Miller, Kimberly A. 1999. “The Body in Context.” Pp. 12-24 in The Meanings of Dress, edited by Mary Lynn Damhorst, Kimberly A. Miller, and Susan O. Michelman. New York: Fairchild Publications.

Kaiser (1997) – historical, cultural, and social contexts are important to consider when interpreting dress and associated meanings. Agonic power (“doing”) attributed to men – hedonic power (“being”) attributed to women – reflecting gendered divide in activity and passivity – power through skill, versus power through cultivating appearance. *Although, Kaiser acknowledges artificiality of this dichotomy!

Damhorst (1989) – clothes are seldom divorced from social contexts – which are important for determining meanings of dress, as they vary from context to context (see also Damhorst 1985).

CITES:

Damhorst, M.L. 1985. “Meanings of Clothing Cues in Social Context.” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 3 (VOL?): 39-48.

Damhorst, M.L. 1989 (July). A Contextual Model of Clothing Sign Systems. Paper Presented at the Colloquium on the Body and Clothing as Communication. Institute of Marketing Meaning, Indianapolis, IN.

Kaiser, S.B. 1997. The Social Psychology of Clothing, second edition revised.  New York: Fairchild.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: