Inconspicuous dressing: A critique of the construction-through-consumption paradigm in the sociology of clothing

Abstract

Based on 'wardrobe interviews', this article studies how young Dutch men dress themselves. We argue that existing sociological studies of clothing have gone too far in emphasizing the symbolic aspects of clothing and have not paid sufficient attention to the role of routines and rules in daily dressing. Moreover, we find that young Dutch men dress rather inconspicuously, and are hardly interested in using clothes as a tool in 'postmodern' identity experiments. Insofar as clothing selection is a matter of reflexivity, it is primarily directed at conformity to meet social and situational requirements. Our respondents use clothing to construct coherent and authentic identities: their dress should express who they think they are. Convincing others of their unique identity is hardly desirable for these men. Finally, for most of them clothing is a negative act: they seek to avoid attracting attention through their dress. Our respondents are aware of the fact that their inconspicuous dress is similar to those of their companions, but this is a source of comfort rather than distress.

Sustainable Luxury Marketing: A Synthesis and Research Agenda

“…; Sthapita et al . ), but only if they are incorporated quietly (van der Laan and Velthuis ). Research also suggests that, to a certain extent, engaging in sustainable practices has become a measure of quality that is expected by luxury consumers (Kapferer and Michaut‐Denizeau ).…”

Critical reflections on the marketing concept and consumer sovereignty

“…Regularly changing identity is cognitively demanding, time-consuming and expensive. Most people probably eschew this level of commitment, preferring less involved forms of expression (Der Laan & Velthuis, 2016;Eckhardt et al, 2015).…”

Fashion, functionality, and the contemporary consumer

“…After Warde (1994: 877, 891) expressed some doubts about self-identity possibly being the paramount value in consumption, some other sociologists have also found the notion of fashion primarily as a source of identity “tendentious”; and have concluded that almost all accounts of consumption based on this position are, at least, “exaggerated.” There really might be something “obscure” and even “empty” about the admittedly compelling conceptual understanding of fashion primarily as a source of identity (see Wilska, 2002: 196; Sweetman, 2003; van der Laan and Velthuis, 2016). What makes the paradigm difficult to understand and accept is, first, its neglect of the core sociological variables such as class, age, ethnicity, and gender (Sweetman, 2003), as well as its inattention to some basic values such as “sheer utility” (van der Laan and Velthuis, 2016: 22–23).…”

“…It is useful to relate these two paradigm changes: on the one hand, there is the recent corporate narrative of the Fast Retailing Group with its focus on the functional aspects of clothing consumption; and, on the other, there is the work of a group of researchers who are interested in “the mundane, ordinary aspects of consumption and the routine-like, non-reflexive and non-conspicuous aspects of consumer behavior” (Sweetman, 2003; van der Laan and Velthuis, 2016: 24–25; Warde, 1994; Wilska, 2002). 2 Here I argue that the corporate narrative of Uniqlo and the recent sociological work represented by the above-mentioned researchers and others share a new understanding of the contemporary consumer – an understanding which is, in my opinion, more realistic than that associated with the earlier work of, among others, Anthony Giddens and Zygmunt Bauman.…”