Kathryn Lumpkin
“It’s the Clothes that Make the Man”:
Clothing, Commodification, and Power
"Fashion is the armor to survive the reality of everyday life I don’t think you could do away with
it. It would be like doing away with civilization." - Bill Cunningham
Introduction
It is my personal belief, that in contemporary western society it is impossible to decipher
values from value and individual human worth from “valuable” personal adornments. In his
article, “The Social Skin,” Terence Turner says of dress and bodily adornment that it is, “perhaps
the [medium] most specialized in the shaping and communication of personal and societal
identity.” (Turner 114) Throughout my research, it has become clear to me that the marketing,
consumption, and repossession of clothing has become the most active way of reflecting societal
standards and downfalls. Through clothing, we as bodies become the personal embodiment of
capitalist commodification. We see examples of this in contemporary western society in the
immediate correlation between clothing choice and class association. The perceived notion of
“person,” is now based on self-expression through consumer goods.
It has become impossible to separate the man from the suit, the suit from it’s designer, the
designer label from its fiscal worth, and in turn, the worth of the man. Through articles of
clothing, people are both consciously and subconsciously placed in very specific stratified units.
We as people are emptied of our particularness by succumbing to the supposed societal
importance of fashion. However, fashion creates a perplexing conundrum, in that it is both the
great equalizer and the very thing that creates individual identity and intrinsic class systems
within both the globalized world and one’s personal community. We see a specific example of
this in the defining fashion of the Era of the ‘American Camelot’ and its powerful residual
contemporary impact on American social stratification. It is the relationship between the active
and passive actors in the “game of fashion” which perpetuates these social hierarchies and the
continued importance of the inalienable sense of power that comes from inherently alienable
objects of cloth.
Is it the Clothes that Make the Man? : Distinguishing ‘The Person’ and ‘The Body’
When discussing bodily adornment, in the form of clothing, one must first address the
notion of what ‘the body’ and ‘the person’ represent in contemporary society. Can we separate
‘the man’ from the ‘body’ if it is the ‘clothes that make the man’? Marxian theory has become a
reoccurring theme in the many different understandings of the systems of classifications of the
body offered in these questions. When comparatively deconstructing the notion of the “person”
and the “body,” many anthropologists would suggest that one must understand that “the body” is
simply the vessel in which we experience the social realm, which can include language, kinship,
capitalism, and commodification. It is that social experience which in turn affects the perceptions
and presentations of our bodies, thus invigorating the “embodiment and personhood” cycle. We
‘the people’ become the active viewers and classifiers of ‘the bodies’ in our societies.
In his article, “Modernity and Personhood in Melanesia,” Edward LiPuma attempts to
clarify the conceptions of personhood through a portrayal of the separation of the individual and
dividual in society. LiPuma utilizes the contrasting views of personhood between the western
world and Melanesia. In his description, he argues that through the use of language and the
words “you” and “I,” which appear in every known language, personal identities are formed even
within the most dividual of societies. However, he argues that we only create these words and
identities because of “socially created relations” and thus those self-perceived identities differ
greatly within different cultures. I would argue that this logic could continue beyond the
individual and into larger social groups within a specific culture.
As a person who has associated with many Old Money families, ‘us’ and ‘them’
terminology can run rampant amongst conversations with the children of wealth. ‘Us’ meaning
people of a high level of affluence and ‘them’ meaning anyone outside of that financial bracket.
Political correctness aside, the word choices distinctly create a group identity through socially
created relations. The notion of a collective group becoming an ‘I’ within the larger social
landscape, thus creates a need for defining characteristics to differentiate the ‘I’ from the ‘you’,
the ‘us’ from the ‘them.’ Turner proposes that those differentiating characteristics are created
solely by bodily adornment. He states, that the body is both a tangible boundary for the
individual while simultaneously creating the platform for a physical manifestation of
individuality or dividuality within specific cultures. (Turner 112) The bodily adornment becomes
the unspoken language, which allows people to either assimilate or stand out. Turner also focuses
on the relationship between kinship, a social production based on biology, and socially
acceptable bodily adornment.
The American Dream: Old Money, Camelot, and Prepdom
The relationship between kinship and fashion can be explored in the correlation of ‘Prep
Fashion’ and Old Money families throughout American history. In his book, Old Money
America: Aristocracy in the Age of Obama, John Hazard Forbes discusses the history and
“separateness,” what some might consider snobbery, of Old Money culture through its beliefs,
attitudes, manners, speech and dress. He states, “Old Money is a mind-set, not just a family tree
and a bank balance. Old Money encompasses an entire culture with its own ethics and traditions.
[…] Understatement, self-restraint and a near-religious devotion to civility are Old Money’s
truest hallmarks.” (Forbes 2) Historically in the United Sates, Old Money referred to renowned
East Coast families such as the Astor, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and DuPont families.
‘Old Money’ culture, while always present in American society, became iconized and accessible
during the Kennedy presidency. John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy became the fashion
icons of a generation, perpetuating the ‘Ivy League’ style of their upbringings in well-known Old
Money families. The term ‘Prep,’ which implies one attended a ‘Prep School,’ rather than ‘Old
Money’ or ‘Ivy League’ began circulating in order to make the aristocratic culture seem less
distant and more attainable to the people of the ‘American Camelot.’
In 1979, an article titled “Preppies: The Last Upper Class?” by Nelson W. Aldrich Jr. was
published at the dawn of what was to become the height of “preppy” fashion. In his article,
Aldrich states, “Whether or not they are in fact rich, all true Preppies act as if they were. But
there are many ways of acting rich. […] The Preppie way of being rich is to act as if riches had
no importance at all.” (Aldrich 1) In American society today, the Old Money family, as defined
by Forbes, has been established for around a century and is merely “well-off.” And none,
including, the incredibly wealthy, are magically shielded from financial realities. While Forbes
suggests that all Americans are on equal ground when it comes to a failing economy, he
simultaneously states that the Old Money culture perpetually strives to keep a sense of autonomy
through specific rules about education, breeding, and fashion.
‘Prep’ fashion has become so specifically uniform that it is incredibly difficult to emulate
unless raised amongst it, creating a distinct group consciousness. In her book, The Official
Preppy Handbook, Lisa Birnbach discusses the very specific “Rules of Fashion” followed, for
decades, by Old Money families. The book, written with a winking eye, and heap of tongue-in-
cheek humor, has, since it’s publication, become the gold standard in ‘prepdom’ knowledge. In
her witty chapter on self-adornment, Birnbach establishes a list of the rules of fashion for a
young man or woman who wishes to perpetuate the lifestyle of a ‘preppy.’
1. Conservatism -"Preppies wear clothes for twenty-five years and no one can tell the
difference."
2. Neatness - "Preppies shirts should always be tucked in."
3. Attention to Detail - "Everything matches."
4. Practicality - " Layering is a natural response to varying weather conditions."
5. Quality - "Everything in the wardrobe should be well made."
6. Natural Fibers - "Wool, cotton, and the odd bits of silk and cashmere."
7. Anglophilia - "The British have a lot to answer for."
8. Specific Color Blindness - "Primary colors and brilliant pastels are worn
indiscriminately by men and women alike, in preposterous combinations."
9. The Sporting Look - "Even if they've never been near a duck blind or gone beagling,
Preppies are dressed for it."
10. Androgyny - "Men and women dress as much alike as possible and clothes for either
sex should deny specifics of gender." (Birnbach 127)
Acceptable Prep Attire: LL Bean boots, Top-Sider moccasins, tasseled loafers; pure wool
socks, black silk socks, no socks; baggy chinos, baggy brick-red or lime or yellow or pink
or Pulitzer trousers, baggy Brooks Brothers trousers, baggy boxer underpants; shirts of
blue, pink, yellow, or striped Oxford, sometimes buttoned down, some made for a collar
pin, usually from Brooks or J. Press or The [name of town or college] Shop; jackets of
tweed, corduroy, poplin, seersucker with padless shoulders, a loose fit around the waist,
and (if tweed) a muddy pattern; a shapeless muddy-patterned tweed overcoat, its collar
lopsidedly rolled up under one ear, a shapeless beige raincoat bleached by years of use
and irresistant to rain; no hat, a cross country ski cap, a very old snap-brimmed felt hat,
a very old tennis hat. (Aldrich 2)
These rules are reminiscent of Peter Stallybrass’ notion of why clothing creates extreme
class-consciousness. In his article, “Marx’s Coat,” Stallybrass uses the example of the 19th
century fustian, an article of clothing that he describes as a “material memorial” that embodied
class politics. Similarly, the aforementioned list of acceptable Prep clothing is highly
representative of clothing worn by men of Old Money in the early 1900’s in the United States.
Thus, the ‘prep movement’ has become a living memorial to the Old Money families and a class
system that no longer exists to the same extent. Like the fustian was to the English peasantry, a
popped collar and a string of pearls has come to represent the embodiment of a specific class
without having to use language or action. Thus, by assuming the authoritative clothes of the past,
the Preppies create authority in the present. (Stallybrass 189)
For members of the elite, galas, dinner parties, boating, hunting, tennis and other leisure
activities each required a specific type of clothing, which in turn created the iconic wardrobe of
Old Money families. Traditionally the clothing of the wealthy was handcrafted for a particular
body for a specific occasion. The quality of the handcrafted work defined the clothing’s worth,
and in turn established the authority of the person wearing it. However, as Prep culture became
increasingly accessible and viable in the commercial market, specific brands of high-end
clothing defined worth and have become a recognized symbol of power. As many brands began
to imitate the Prep look, Lacoste, J. Press, Brooks Brothers, Ralph Lauren Polo, Fred Perry, and
Vineyard Vines were established as the original and defining brands of Prep fashion. As the
‘Prep look’ became increasingly en vogue, it became essential for Prep purists to ensure that
every detail of fashion could reveal people and brands that did not belong within the Prep social
sphere and strip them of any authority. For example, a logo, which should be highly visible, must
remain a specific size to be considered ‘Preppy.’ No logo should exceed 1.25 inches. (Birnbach
88) The very detailed rules and dress code of the sphere, learned through group specific
education and breeding, guarantees that the inherent sense of Old Money superiority remains
present amongst the members of the community.
We see a similar historical example of this in Stallybrass’ study of Marxian theory in
comparison to the literal pawn cycle of Karl Marx’s overcoat. In the same way that Prep fashion
shaped the activates of Old Money families, Stallybrass states, “What clothes Marx wore […]
shaped what he wrote.” (Stallybrass 188) He discusses how Marx could not physically brave the
winter elements nor would he be allowed to attend salon if he was not in the proper attire. Thus
Marx’s poverty made it impossible to have any sense of authority in the wider world simply
because he was not dressed according to the standard ‘dress code’ of the elite. Marx, though a
radical in thought, as a passive member of society, did not physically challenge the roles that
clothing enforced upon him. Rather, he surrendered to the prevailing notion that clothing creates
and enforces class authority.
By creating class association, clothing inherently represents an inalienable sense of power
in numbers. However, according to David Graeber, that power comes from a lack of specificity,
which creates infinite potential. In his article, "Action and Reflection, or Notes toward a Theory
of Wealth and Power,” Graeber uses the shift from decorative male clothing of the Renaissance
to the business suit and modern military uniform to discuss the changing role of clothing in
contemporary society. These articles of clothing, which are specifically designed to hide the
male body and create uniformity, simulate both a male call to action and a sense of fear in any
opponent. Unlike the plumage of the past, which highlighted ones individuality, the uniformity
of the suit, takes away any sense of uniqueness and creates a sense of invisibility and
unimportance in the individual. This, similar to Maussian theory, implies that by lacking
individualism, the public business created by those suited individuals, becomes represented
solely by insignia and other paraphernalia. (Graber 93)
One can make a similar argument for the aesthetic of Prep fashion. In her “Rules of
Fashion,” Birnbach clearly states that androgyny is a key factor in required Prep attire. She
writes, "Men and women dress as much alike as possible and clothes for either sex should deny
specifics of gender." (Birnbach 127) One could argue that through androgyny, Old Money
families are attempting to create a lack of individualism, similar to militaristic and business
tactics, in order to create strength in, what was at one time, limited numbers. By stripping the
members of high society of their gendered identities, the appearance of masculinity, emulating
from the unit, creates a sense of intimidation through uniformity.
The Globalized Power of Fashion
Globally, the transition towards modernity has fundamentally changed the way that the
adornment of an individual person crafts perception and status within any given society be it
‘Old Money’ America or a small African village. In their article, “Embodying Sociality:
Africanist-Melanesianist Comparisons,” Michael Lambek and Andrew Strathern propose that
perhaps the reason why we have even begun to focus on the importance of the person, the body,
and its adornment is because they are slowly becoming obsolete with the rise of technology.
(Lambek & Strathern 5) The Internet, which allows all people to share their societal practices,
including their rules of fashion, enables people of all backgrounds to explore social spheres
beyond their own. This globalized virtual community has created an intellectual currency that is
quickly becoming worth more than physical manifestations of material currency. As people learn
to manipulate financial hierarchies by purchasing brand name goods for reduced prices online,
the intricately stratified social system created through clothing quickly begins to unravel. It is the
relationship between intellectual currency and material currency which now dictates the state of
global social hierarchies.
The global transition toward modernity has also created instances of the commodification
of the human body itself. We see examples of this in Brad Weiss’ examination of the Haya
people of Tanzania. In his article, “Electric Vampires: Haya rumors of the Commodified Body,”
Weiss states that the Haya people, who believe that blood is both a symbol of relative health and
the power of human agency, have actually begun to embody the commodity which they have
created through their comparisons of human blood to gas and electricity. In my opinion, the
embodiment of commodity directly relates to the aforementioned example of clothing and class
association within western society. The individual and dividual expression shown through
clothing choice, creates a physical embodiment of the commercialized commodity which is
“fashion.”
We see another example of the globalization of fashion creating social hierarchies in
Suzanne Scheld’s article, “Youth Cosmopolitanism: Clothing, the City and Globalization in
Dakar, Senegal.” Scheld attempts, through her study of the circulation of second hand clothing,
to reveal political, economic, cultural and moral consequences for the active youth participants
of the fashion “social network” in Dakar, Senegal. Scheld utilizes the contrasting views of
‘fashion-induced cosmopolitanism’ between the older generations of Dakar citizens and the
urban youth in order to prove that fashion is merely a tangible reflection of the society in which
both generations co-exist. The youth, who “lie, cheat, and steal to move merchandise and
maintain the image of well-dressed, wealthy citizens,” do so in order to “fit in, stand out, and
gain an advantage.” (Scheld 244)
These youth, caught in major socio-demographic urban changes, cling to the trade, sale,
and wearing of clothing in order to simultaneously create a sense of steady community (real or
imagined) and liberate themselves from the constraints of the older generation. However, as
clothing is difficult to come by, the morals of the generation appear to be shifting. The Dakar
community, which values sharing and communal property, has seen a shift in the younger
generations towards perseverance and competitiveness through manipulation in order to achieve
profit and status. In her ethnographic work, we see a vital example of fashion changing and
defining the moral and political landscape of a major community. The active role, which these
young people play in defining social status through clothing, is creating a visible shift in power.
Yet with power, one becomes “vulnerable to attack.” (Scheld 247)
This cycle of purchasing second hand clothing as a means of attaining status is something
that has become a recent phenomenon in the Western World as well. The failing economy has
forced people of all social standings to begin shopping at second hand stores in order to create or
uphold the appearance of a specific status. The recirculation of clothing and the pawning of
goods, continues to blur the lines between the classes, which were at one time clearly defined by
bodily adornment.
Conclusion
Janice Boddy suggests that “[it is impossible to] divorce the body from person,
embodiment from relationship, relationship from history, and environment in ethnographic
work.” (Boddy 272) It is increasingly difficult to disagree with her suggestion. We, as citizens of
the global community, live in a world where “the person,” their personal worth and their place in
society is quickly and easily determined by the way that they adorn their bodies. The physical
body has become merely a vessel, which allows us to express our active or passive attempts at
achieving power and status within the ‘boundaries of fashion’ placed on us by our given
societies.
Works Cited
Aldrich, Nelson M. "Preppies: The Last Upper Class?" The Atlantic Monthly Jan. 1979. Web.
Boddy, Janice. “Afterword: Embodying Ethnography.” Bodies and Persons: Comparative
Perspectives from Africa and Melanesia. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.
Birnbach, Lisa. The Official Preppy Handbook. New York: Workman, 1980. Print.
Forbes, John. Old Money America: Aristocracy in the Age of Obama. New York: IUniverse,
2010. Print.
Graeber, David. "Action and Reflection, or Notes toward a Theory of Wealth and
Power."Towards an Anthropological Theory of Value: the False Coin of Our Own
Dreams. New York: Palgrave, 2002. 91-115. Print.
Lambek and Strathern. “Introduction: Embodying Sociality: Africanist-Melanesianist
Comparisons.” Bodies and Persons: Comparative Perspectives from Africa and
Melanesia. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.
Lipuma, Edward. "Modernity and Forms of Personhood in Melanesia." Bodies and Persons:
Comparative Perspectives from Africa and Melanesia. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP,
1998. Print.
Scheld, Suzanne. "Youth Cosmopolitanism: Clothing, the City and Globalization in Dakar,
Senegal." City & Society 19.2 (2007): 232-53. Print.
Stallybrass, Peter. "Marx's Coat." Border Fetishisms: Material Objects in Unstable Spaces. New
York: Routledge, 1998. 183-207. Print.
Turner, T. “The Social Skin.” Not Work Alone, ed. J. Cherfas and R. Lewin, London: Temple
Smith. 1980. Print.
Weiss, Brad. “Electric Vampires: Haya rumors of the Commodified Body.” Bodies and Persons:
Comparative Perspectives from Africa and Melanesia. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP,
1998. Print.