On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, mike larkin wrote:
> Yes, I do think they're expressing their
> individuality--to the best of their ability under
> consumer capitalist contraints. Would you prefer that
> they all be standing around wearing white shirts and
> blazers? If you can choose a red shirt or a blue shirt
> instead of simply being forced to wear a white shirt,
> you are expressing some degree of individuality.
>
But if your "choice" is determined by the brand (nike swoosh, hilfiger, etc.) is it really an individual choice? The conceit that "fashion" is a individual expression of choice is similar to the conceit that wage workers in a capitalist society have freedom to live their lives the way they want. (After all, they're not serfs, they can change jobs, etc., etc.).
In both cases, existing social structures constrain and create the choices possible. Regardless of my individual choices about work, I have no choice (at the present time) about participating directly or indirectly in the wage system. Similarly, I can choose between shirts, but what makes one shirt "better" than another? Again, a socially produced and reinforced fashion system that codifies one style/color/pattern as temporarily superior to another. In a trivial sense, I can choose a shirt; in a real sociostructural sense, the choice is determined for me, and it's naive to claim I have agentic power here.
This is why the school uniform thing doesn't bother me: the constraint on appearance due to school uniforms is obvious to everyone. The constraint imposed by "fashion" is more insidious, because people tend to glorify fashion as individual expression. This individualist ideology completely obscures the fact that the "choices" of the kid in the hiphuggers and the platform shoes is just as much a predictable product of social structures as is a Catholic kid's school uniform.
Miles