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.


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.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: