Undressing Gender
When considering all the things we associate gender with, something that often comes to mind is clothing. Clothing is an external representation of ourselves and it’s what others see on the outside. It is also generally how others judge, stereotype, and label us. I find this extremely interesting, especially with the rise of androgyny in high fashion, as well as everyday fashion. I am going to argue that clothing is a type of technology which constructs and de-constructs gender.
Firstly, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, technology is “a particular practical or industrial art.” This implies that it is something that is created for practical or industrial reasons. Clothing undoubtedly fits this definition of technology. Clothing has been created practically for warmth and to cover our naked bodies. Certain aspects of clothing, such as pockets and various different types of fabrics and materials are also utilized for practical reasons. Industrially, however, clothing is distributed in diverse shapes and forms, allowing for individuality, as well as the construction and de-construction of gender.
Gender is described, in Teresa de Lauretis’ essay “The Technology of Gender,” as a representation. Furthermore, the gender system is “a symbolic system or system of meanings that correlates sex to cultural contents according to social values and hierarchies” (deLauretis, 5). De Lauretis also describes the sex-gender system as being a sociocultural construct and a system of representation which assigns meaning to individuals within the society. In this sense, clothing represents and constructs gender in the context of culture and society. Women are expected to wear skirts and dresses and clothing that accentuate form- a slim waist, wide hips, and voluptuous breasts- such as low-cut shirts, and generally tight clothing. In addition, women are supposed to wear heels, which seem to elongate their legs, making them more attractive. In contrast, men typically wear baggy clothing, perhaps to appear larger and more dominant. Men’s clothing often has many pockets, which can be associated with usefulness. There even exists a “wife-beater,” which originated from the popularity of the sleeveless top among post-war working class men who were stereotyped as being abusive. Moreover, male accessories such as ties, and perhaps even the brim of a baseball cap, are phallic. Not only the clothing itself, but the materials are also gendered. Silk is seen as a feminine fabric, which is smooth and delicate, and sensual. Accordingly, women are supposed to look pretty and feel nice. On the other hand, wool and flannel, fabrics that are more durable, are seen as masculine because men are supposed to be tough and feel strong.
Clothing is arguably an example of Althusser’s idea of interpellation, which is “the process whereby a social representation is accepted and absorbed by an individual as her (or his) own representation” (deLauretis, 12). The choice is clothing is based entirely upon the individual, however the individual makes his/her choice based on the acceptable social representation of gender. Gender is constructed by clothing, but clothing is also absorbed subjectively by each individual, by making it their own. This is also how gender is de-constructed by clothing. In the current fashion industry, clothing is becoming more and more androgynous. Once women joined the workforce and started doing forms of “men’s work,” they also started wearing pants, giving them more freedom of movement. Women’s clothing now includes cargo pants, baggier “boyfriend” jeans, loose shirts, even ties, etc. Men’s fashion has taken a turn towards “metro-sexuality,” (the heterosexual male version of “tomboy”) which in essence is the feminization of their clothing, most notably through tighter pants and shirts. These days, a man wearing feminine clothing and a woman wearing masculine clothing wouldn’t be given a second glance. De-constructing gender through the means of clothing is slowly becoming a part of mainstream culture.
Worn outside the body, clothing is a clear model of gender representation. Similarly, clothing is heavily associated with sexuality. I would like to introduce the idea that clothing as a technology also interacts with the idea that technology is masculine. Later in deLauretis’ essay, she claims that “female sexuality is thought of in terms of its relation to male sexuality, as basically expressive and responsive to the male” (deLauretis, 14). In (heterosexual) Western society, women as a whole, continue to dress in low-cut shirts, tight pants, and short skirts, appealing to their male counterparts. Even the lack of clothing, exposure to bare skin, and popularity of sexy lingerie, all cater to men, whether women want to admit it or not. Grint and Grill’s eco-feminist view would claim that clothing is also an example of the way in which men try to dominate and control women. In cultures such as Islam, women’s clothing is based on modesty and women either wear a hijab, which refers to modest dress and a loose scarf covering the head, or a burqa, which covers the entire body. Is it possible that via the representation of gender through clothing, men create the social norms for women? And thus perpetuating the technology of gender which is inherently masculine?
Works Cited:
deLauretis, Teresa. “The Technology of Gender.” Technologies of Gender: Essays on Theory, Film and Fiction. Indiana University, 1987. 1-30.
Grint, Keith and Rosalind Gill. “The Gender-Technology Relation: An Introduction.” The Gender-Technology Relation: Contemporary Theory and Research. Bristol, Pa.: Taylor & Francis, 1995. 1-28.
Comments are closed.
ZY—
What most captures my attention here is your striking “turn,” in the last paragraph of your essay, to link the “masculinization of technology” to “the technology of clothing,” in order to argue (okay, it’s much more tentative that that! –to suggest) that, in using clothes to accentuate their femininity, women are responding to masculine preferences, and so enacting masculine technologies. Feminine fashion thereby becomes a masculine technology. (Is there a slide here, from preference to technology? Is there any important distinction to be made between them?)
And does that move open up the possibility for another turn? That masculine technology thereby becomes feminized? Deeper question: does the matter of interpellation, in which an individual willingly absorbs social representation as her own individual style, give us a way to critique the commonsensical history of the masculinization of technology? By asserting that—although women have participated in the process all along–only men have been identified as agents?
A couple of other spots raised questions for me:
–Early on you say that the industrial production of clothing allows for individuality; I’d say just the opposite: that it invokes conformity, by producing clothing that is similar, and branded as such.
–I’m struck by the contrast you develop between women’s clothing, which accentuates the form of their body, and men’s which de-accentuates bodily form. Why might that be?
–But a sharp contrast here is that remarkable term “wife-beater,” which both accentuates the male muscular form (by revealing it) and conventional norms of violent, abusive behavior.
–I’d also like to see a more nuanced definition of “metrosexual” than “feminized male”; there’s a very particular sort of femininity being enacted in that category.
–Finally: you don’t give much space to the folks who choose to dress based on what is unacceptable…and I’m confused, by the end, about whether you are giving more weight to the increasing use of androgynous clothing, or to people “as a whole” dressing to accentuate gender difference.