Damhorst, M.L. 1999. “Dress in Human Interaction” in MOD.

Damhorst, Mary Lynn. 1999. “Dress in Human Interaction.” Pp. 127-139 in The Meanings of Dress, edited by Mary Lynn Damhorst, Kimberly A. Miller, and Susan O. Michelman. New York: Fairchild Publications.

McCracken (1985) – because dress stays relatively fixed throughout most interactions, it may be used to communicate fixed or relatively stable characteristics of the wearer —- however, this overlooks how people may change or modify their dress over the day (based on contextual needs), or temporary breaches or accommodations away from more stable identities.

McCracken (1986) – even mundane use and maintenance of dress may add personal meanings to dress.

Dress may serve to communicate association within particular group memberships or statuses within a society, values of said group, the wearers’ intersests or tastes, as a means of generating esteem or social acceptance– or what media and designers desire to communicate through the retail of their goods.

CITES:

McCracken, G. 1985. CITE MISSING.

McCracken, G. 1986. “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods.” Journal of Consumer Research 123 (VOL?): 71-84.

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: