so to suggest ho$ the $or' of Bourdieu and ;offman ma be app%ied to the stud of the dressed bod and ho$ their insights bridge the gap bet$een structura%ist and phenomeno%ogica% concepts" 0n the $or' of both, the bod is both a socia%% constituted ob?ect, determined b socia% structures, and et a%so the site of socia% and persona% identit " Dress and Embodiment :er%eau5(ont (19*8, 1981) p%aces the bod at the center of his ana% sis of perception, arguing that the $or%d comes to us via perceptive a$areness, i"e", from the p%ace of our bod in the $or%d" :er%eau5(ont stresses the simp%e fact that the mind is situated in the bod and comes to 'no$ the $or%d through $hat he ca%%ed corporea% or postura% schema: in other $ords $e grasp e-terna% space, re%ationships bet$een ob?ects and our re%ationship to them through our position in, and movement through, the $or%d" Thus the aim of his $or' on perception, as he (19*8: 3A6) points out in The (rimac of (erception, is to re5estab%ish the roots of336 Goanne <nt$ist%e the mind in its bod and in its $or%d, going against doctrines $hich treat perception as a simp%e resu%t of the action of e-terna% things on our bod as $e%% as against those $hich insist on the autonom of consciousness" /s a resu%t of his emphasis on perception and e-perience, sub?ects are reinstated as tempora% and spatia% beings" Iather than being an ob?ect in the $or%d the bod forms our point of vie$ on the $or%d (19*8: 5)" 0n this $a , :er%eau5(ont counteracts the tendenc in @oucau%t to see the bod as a passive ob?ect" /ccording to :er%eau5(ont , $e come to understand our re%ation in the $or%d via the positioning of our bod ph sica%% and historica%% in space" @ar from being mere% an instrument or ob?ect in the $or%d our bodies are $hat give us our e-pression in the $or%d (19*8: 5)" 0n other $ords, our bod is not ?ust the p%ace from $hich $e come to e-perience the $or%d) it is through our bodies that $e come to see and be seen in the $or%d" The bod forms the enve%ope of our being in the $or%d, and our se%fhood comes from this %ocation in our bod and our e-perience of this" 0n terms of dress, approaching it from a phenomeno%ogica% frame$or' means ac'no$%edging the $a in $hich dress $or's on the bod $hich in turn $or's on and mediates the e-perience of se%f" <co (1988) captures this ver $e%% $hen he describes $earing ?eans that are sti%% too tight after %osing some $eight" #e (1988: 19=A6) describes ho$ the ?eans fee% on his bod , ho$ the pinch and ho$ the restrict his movement, ho$ the ma'e him a$are of the %o$er ha%f of his bod ) indeed, ho$ the come to constitute an epidermic se%fa$areness that he had not fe%t before: /s a resu%t, 0 %ived in the 'no$%edge that 0 had ?eans on, $hereas norma%% $e %ive forgetting that $eEre $earing undershorts or trousers" 0 %ived for m ?eans and as a resu%t 0 assumed an e-terior

behavior of one $ho $ears ?eans" 0n an case, 0 assumed a demeanor " " " 4ot on% did the garment impose a demeanor on me) b focusing m attention on demeanor it ob%iged me to %ive to$ards the e-terior $or%d" 0f, for the most part, $e donEt e-perience our ?eans (or an other item of c%othing for that matter) in this $a , then this hints at our norma% e-perience of dress and its re%ationship to the bod ) name% that it becomes an e-tension of the bod that is %i'e a second s'in" &ressed uncomfortab% , on the other hand, $e ma deve%op the epidermic se%f5a$areness <co refers to since the garment>s impinge upon our e-perience of the bod and ma'e us a$are of the edges, the %imits and boundaries of our bod " This bod >dress a$areness is gendered: as TseM%on (199*: 81) notes, $omenEs sense of se%f (and se%f5$orth) is fre7uent% a fragi%e one, and dress can either bo%ster confidence or ma'e one acute% se%f5conscious and uncomfortab%e" :er%eau5(ont Es notion of sub?ectivit is neither essentia% nor transcendenta%: the se%f is %ocated in a bod , $hich in turn is %ocated in time and space" The notion of space $as for :er%eau5(ont crucia% to the phenomeno%og of %ived e-perience, since the movement of bodies through space $as an important feature of their perception of the $or%d and their re%ationship to others and ob?ects in the $or%d" This concern $ith space is apparent in @oucau%tEs $or' on the institutions of modernit ) but $hi%e his account of space ac'no$%edges its discip%inar and po%itica% dimensions, it %ac's an sense of ho$ peop%e e-perience space" @oucau%tEs ana% sis %oo's at space in re%ation to socia% order and, u%timate% , po$er: a phenomeno%ogica% ana% sis of space, such as that offered b :er%eau(ont , considers ho$ $e grasp e-terna% space via our bodi% situation or corporea% or postura% schema (19*8: 5)" Thus, our bod is not in space %i'e things) it inhabits or haunts space (19*8: 5)" @or :er%eau5(ont , bod >sub?ects are a%$a s sub?ects in space) but our e-perience of it comes from our movement around the $or%d and our grasping of ob?ects in that space through perceptua% a$areness" !pace is grasped, active% sei,ed upon b individua%s through their embodied encounter $ith it" Cf course, space is a crucia% aspect of our e-perience of the dressed bod , since $hen $e get dressed $e do so $ith imp%icit understanding of the ru%es and norms of particu%ar socia% spaces" / forma% dinner, a ?ob intervie$, a shopping e-pedition, a $a%' in the par', to name a fe$ situations, demand different st %es of dress and re7uire us to be more or %ess a$are of our dress, ma'e it more or %ess an ob?ect of our consciousness" 0n bringing embodiment to the fore of his ana% sis and emphasi,ing that a%% human e-perience comes out of our bodi% position, :er%eau(ont Es ana% sis offers a fruitfu% starting5point for the ana% sis of dress as situated bodi% practice" &ress is a%$a s %ocated spatia%% and tempora%% : $hen getting dressed one orientates onese%f>bod to the situation, acting in particu%ar $a s upon the surfaces of the bod in $a s that are %i'e% to fit $ithin the estab%ished norms of that situation" Thus the dressed bod is not a passive ob?ect, acted upon b socia% forces, but active% produced through particu%ar, routine and mundane practices" :oreover, our e-perience of the bod is not as inert ob?ect but as the enve%ope of our being, the site for our articu%ation of se%f" :er%eau5(ont Es insistence

on the embodied nature of sub?ectivit means that it is crucia% to the e-perience and e-pression of se%f, and $hat cou%d be more visib%e an aspect of the bod than dressK This re%ationship bet$een the bod and identit and bet$een identit and dress has been the sub?ect of man discussions $ithin fashion theor , as $e%% as of some accounts of the bod (&avis 199=) @in'e%stein 1991) ! nnott 1993) .i%son 1985, 199=)" #o$ever, these accounts have tended not to ta%' of embodiment and of the $a s in $hich dress constitutes part of the e-perience of the bod and identit " 0n unif ing bod >se%f and in focusing on the e-perientia% dimensions of being %ocated in a bod , :er%eau5(ont Es $or' demonstrates ho$ the bod is not mere% a te-tua% entit produced b discursive practices but is the active and perceptive vehic%e of being" There are, ho$ever, a number of prob%ems $ith :er%eau5(ont Es phenomeno%og " @irst% , he neg%ects to consider the bod as gendered, $hen in ever da %ife gender p%a s a significant part in the $a in $hich individua%s, ma%e and fema%e, e-perience embodiment and come to %ive in their bodies" 4ot on% is gender in part the product of techni7ues of the bod such as those described b :auss above) the bod itse%f moves through time and space $ith a sense of itse%f as gendered" This is i%%ustrated b the $a s in $hich men and $omen e-perience the spaces of the pub%ic rea%m different% , as described b Bourdieu" /s 0 have discussed e%se$here (<nt$ist%e 199*, =999b), the spaces of $or' are e-perienced different% b $omen and men, and this affects the $a s in $hich the bod is dressed and presented" @urthermore, as argued b numerous theorists (Berger 19*=) :c4a 199=) :u%ve 1989) .o%f 1999), $omen are more %i'e% to be identified $ith the bod than men, and this ma generate different e-periences of embodiment" 0t cou%d be argued that $omen are more %i'e% to deve%op greater bod consciousness and greater a$areness of themse%ves as embodied than men, $hose identit is %ess situated in the bod " TseM%onEs (199*) $or' in this area $ou%d seem to testif to this" !econd% , :er%eau5(ont Es approach remains phi%osophica%: as a method, it cannot be easi% app%ied to the ana% sis of the socia% $or%d" #o$ever, +ross%e (1995a) and +sordas (1993) see much potentia% in the $or's of ;offman and Bourdieu respective% , since both dra$ some inspiration from phenomeno%og , but deve%op approaches to embodiment that are socio%ogica% rather than phi%osophica%, and ground their accounts in empirica% evidence of actua% socia% practices" 0 $ant to e-p%ore $hat each has to sa about ;offman and Bourdieu, as $e%% as to suggest the $a s in $hich these t$o theorists cou%d be app%ied to the stud of the dressed bod " &ress and <mbodied !ub?ectivit +ross%e (1995a) suggests that there are man other fruitfu% connections to be made bet$een ;offman (19*1, 19*=) and :er%eau5(ont (19*8, 1981), particu%ar% their insistence on sub?ectivit as embodied" @urthermore, ;offmanEs concern $ith the tempora%it and spatia%it of interaction provides another point of contact $ith :er%eau5(ont , $hose $or' is concerned $ith these aspects of perception" 0n terms of providing an account of embodied sub?ectivit as e-perienced $ithin the f%o$ of ever da %ife, ;offmanEs concepts have some considerab%e potentia% for understanding the dressed bod " The enab%e description and ana% sis of

the $a in $hich individua%s, or socia% actors, come to orientate themse%ves to the socia% $or%d and %earn to perform in it, and recogni,e ho$ the bod is centra% to this e-perience" 0n ;offmanEs $or', the bod is the propert of both the individua% and the socia% $or%d: it is the vehic%e of identit , but this identit has to be managed in terms of the definitions of the socia% situation, $hich impose particu%ar $a s of being on the bod " Thus individua%s fee% a socia% and mora% imperative to perform their identit in particu%ar $a s, and this inc%udes %earning appropriate $a s of dressing" Bi'e so much bodi% behavior, codes of dress come to be ta'en for granted and are routine% and unref%e-ive% emp%o ed, a%though some occasions, genera%% forma% ones (%i'e $eddings and funera%s) set tighter constraints around the bod , and %end themse%ves to more conscious ref%ection on dress" ;offmanEs $or' thus adds to &oug%asEs account of the t$o bodies b bringing embodiment and actua% bodi% practices into the frame" 0n considering the bod as centra% to interaction, his ana% sis a%so %ends itse%f to the understanding of the dressed bod , and thus to an account of dress in terms of situated bodi% practice" 4ot on% does dress form the 'e %in' bet$een individua% identit and the bod , providing the means, or ra$ materia%, for performing identit ) dress is fundamenta%% an inter5sub?ective and socia% phenomenon, it is an important %in' bet$een individua% identit and socia% be%onging" &avis (199=: =5) argues that dress frames our embodied se%f, serving as a 'ind of visua% metaphor for identit and, as pertains in particu%ar to the open societ of the .est, for registering the cu%tura%% anchored ambiva%ence that resonates $ithin and among identities" 0n other $ords, not on% is our dress the visib%e form of our intentions, but in ever da %ife dress is the insignia b $hich $e are read and come to read others, ho$ever unstab%e and ambiva%ent these readings ma be (+ampbe%% 199*)" &ress $or's to g%ue identities in a $or%d $here the are uncertain" /s .i%son (1985: 1=) puts it, the $a in $hich $e dress ma assuage that fear b stabi%i,ing our individua% identit " This idea is the basis of much subcu%tura% theor on the s mbo%ic $or' performed b members of subcu%tures, $ho, it is argued, dep%o cu%tura% artifacts such as dress to mar' out the boundaries of their group and register their be%onging (#a%% and Gefferson 19*8) #ebdige 19*9) Buc' 199=) .i%%is 19*5, 19*8)" .hi%e ;offman does not discuss the $a s dress is used and its ro%e in the presentation of se%f in ever da %ife, his ideas cou%d ho$ever be e%aborated to discuss the $a in $hich dress is routine% attended to as part of this presentation of se%f in ever da %ife" :ost situations, even the most informa%, have a code of dress, and these impose particu%ar $a s of being on bodies in such a $a as to have a socia% and mora% imperative to them" Be%% (19*8) gives the e-amp%e of a five5da 5o%d beard, $hich cou%d not be $orn to the theater $ithout censure and disapprova% e-act% comparab%e to that occasioned b dishonorab%e conduct" 0ndeed, c%othes are often spo'en of in mora% terms, using $ords %i'e fau%t%ess, good, correct" @e$ are immune to this socia% pressure, and most peop%e are embarrassed b certain mista'es of dress, such as finding oneEs f% undone or discovering a stain on a ?ac'et" Thus, as Be%% (19*8: 19) puts it, our c%othes are too much a part of us for most of us to be entire% indifferent

to their condition: it is as though the fabric $ere indeed a natura% e-tension of the bod , or even of the sou%" Thus in the presentation of se%f in socia% interaction, ideas of embarrassment and stigma p%a a crucia% ro%e, and are managed, in part, through dress" &ressed inappropriate% for a situation $e fee% vu%nerab%e and embarrassed, and so too $hen our dress fai%s us, $hen in pub%ic $e find $eEve %ost a button or stained our c%othes, or find our f% undone" #o$ever, the embarrassment of such mista'es of dress is not simp% that of a persona% fau- pas, but the shame of fai%ing to meet the standards re7uired of one b the mora% order of the socia% space" .hen $e ta%' of someoneEs s%ip sho$ing $e are, according to .i%son (1985: 8), spea'ing of something more than s%ight sartoria% s%oppiness) $e are actua%% a%%uding to the e-posure of something much more profound% ambiguous and disturbing " " " the na'ed bod underneath the c%othes" / common% cited dream for man peop%e is the e-perience of sudden% finding onese%f na'ed in a pub%ic p%ace: dress, or the %ac' of it in this case, serves as a metaphor for fee%ings of shame, embarrassment and vu%nerabi%it in our cu%ture, as $e%% as indicating the $a in $hich the mora% order demands that the bod be covered in some $a " These e-amp%es i%%ustrate the $a in $hich dress is part of the micro5order of socia% interaction and intimate% connected to our (rather fragi%e) sense of se%f, $hich is, in turn, threatened if $e fai% to conform to the standards governing a particu%ar socia% situation" &ress is therefore a crucia% dimension in the articu%ation of persona% identit , but not in the sense sometimes argued b theorists, for e-amp%e, (o%hemus (1996) and @in'e%stein (1991) $ho err too much on the side of vo%untarism, dress as free% $i%%ed, e-pressive and creative" Cn the contrar , identit is managed through dress in rather more mundane and routine $a s, because socia% pressure encourages us to sta $ithin the bounds of $hat is defined in a situation as norma% bod and appropriate dress" This is not to sa that dress has no creative or e-pressive 7ua%ities to it, but rather that too much attention and $eight has been given to this and too %itt%e to the $a in $hich strategies of dress have a strong socia% and mora% dimension to them that serves to constrain the choices peop%e ma'e about $hat to $ear" TseM%on (199*) has argued that dress choices are made $ithin specific conte-ts, and provides good e-amp%es of the $a s in $hich occasions such as ?ob intervie$s, $eddings, etc" constrain dress choices" #er $or' therefore points to an important aspect of dress that re7uires that it be studied as a situated bodi% practice" &ifferent occasions, different situations, operate $ith different codes of dress and bodi% demeanor, so that $hi%e $e ma dress unref%e-ive% some of the time (to do the grocer shopping or ta'e the 'ids to schoo%), at other times $e are thoughtfu%, de%iberate and ca%cu%ating in our dress (0 must not $ear that $hite dress to the $edding) 0 must bu a ne$ suit>?ac'et>tie for that ?ob intervie$)" @urthermore, dress is a%so structured in the .est (and increasing% be ond) b the fashion s stem, $hich, in defining the %atest aesthetic, he%ps to shape trends and tastes that structure our e-perience of dress in dai% %ife" +ross%e (1995a) suggests that another point of contact bet$een ;offman and :er%eau5(ont is that both ta'e account of space in their ana% sis" #e argues that $hi%e :er%eau5(ont is good at articu%ating spatia%it and the perception of it, ;offman provides us $ith concrete

accounts of ho$ this occurs in the socia% $or%d" ;offmanEs (19*=) sense of space is both socia% and perceptua%, and provides a %in' bet$een the structura%ist>post5structura%ist ana% sis of space de%ineated b &oug%as (19*3, 19*9) and @oucau%t (19**) in terms of socia% order and regu%ation, and the phenomeno%ogica% ana% sis of space as e-perientia%" :oreover, according to +ross%e , ;offman ta'es the ana% sis of bodi% demeanor in socia% situations further than either :er%eau5(ont and indeed :auss" ;offman e%aborates on :aussEs techni7ues of the bod , not on% recogni,ing that such things as $a%'ing are socia%% structured, but considering a%so ho$ $a%'ing is not on% a part of the interaction order, but serves a%so to reproduce it" @or ;offman, the spaces of the street, the office, the shopping ma%%, operate $ith different ru%es and determine ho$ $e present ourse%ves and ho$ $e interact $ith others" #e reminds us of the territoria% nature of space, and describes ho$, $hen $e use space, $e have to negotiate cro$ds, dar' 7uiet spaces, etc" 0n other $ords, he articu%ates the $a in $hich action transforms space" This ac'no$%edgment of space can i%%uminate the situated nature of dress" 0f, as 0 have argued, dress forms part of the micro5socia% order of most socia% spaces, $hen $e dress $e attend to the norms of particu%ar spatia% situations: is there a code of dress $e have to abide b K $ho are $e %i'e% to meetK $hat activities are $e %i'e% to performK ho$ visib%e do $e $ant to beK (do $e $ant to stand out in the cro$d or b%end inK), etc" .hi%e $e ma not a%$a s be a$are of a%% these issues, $e interna%i,e particu%ar ru%es or norms of dress, $hich $e routine% emp%o unconscious% " 0 have argued e%se$here (<nt$ist%e =999b) that the professiona% $oman is more %i'e% to be conscious of her bod and dress in pub%ic spaces of $or' than at home or even in her private office" !pace is e-perienced territoria%% b professiona% $omen, $ho routine% ta%' of putting on their ?ac'ets to go to meetings and $hen $a%'ing around their $or'p%aces, but ta'ing them off $hen in the privac of their offices, the reason being to cover their breasts so as to avoid unso%icited se-ua% g%ances from men" Thus spaces impose different $a s of being on gendered bodies: $omen ma have to thin' more carefu%% about ho$ the appear in pub%ic than men, at %east in some situations, and the $a the e-perience pub%ic spaces such as offices, boardrooms, or 7uiet streets at night, is %i'e% to be different to the $a men e-perience such spaces" The spaces at $or' carr different meanings for $omen, and as a conse7uence the have deve%oped particu%ar strategies of dress for managing the ga,e of others, especia%% men, in pub%ic spaces at $or'" Their strategies of dress both ref%ect the gendered nature of the $or'p%ace and represent an adaptation to this space in terms of their e-perience of it" 0n a simi%ar $a , $omen dressing up for a night out might $ear a coat to cover up an outfit, such as a short s'irt and s'imp top, $hich might fee% comfortab%e $hen $orn in a nightc%ub, but $hich might other$ise ma'e them fee% vu%nerab%e $hen $a%'ing do$n a 7uiet street %ate at night" 0n this respect, the spaces of the nightc%ub and the street impose their o$n structures on the individua% and her sense of her bod , and she ma in turn emp%o strategies of dress aimed at managing her bod in these spaces"

Dress and !abitus BourdieuEs (1986, 1989, 1996) $or' offers another potentia%% usefu% socio%ogica% ana% sis of embodiment, and his ana% sis, $hich bui%ds a bridge bet$een approaches to the $or%d that prioriti,e either ob?ective structures or sub?ective meanings, provides a $a of thin'ing through dress as a situated bodi% practice" #is notion of the habitus mar's an attempt to overcome the either>or of ob?ectivism and sub?ectivism" /s a s stem of durab%e, transposab%e dispositions that are produced b the particu%ar conditions of a c%ass grouping, the habitus enab%es the reproduction of c%ass (and gender) through the active embodiment of individua%s $ho are structured b it, as opposed to the passive inscription of po$er re%ations on to the bod " Thus, the notion of %ived practice is not individua%istic, it is more than simp% the aggregate of individua% behavior (Gen'ins 199=)" 0n this respect, BourdieuEs $or' e%aborates in concrete $a s :er%eau5(ont Es phi%osophica% approach to embodiment" /s +sordas (1993: 13*) argues: to con?oin BourdieuEs understanding of LhabitusE as an unse%fconscious orchestration of practices $ith :er%eau5(ont Es notion of the Lpre5ob?ectiveE suggests that embodiment need not be restricted to the persona% or d adic micro5ana% sis customari% associated $ith phenomeno%og but is re%evant as $e%% to socia% co%%ectivities" 0n this $a , the habitus is the ob?ective outcome of particu%ar socia% conditions, structured structures, but these structures cannot be 'no$n in advance of their %ived practice" The individua% socia% agent deve%ops a fee% for the game, and in the process, comes to interpret, conscious% or unconscious% , the Lru%esE and improvise around them" /ccording to :c4a (1999), in foregrounding embodiment in his concept of the habitus and in arguing that po$er is active% reproduced through it, Bourdieu provides for a more comp%e- and nuanced ana% sis of the bod than @oucau%t $hose passive bod is inscribed $ith po$er and an effect of it" The potentia% of the habitus as a concept for thin'ing through embodiment is that it provides a %in' bet$een the individua% and the socia%: the $a $e come to %ive in our bodies is structured b our socia% position in the $or%d, but these structures are on% reproduced through the embodied actions of individua%s" Cnce ac7uired, the habitus enab%es the generation of practices that are constant% adaptab%e to the conditions it meets" 0n terms of dress, the habitus predisposes individua%s to particu%ar $a s of dressing: for e-amp%e, the midd%e5c%ass notion of L7ua%it not 7uantit E genera%% trans%ates into a concern $ith 7ua%it fabrics such as cashmere, %eather, si%', $hich, because of their cost, ma mean bu ing fe$er garments" #o$ever $hi%e socia% co%%ectivities, c%ass and gender for e-amp%e, and socia% situations structure the codes of dress, these are re%ative% open to interpretation and are on% rea%i,ed through the embodied practice of dress itse%f" Thus dress is the resu%t of a comp%enegotiation bet$een the individua% and the socia% and, $hi%e it is genera%% predictab%e, it cannot be 'no$n in advance of the game, since the structures and ru%es of a situation on% set the parameters of dress, but cannot entire% determine it" BourdieuEs habitus and his theor of practice are usefu% for overcoming the bias to$ards te-ts and to$ards the discursive bod , and have much potentia% for understanding the dressed bod as the outcome of situated

bodi% practices" The strength of BourdieuEs account app%ied to dress is that it is not reductive: dress as %ived practice is the outcome of neither oppressive socia% forces on the one hand, nor agenc on the other" /s :c4a (1999: 95) argues, it ie%ds a more d namic theor of embodiment than @oucau%tEs $or' $hich fai%s to thin' through the materia%it of the bod and thus vaci%%ates bet$een determinism and vo%untarism" Bourdieu provides an account of sub?ectivit that is both embodied, un%i'e @oucau%tEs passive bod and his techno%ogies of the se%f, and active in its adaptation of the habitus" /s such, it enab%es an account of dress that does not fa%% into vo%untarism and assume that one is free to se%f5fashion autonomous% " (o%hemusEs (1996) ana% sis of streetst %e is i%%ustrative of such a vo%untarist approach to fashion and dress, $hich is $hat has tended to define recent $or' in this area" 0n his idea of the supermar'et of st %e (o%hemus argues that the mi-ing of outh cu%ture tribes in recent ears has meant %ess c%ear% differentiated boundaries bet$een groups, $hi%e his metaphor suggests that oung peop%e are no$ free to choose from a range of st %es at $i%% as if the $ere choices on disp%a in a supermar'et" #o$ever, such an emphasis on free and creative e-pression g%osses over the structura% constraints of c%ass, gender, %ocation, and income that set materia% boundaries for oung peop%e, as $e%% as the constraints at $or' in a variet of situations that serve to set parameters around dress choice" /s :c4a (1999: 9*) argues, @oucau%tEs %ater $or' on techno%ogies of the se%f rather assumes that identit is open to se%ffashioning, and thus fai%s to consider fu%% the reca%citrance of embodied e-istence to se%f5fashioning" #o$ever, the notion of the habitus as a d namic, durab%e and transposab%e set of dispositions does a%%o$ some sense of agenc on the part of individua%s" &ress in ever da %ife cannot be 'no$n in advance of practice b e-amination of the fashion industr or fashion te-ts" 0t is a practica% negotiation bet$een the fashion s stem as a structured s stem, the socia% conditions of ever da %ife, such as c%ass, gender and the %i'e, and in addition the ru%es or norms governing particu%ar socia% situations" +hoices over dress are a%$a s defined $ithin a particu%ar conte-t: the fashion s stem provides the ra$ materia% of our choices but these are adapted $ithin the conte-t of the %ived e-perience of the $oman, her c%ass, race and ethnicit , age, occupation and so on" The outcome of this comp%e- interaction cannot be 'no$n in advance precise% because the habitus enab%es improvisation and adaptation to these conditions" 0t thus enab%es one to ta%' about dress as individua%sE attempts to orientate themse%ves to particu%ar circumstances, and thus recogni,es the structuring inf%uences of the socia% $or%d on the one hand, and the agenc of the individua%s $ho ma'e choices as to $hat to $ear on the other" The habitus is a%so usefu% for understanding ho$ dress st %es are gendered and ho$ gender is active% reproduced through dress" #o$ever much gendered identit has been prob%emati,ed of %ate, and ho$ever much gender ro%es ma have changed, gender is sti%% entrenched $ithin the bod st %es of men and $omen, or, as :c4a (1999: 98) puts it, embedded in incu%cated, bodi% dispositions, $hich are re%ative% invo%untar , pre5ref%e-ive" To give a concrete ana% sis of a particu%ar fie%d and return to the e-amp%e of dress at $or', it is apparent that there are

gendered st %es of dress $ithin the $or'p%ace, especia%% the $hite5co%%ar and professiona% $or'p%ace" #ere $e find that the suit is the standard mascu%ine dress) and, $hi%e $omen have adopted suits in recent ears, theirs differ in man respects from menEs" .omen have more choices in terms of dress, in that the can, in most $or'p%aces, $ear s'irts or trousers $ith their ?ac'ets) the have $ider choice in terms of co%or than the usua% b%ac', gra , or nav of most ma%e suits for the conventiona% office, and can decorate them more e%aborate% $ith ?e$e%r and other accessories (<nt$ist%e 199*, =999b) :o%%o 1989)" #o$ever, in order to understand this fie%d one must ta'e account of the historica% modes of being in the $or'p%ace, as $e%% as the nature of the habitus of this particu%ar fie%d" !ignificant% , $omenEs adoption of tai%ored c%othes has to do $ith the orientation of $omenEs bodies to the conte-t of the ma%e $or'p%ace and its habitus" 0n this fie%d, se-ua%it is deemed inappropriate (it is distracting from production), and the suit, $hich covers a%% the ma%e bod e-cept for the nec' and hands, has become the standard st %e of dress for men" The meanings of the suit are comp%e- and nuanced, and, $hi%e it does not ob%iterate the se-ua%it of the ma%e bod , it $or's to obscure, b%ur or reduce it, as +o%%ier (1998) has argued" 0n addition, it has come to connote professiona%" B e-amining different st %es of dress and corporea%it at $or', +o%%ier (1998: 36) argues that the ma%e bod at $or' attempts to distance itse%f from connotations of the bod and eroticism: the suit serves the purpose of de5se-ua%i,ing the ma%e bod , not in the sense of rendering men in suits be ond erotic attachment (far from it) but rather in terms of erasing the se-ed specificit of the individua% ma%e bod " 0n other $ords, rendering invisib%e the ma%e bod , the suit hides se-ed characteristics, but more important% , as the standard of dress %ong estab%ished, this bod is normative $ithin the pub%ic sphere, it has come to represent neutra%it and disembodiment (Thornton in +o%%ier 1998: 36)" .omenEs movement into this sphere, as secretaries and %ater as professiona%s, re7uired them to adopt a simi%ar uniform to designate them as $or'ers and thus as pub%ic as opposed to private figures" #o$ever, the feminine bod , as Berger (19*=), :c4a (199=), :u%ve (1989) and .o%f (1999) have argued is a%$a s, potentia%% at %east, a se-ua% bod , and $omen have not entire% been ab%e to escape this association, despite their cha%%enge to tradition and the ac7uisition, in part, of se-ua% e7ua%it " 0n other $ords, $omen are sti%% seen as %ocated in the bod , $hereas men are seen as transcending it" Thus, $hi%e a $oman can $ear a tai%ored suit much the same as a man, her identit $i%% a%$a s be as a fema%e professiona%, her bod and her gender being outside the norm mascu%ine (<nt$ist%e =999b) !heppard 1989, 1993)" .hi%e her suit ma $or' to cover her bod and reduce its se-ua% associations (the ?ac'et is the most crucia% aspect of fema%e professiona% dress, covering the most se-ua%i,ed ,one, the breasts, as $as noted above), as 0 have argued (<nt$ist%e =999b) it can never entire% succeed, since a $oman brings to her dress the baggage of se-ua% meanings that are entrenched $ithin the cu%tura%% estab%ished definitions of femininit " This is not to sa that $omen are embodied and men are not) but that cu%tura% associations do not see men as embodied in the $a that $omen are" 0n his ana% sis +o%%ier (1998: 3=) argues for consideration of ma%e corporea%it at $or', suggesting that different st %es of mascu%init operate in %ega% practice, but that the se-ed

specificit of this st %e has, in contrast to the gro$ing %iterature on the corporea%it of $omen in the profession, remained %arge% une-p%ored" 0n other $ords, menEs bodies are ta'en for granted or rendered invisib%e, in contrast to the attention paid to fema%e bodies at $or' and in other pub%ic arenas" Thus, as he argues, men are embodied, but the e-perience of embodiment is often %eft out of accounts of mascu%init " #e (1998: 3=) suggests that this de5se-ing of men has been dependent on certain deep% prob%ematic assumptions, and as's, does this mean that a courtroom consisting so%e% of men is $ithout, or be ond the eroticK !uch an argument $ou%d presume, first, that intra5ma%e re%ations are ase-ua% and second% , that as se-ed beings, menEs eroticism is confined to the " " " private, affective sphere" #o$ever, $hi%e the ma%e suit can, at %east superficia%% , efface the ma%e bod , it cannot ob%iterate the fema%e bod , $hich is a%$a s feminine and b association, se-ua%" Thus, $hi%e more $omen $or', and increasing% in ma%e5defined arenas, brea' $ith more traditiona% images of femininit , the transformator impact upon embodied feminine identit and upon the co%%ective subordination of $omen in societ is far from certain (:c4a 1999: 198)" :c4a (1999: 198) therefore argues that in pointing to the rootedness of gender divisions in socia% forms, the concepts of the habitus and L%e sens prati7ueE serve as a corrective to socio%ogica%% naNve c%aims about the transformation of socia% and se-ua% identities" This is due, in part, to the %arge% unref%e-ive nature of gender, $hich, if $e dra$ again on :auss (19*3), is reproduced through techni7ues of the bod that come to fee% natura%" BourdieuEs notion of the habitus a%%o$s for the ana% sis of such differences in gender in terms of ho$ it is socia%% reproduced through bodi% st %es" 0t enab%es consideration of ho$ gender is embodied through various techni7ues, practices, and st %es, and ho$ these are repetitive and deep% embedded $ithin unref%ective practice" +hanges in the socia% $or%d, such as the changing status of $omen, are, according to Bourdieu, s%o$ to find their $a into the habitus" #o$ever, he does a%so recogni,e that the habitus is a re%ative% open structure, and one that is constant% , if s%o$% , modified" Thus, according to :c4a (1999: 195), he produces an account of gender identit that is not a mechanistica%% determining structure but an open s stem of dispositions" These dispositions are durab%e but not eterna% (Bourdieu, 7uoted in :c4a 1999: 195)" "onclusion This artic%e has set out the theoretica% frame$or' for a socio%og of the dressed bod as a situated bodi% practice" 0 have argued that understanding dress re7uires adopting an approach that ac'no$%edges the bod as a socia% entit and dress as the outcome of both socia% factors and individua% actions" @oucau%tEs $or' ma contribute to a socio%og of the bod as discursive% constituted, but is %imited b its inattention to the %ived bod and its practices, and to the bod as the site of the se%f" 1nderstanding dress in ever da %ife re7uires understanding not ?ust ho$ the bod is represented $ithin the fashion s stem and its discourses on dress, but a%so ho$ the bod is e-perienced and %ived and the ro%e dress p%a s in the presentation of the bod >se%f" /bandoning @oucau%tEs discursive mode% of the bod does not, ho$ever, mean abandoning his

entire thesis" This frame$or', as 0 have sho$n, is usefu% for understanding the structuring inf%uences on the bod and the $a in $hich bodies ac7uire meaning in particu%ar conte-ts" #o$ever, the stud of dress as situated practice re7uires moving bet$een, on the one hand, the discursive and representationa% aspects of dress and the $a the bod >dress is caught up in re%ations of po$er, and on the other hand, the embodied e-perience of dress and the use of dress as one means b $hich individua%s orientate themse%ves to the socia% $or%d" &ress invo%ves practica% actions directed b the bod upon the bod , $hich resu%t in $a s of being and $a s of dressing, such as $a s of $a%'ing to accommodate high hee%s, $a s of breathing to accommodate a corset, $a s of bending in a short s'irt, and so on" / socio%ogica% account of dress as an embodied and situated practice needs to ac'no$%edge the $a s in $hich both the e-perience of the bod and the various practices of dress are socia%% structured" Ieferences Barthes, I" 1985" The @ashion ! stem" Bondon: +ape" Be%%, F" 19*8" Cn #uman @iner " Bondon: #ogarth (ress" Berger, G" 19*=" .a s of !eeing" #armonds$orth: (enguin" Bourdieu, (" 1986" &istinction: / !ocia% +riti7ue of the Gudgement of Taste" +ambridge, :/: #arvard 1niversit (ress" 1989" Cut%ine of a Theor of (ractice" +ambridge: +ambridge 1niversit (ress" 1996" !tructures, #abitus and (ractices" 0n (" (ress (ed"), The (o%it Ieader in !ocia% Theor , +ambridge: (o%it (ress" But%er, G" 1999" ;ender Troub%e: @eminism and the !ubversion of 0dentit " Bondon: Iout%edge" 1993" Bodies That :atter" Bondon: Iout%edge" +ampbe%%, +" 199*" .hen the :eaning 0s 4ot a :essage: / +riti7ue of the +onsumption as +ommunication Thesis" 0n :" 4ava, /" B%a'e, 0" :acIur , and B" Iichards (eds), Bu this Boo': !tudies in /dvertising and +onsumption, Bondon: Iout%edge" +o%%ier, I" 1998" L4utt (rofessorsE, L:en in !uitsE and L4e$ <ntrepreneursE: +orporea%it , !ub?ectivit and +hange in the Ba$ !choo% and Bega% (ractice" !ocia% and Bega% !tudies, * (1): =*A53" +ross%e , 4" 1995a" Bod Techni7ues, /genc and 0nter5corpora%it : Cn ;offmanEs Ie%ations in (ub%ic" !ocio%og 1=9 (1): 133A69" 1995b" :er%eau5(ont , the <%usive Bod and +arna% !ocio%og " Bod and !ociet , 1 (1): 63A83" 1998" Bod >!ub?ect, Bod >(o$er: /genc , 0nscription and +ontro% in @oucau%t and :er%eau5(ont " Bod and !ociet , = (=): 99A118" +sordas, T" G" 1993" !omatic :odes of /ttention" +u%tura% /nthropo%og , 8 (=): 135A58" 1998" 0ntroduction: The Bod /s Iepresentation and Being5inthe5$or%d" 0n T" G" +sordas (ed"), <mbodiment and <-perience: The <-istentia% ;round of +u%ture and !e%f" +ambridge: +ambridge 1niversit (ress" &avis, @" 199=" @ashion, +u%ture and 0dentit " +hicago: 1niversit of +hicago (ress" &errida, G" 19*8" Cf ;rammato%og " Ba%timore, :&: Gohns #op'ins 1niversit (ress"

&iamond, 0" and B" Fuinb (eds)" 1988" @eminism and @oucau%t: Ief%ections on Iesistance" Boston: 4ortheastern 1niversit (ress" &oug%as, :" 19*9" 4atura% ! mbo%s: <-p%orations in +osmo%og " Bondon: Barrie O Ioc'%iff" 19*9" 0mp%icit :eanings: <ssa s in /nthropo%og " Bondon: Iout%edge" 1986" (urit and &anger: /n /na% sis of the +oncept of (o%%ution and Taboo" Bondon: Iout%edge and 2egan (au%" <co, 1" 1988" Bumbar Thought" Trave%s in # perrea%it " Cr%ando, @B: #arcourt Brace Govanovich" <nt$ist%e, G" 199*" (o$er &ressing and the @ashioning of the +areer .oman" 0n :" 4ava, 0" :acIur , /" B%a'e, and B" Iichards (eds), Bu this Boo': !tudies in /dvertising and +onsumption" Bondon: Iout%edge"368 Goanne <nt$ist%e =999a" The @ashioned Bod : @ashion, &ress and :odern !ociet " +ambridge: (o%it " =999b" @ashioning the +areer .oman: (o$er &ressing as a !trateg of +onsumption" 0n :" Ta%bot and :" /ndre$s (eds), /%% the .or%d and #er #usband: .omen and +onsumption in the T$entieth +entur " Bondon: +asse%%" <nt$ist%e, G" and <" .i%son" 1998" The Bod +%othed" 0n / 199 Pears of /rt and @ashion (cata%og)" Bondon: #a $ard ;a%%er " @in'e%stein, G" 1991" The @ashioned !e%f" +ambridge: (o%it " @oucau%t, :" 19**" &iscip%ine and (unish" #armonds$orth: (enguin" 1989" Bod >(o$er" 0n +" ;ordon (ed"), (o$er>2no$%edge: !e%ected 0ntervie$s and Cther .ritings 19*=A**" 4e$ Por': (antheon Boo's" 1988" The #istor of !e-ua%it : Ho%ume Three, The +are of the !e%f" Bondon: (enguin" @reeman, +" 1993" &esigning .omen: +orporate &iscip%ine and BarbadosEs Cff5shore (in' +o%%ar !ector" +u%tura% /nthropo%og , 8 (=)" ;amman, B" and :" :a'inen" 1996" @ema%e @etishism: / 4e$ Boo'" Bondon: Ba$rence and .ishart" ;iddens, /" 1991" :odernit and !e%f50dentit : !e%f and !ociet in the Bate :odern /ge" +ambridge: (o%it " ;offman, <" 19*1" The (resentation of !e%f in <ver da Bife" Bondon: (enguin" 19*=" Ie%ations in (ub%ic" #armonds$orth: (e%ican Boo's" #a%%, !" and T" Gefferson" (eds) 19*8" Iesistance Through Iitua%s: Pouth !ubcu%tures in (ost5$ar Britain" Bondon: #utchinson" #aug, @" (ed") 198*" @ema%e !e-ua%i,ation" Bondon: Herso" #ebdige, &" 19*9" !ubcu%ture: The :eaning of !t %e" Bondon: :ethuen" #o%%ander, /" 1993" !eeing Through +%othes" Ber'e%e , +/: 1niversit of +a%ifornia (ress" Gen'ins, I" 199=" (ierre Bourdieu" Bondon: Iout%edge" 2uhn, /" 1988" The Bod and +inema: !ome (rob%ems for @eminism" 0n !" !heridan (ed"), ;rafts: @eminist +u%tura% +riticism" Bondon: Herso" 2un,%e, &" 198=" @ashion and @etishism: / !ocia% #istor of the +orset, Tight5%acing and Cther @orms of Bod 5!cu%pture in the .est" Toto$a, 4G: Io$an and Bitt%efie%d"

Buc', 2" 199=" Troub%e in <den, Troub%e $ith <ve: .omen, Trousers and 1topian !ocia%ism in 4ineteenth +entur /merica" 0n G" /sh and <" .i%son (eds), +hic Thri%%s: / @ashion Ieader" Bondon: (andora" Burie, /" 1981" The Banguage of +%othes" 4e$ Por': Iandom #ouse" :auss, :" 19*3" Techni7ues of the Bod " <conom and !ociet , = (1): *9A89" :c4a , B" 199=" @oucau%t and @eminism: (o$er, ;ender and the !e%f" +ambridge: (o%it (ress" 1999" ;ender, #abitus and the @ie%d: (ierre Bourdieu and the Bimits of Ief%e-ivit " Theor , +u%ture and !ociet , 18 (1): 95A11*" :er%eau5(ont , :" 19*8" The (rimac of (erception" 1!/: 4orth$estern 1niversit (ress" 1981" The (henomeno%og of (erception" Bondon: Iout%edge and 2egan (au%" :o%%o , G" T" 1989" .omen: &ress for !uccess" 4e$ Por': (eter #" . den" :u%ve , B" 1989" Hisua% and Cther (%easures" Bondon: :acmi%%an" (o%hemus, T" 1988" Bod st %es" Buton: Bennard" 1996" !treetst %e" Bondon: Thames and #udson" (o%hemus, T" and B" (roctor" 19*8" @ashion and /nti5fashion: /n /ntho%og of +%othing and /dornment" Bondon: +o- O . man" Iama,anog%u, +" (ed") 1993" 1p /gainst @oucau%t: <-p%orations of !ome Tensions bet$een @oucau%t and @eminism" Bondon: Iout%edge" Ioberts, #" 19**" The <-7uisite !%ave: The Io%e of +%othes in the :a'ing of the Hictorian .oman" !igns, = (3): 556A89" !t :artin, B" and ;ave , 4" 1998" .omen Bod Bui%ding: @eminist Iesistance and>or @emininit Es Iecuperation" Bod and !ociet , = (6): 65A5*" !chu%,e, B" 1999" Cn the :usc%e" 0n G" ;aines and +" #er,og (eds), @abrications: +ostume and the @ema%e Bod " Bondon: Iout%edge" !heppard, &" B" 1989" Crganisations, (o$er and !e-ua%it : The 0mage and !e%f50mage of .omen :anagers" 0n G" <" /" #earn (ed"), The !e-ua%it of the Crganisation" Bondon: !age" 1993" .omen :anagersE (erceptions of ;ender and Crgani,ationa% Bife" 0n /" G" :i%%s and (" Tancred (eds), ;endering Crgani,ationa% /na% sis" Bondon: !age" ! nnott, /" 1993" The Bod !ocia%: ! mbo%ism, !e%f and !ociet " Bondon: Iout%edge" TseM%on, <" 199*" The :as7ue of @emininit " Bondon: !age" Turner, B" 1985" The Bod and !ociet : <-p%orations in !ocia% Theor " C-ford: Basi% B%ac'$e%%" Turner, T" 1998" Bodies and /nti5bodies: @%esh and @etish in +ontemporar !ocia% Theor " 0n T" +sordas (ed"), <mbodiment and <-perience: The <-istentia% ;round of +u%ture and !e%f" +ambridge: +ambridge 1niversit (ress" .i%%is, (" 19*5" The <-pressive !t %e of a :otor5bi'e +u%ture" 0n Bentha%% and (o%hemus (eds), The Bod as a :edium of <-pression" Bondon: /%%en Bane" 19*8" (rofane +u%ture" Bondon: Iout%edge O 2egan (au%" .i%son, <" 1985" /dorned in &reams: @ashion and :odernit " Bondon: Hirago"