I propose that one possible reading of gendered ornamentation is such that women advertise their wealth and aesthetic values through self-ornamentation: wealth, through the leisure evident in having the time to braid, curl, or otherwise style the hair, apply makeup, and so on, and more directly through signifying their buying power by displaying artifacts of a fairly wealthy lifestyle (cosmetics, jewelry, a variety of clothing, clean clothing demonstrating regular access to laundry facilities and leisure to make use of them); aesthetic values, by symbolizing-actualizing the priority they place on the pleasure of seeing beautiful things. What is being advertised is a lifestyle characterized by a certain wealthy tranquility, and also by a commitment to visual beauty.
To whom is the ornamented woman advertising? It seems clear that there is truth in the feminist hermeneutic that suggests partnerable men are the primary target audience: it is likely that the ornamented unpartnered woman may be using ornamentation as an economic strategy to display the lifestyle package that she carries with her to entice men who are at present or might in the future be able to economically support her in order to interest him. This theory would predict that women who are partnered, married, or past child-bearing age (and thus have interest in being economically supported by a partner) would display less regular and less intensive ornamentation, which I think is indeed the case. This "ornamentation as advertising" theory also helps explain certain subculture types of ornamentation: a woman who is seeking a partner with specific values may adopt certain symbolic gestures of her commitment of those values to indirectly pre-screen partners, eg. the use of facial piercings to gesture to a certain feminist or marxist criticism of the commodification of female beauty, media shirts (with names of bands, tv shows etc) to advertise specific types of activities pairs could share together, etc.
That said, it is clear that there are other potential targets of this advertising - men and women who the woman may want to attract as friends or associates. The relative levels of wealth and aesthetic values seem to me to be highly relevant in the discernment process between potential friends; it is not at all obvious that the only potential outcome of this advertising process would be securing economic partners.
Why is it, then, that men are not expected to ornament in these same ways? While dressing with care is indeed related to advertisement of socioeconomic status among men, it does seem that the elements of leisure and beauty are less prominent in the way they present. There are a variety of possible of readings of this. One is that the visual aspect of the package's advertising is less important for potential partners. This could be because what has been culturally valued in men historically, say, since the industrial revolution, has been something like efficiency: simplicity of dress itself might be read as connected to the virtues associated with being economically successful; it is a different way of demonstrating wealth, in effect.
This raises interesting questions about gendered conceptions of leisure and the good life in post-industrialist urban culture. Are men not good at leisure? At friendship? If this has arisen, how can we understand it, and resist it?
It is interesting to note that Italian fashion culture among men does contrast itself consciously with American fashion culture, rejecting what it sees as drab, careless, and utilitarian norms. If I am correct in my hunch that the absence of ornamentation among men may stem in part from a poverty of leisure and relational prioritization due to an unhealthy climate of professional work, it would be interesting to examine the attitudes of men and women in cultures in which leisure and home or community life and presented as positive and expected for both sexes.
No comments:
Post a Comment