170
Social Practice
Fashion: Towards
a Decolonizing
Framework for
Fashion
Studies
and
Author/s
Henry Navarro Delgado
Practices
Ryerson University
Abstract
Keywords
Decolonization
Equity & inclusion
Responsible academics
Equitable futures
Under pressure from their diverse global audiences, mainstream
fashion brands, as well as independent ones, are taking steps to
embrace inclusive, antiracist and anti-colonialist business practices.
The fashion industry’s incorporation of these decolonial practices
mirrors similar changes taking place at leading fashion education
institutions around the world. Thus, there seems to be a consensus
that decolonizing the discipline of fashion studies is a pressing task
that impacts society at large. But how can fashion studies dismantle
Eurocentrism, white supremacy, and colonialism if the theoretical and
epistemological foundations of the discipline are Eurocentric, white
supremacist, and colonialist? Considering this dilemma, the paper’s
central argument is that to decolonize fashion the only sensible
option would be to reclaim the discipline from its Western-biased,
Eurocentric theories, histories, and intellectual tendencies. Through
a Critical Discourse Analysis of the dominant theoretical approaches
in fashion studies, the paper demonstrates that these hegemonic
Eurocentric theories, although widely recognized and favored by
many scholars, exclude a diversity of dressed body and fashion
practices, symbolisms, and epistemologies. Most importantly, the
paper presents Social Practice Fashion as an alternative theoretical
approach to the paradigms preventing fashion from fully fulfilling
its inclusive and decolonizing potentials. The Social Practice
Fashion theory is based on the understanding that fashion is a
social phenomenon practiced by all human cultures throughout our
history in this planet. Thus, the paper concludes that this theoretical
framework is better positioned to counter the colonial roots of the
hegemonic methods, practices, and paradigms of both, the fashion
industry, and the scholarly discipline of fashion studies.
* X University signals my support for Indigenous and non-Indigenous students and faculty advocating for the change
of our university name. The current name, Ryerson University celebrates Egerton Ryerson, one of the architects of the
Indigenous Residential School system in Canada.
Introduction
Most contemporary fashion scholars would agree that
efforts to decolonize fashion are crucially urgent steps for
our discipline (Puga, 2018; Slade, 2020; Niessen, 2020).
Such efforts are driven by a worldwide acknowledgement
that gender, racial and cultural biases continue to pervade
the fashion industry and fashion studies alike (Dirks, 1992;
Plous and Neptune, 1997; Hansen, 2004). However, for
fashion to evolve into a practice and scholarly discipline that
truly exhibits socially progressive decolonial fundaments
such as equity, diversity, and ethical principles, it first needs
to challenge its elitist, colonialist, and white supremacist
theoretical foundation. Social Practice Fashion is a theory
positioned to achieve exactly that; to counter the hegemony
of Euro-centric and colonial theoretical frameworks still
prevalent in fashion studies.
The immense theoretical contributions of white intellectuals
of European descent such as Georg Simmel, Roland
Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jean Baudrillard, Pierre Bourdieu
and Jacques Derrida loom large for the discipline of fashion
studies (Wilson, 2003; Barnard, 2020). Perhaps part of
fashion’s pervasive exclusionary theoretical posture can be
blamed to the lack of diversity within the ranks of influential
fashion scholars (Jensen, 2013). After all, the writings, and
theories of mostly male and white thinkers of European
background, have cemented the current, all-pervasive
disciplinary conventions such as that fashion is a product
of Western Modernity (Wilson, 2003; Barnard 2020). Their
hegemonic foundational theoretical approaches and
perspectives are preventing fashion from becoming a
genuinely equitable, diverse, and inclusive field of study
and practice. As long as both, the fashion industry and the
field of fashion studies continues caught on this and other
colonialist myths (Kawamura, 2018), true lasting progressive
changes in fashion cannot happen, nor can take hold.
By contrast, the Social Practice Fashion theory recognizes
that fashion is a phenomenon practiced by all human
societies throughout their respective histories (Jensen,
2013; Craik, 2020). This decolonial theoretical perspective is
inclusive and equitable because it hinges on the intrinsically
social character of fashion (Kawamura, 2018; Thornquist,
2018) while simultaneously decouples the discipline from
its perceived Eurocentric origins and its limiting objectcentered1 nature (Craik, 2020). Furthermore, the Social
Practice Fashion theoretical framework revolves around
fashion’s capacities to foster the betterment of society
(Navarro, 2014; Navarro Delgado 2018). As a result, this
theoretical lens necessarily encompasses and celebrates
the developments, histories, and inputs to fashion by all
cultures throughout different historical periods (Craik, 2020),
including the contributions by Indigenous, Non-Western,
and otherwise ignored, marginalized, discriminated, or
colonialized societies and traditions.
This paper employs a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
For decolonial fashion scholars, Eurocentrism and object-centredness constitute a
dualistic correlation to white supremacy and private property. If fashion is a specific
form of material culture (as in certain objects but not others) they can be owned.
Such ownership guarantees power, not only economic but also symbolic power, to
people of European descent.
1
171
method (Fairclough, 2001) to examine hegemonic
theoretical approaches to fashion studies. The results from
conducting this critical analysis support the arguments
that; fashion’s dominant theories are intrinsically white
supremacist and colonialist and that by implementing a
Social Practice Fashion, the study of fashion can finally
be inclusive of a broader variety of fashion practices,
symbolisms, and epistemologies. In other words, this paper
contends that, in contrast to well cemented but ultimately
biased theories, a Social Practice Fashion theoretical
perspective is better positioned to incorporate the variety of
fashion experiences and knowledges autochthonous to this
planet. As well, the paper demonstrates that understanding
the discipline of fashion from a Social Practice frame of
reference (Thornquist, 2018), has monumental implications
to scholars, practitioners, business leaders and educators
alike (Navarro Delgado, 2018). Specially for those who are
invested in making fashion into a more inclusive and socially
just discipline and practice.
Decolonizing Fashion
The decolonization of fashion seems to be well on its way
(Cheang and Suterwalla, 2020). Due to pressure from their
diverse audiences, many mainstream fashion brands, as well
as new independent ones, are taking steps to counter alltoo-pervasive Eurocentric and white supremacist business
practices (Parkins and Sanders, 2020). This industrywide shift can be interpreted as either a response to or a
mirroring of decolonizing initiatives taking place at leading
fashion schools in North America (Lisk, 2021) and beyond.
In fact, there seems to be an almost unanimous agreement
among fashion scholars that decolonization constitute a
disciplinary priority (Puga, 2018; Slade, 2020; Niessen,
2020). Furthermore, decolonizing efforts by the fashion
industry and by leading fashion schools are linked to a
global reconning with the harms resulting from systemic
sexism, racism and other discriminatory biases that pervade
mainstream culture (Dirks, 1992; Plous and Neptune, 1997;
Hansen, 2004). It is not surprising then that there is a growing
widespread acknowledgement that exclusionary practices
linked to Eurocentrism, colonialism and white supremacy
are not good for business anymore, nor for the study of
fashion either (Cheang and Suterwalla, 2020). Nevertheless,
the actionable implementation of decolonial principles
such as equity, inclusion, and sustainability are hindered
by elitist, colonialist and Euro-Centric perspectives deeply
entrenched in both the contemporary fashion industry and
fashion studies (Niessen, 2020; Cheang and Suterwalla,
2020).
The public’s push for mainstream fashion to relinquish their
colonialist, Eurocentric and white supremacist practices is
exemplary illustrated by the implosion of iconic apparel
and beauty brand Victoria’s Secret (Feng, 2019). Once a
successful global brand with a solid market share (Chang,
2004; Robson, 2018), Victoria’s Secret’s undoing can be
pinpointed to its inability to shift towards the inclusion of
the diverse bodies, identities and lived experiences its
global audiences demanded (Robson, 2018; Feng, 2019).
For example, Victoria’s Secret’s management insisted on
172
promoting a predominantly white, most definitely skinny,
and cis-gender ideal of beauty despite an increasingly
pro-diversity and pro-inclusion global cultural environment
(Feng, 2019), and ignoring the fact that people of color
constitute most of the planet’s population.
But the core issue here is that in its market positioning,
aesthetic approaches and business decisions, Victoria’s
Secret epitomizes the tenets of colonialism. The brand’s
global presence and its intellectual and aesthetic monopoly
within this segment of consumer goods (Chang, 2004; Ling,
2014) reproduce the hegemonic political and economic
principles historically espoused by colonial powers.
Meanwhile, Victoria’s Secret commitment to an objectifying
idealization of the female body through a white male gaze
(Feng, 2019) replicates the misogynist and racist paradigms
of social and racial interrelations under a colonial system.
Lastly, the brand’s reliance on cheap outsourced labour from
developing countries and disregard for the environmental
consequences of its production and retail chains (Robson,
2018) parallels the exploitative, asymmetrical power
relations between colonial powers and their colonies.
Ultimately, Victoria’s Secret market gap has been occupied
by smaller and independent brands which either pivoted
towards social and environmental justice or started off
based on those anti-colonial principles (Robson, 2018;
Feng, 2019).
One could argue that by embracing decolonial values as
a discourse, the fashion industry is responding to changes
taking place in fashion education (Cheang and Suterwalla,
2020). After all, several fashion programs in the US, Canada
and Europe have integrated sustainability, diversity, equity
and inclusion into their curricula and academic cultures
(Barry, 2020). For example, The School of Fashion at Parsons,
one of the top-ranked programs in the US, promises
potential students and education that “…weaves projectbased methodology with social justice and environmental
sustainability” (The New School Parsons Fashion, 2021). On
the other side of the Atlantic, AMFI, which is one of Europe’s
leading fashion programs is more nuanced in declaring that
they “… embrace diversity and inclusiveness. We provide a
respectful environment for all our students; this lies within
our ambition and vision to educate a diverse community of
game-changers” (AMFI). On the bolder spectrum of fashion
education championing decolonization, we have the School
of Fashion, X University*, one of the top programs in Canada
(School of Fashion). In their website, they assert that the
program’s vision is about “…how to decolonize the fashion
industry and foster Indigenous fashion resurgence, how to
support transgender and non-binary fashion collections,
as well as what impact we want our work to have on the
fashion industry and the world today, tomorrow and for the
next seven generations” (School of Fashion).
The purported transformation towards a decolonial fashion
education is in no small part sustained by an exponential
increase in scholarship on related topics by researchers
who are often affiliated to these leading higher education
institutions. Among these scholarly communities, there
appears to be a consensus that decolonizing the discipline
of fashion studies is a pressing task (Puga, 2018; Slade, 2020;
Niessen, 2020). However, concerns about the Eurocentrism
and white supremacist character of fashion are nothing new,
especially among scholars of racialized or marginalized
identities (Dirks, 1992; Plous and Neptune, 1997; Hansen,
2004). For decades scholars of Black, Indigenous, and other
racialized identities had clamoured for de-Eurocentring
fashion (Dirks, 1992; Plous and Neptune, 1997; Hansen,
2004). However, seen against the background of a
current global reconning with racism and inequality, the
decolonizing of fashion education now has gained true
momentousness. That said, despite all the good intentions
and institutional discourses supporting sustainability, social
justice, diversity, equity, and inclusion by fashion programs,
the truth is that Eurocentrism, white supremacy, and
colonialism are deep-rooted in fashion. For example, while
the establishment of the global fashion industry happened
in parallel to transcontinental colonial processes and was
integral to them (Ross, 2008; Allen, 2011), the emergence
of fashion studies in the second half of the 20th century
coincided with a world-wide repositioning of Western
thought and culture as globally dominant (Shimemura,
2002; Allen, 2011). Hence, in decolonizing fashion, there is
no other route but to wrestle it from the firm grip of Western,
Eurocentric theories, histories, and intellectual tendencies.
Fashion Theory in Crisis
Until now, modernist theorists of European descent such
as Georg Simmel, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jean
Baudrillard, Pierre Bourdieu, and Jacques Derrida constitute
the formative disciplinary reference for most fashion scholars
(Wilson, 2003; Barnard, 2020). Contemporary fashion
academics and intellectuals championing alternative
viewpoints do exist. Their contributions however are
overshadowed by these Eurocentric giants, who over the
last 100 years have accumulated an immense generational
theoretical capital. Hence, there lies contemporary fashion’s
theoretical dilemma. How can fashion studies effectively
dismantle Eurocentrism, white supremacy, and colonialism
if the theoretical and epistemological foundations of the
discipline are Eurocentric, white supremacist, and colonialist
to start with? It can be contended that perhaps the blame
for fashion studies’ insidious Eurocentrism, colonialism,
and white supremacism should be attributed to a deficit of
contributions by diverse scholars? Such inference makes a
lot of sense because the ideas and theories of the mostly
male and thinkers of European background are in fact
preferentially studied and referenced in fashion studies. In
a snowballing effect, more mentions in curricula, textbooks
and scholarly writings make these Eurocentric scholars,
and their theories, constantly visible, accessible and in turn
exponentially more dominant.
One of the ways preferential referencing of Eurocentric
thought (and the resulting generational theoretical capital)
is achieved is through the tradition of researchers citing
the authors that have been cited the most before (Thorne,
1977; Shadish et all, 1995; Golden-Biddle et all, 2006).
Such citation customs are engrained into young scholars
by research methods coursework and by the practices of
academics mentoring or supervising them through their
formative years (Golden-Biddle et all, 2006). Discrimination
173
of authors based on their number of citations is further
strengthened by digital research tools such as Google
Scholar, which rank titles and authors higher in a search
based in part on the number of prior citations (Martin-Martin
et all, 2017; Rovira et all, 2018). Practices like this result in
a further solidification of Eurocentric beliefs such as that
fashion only exists within the context of Modern Western
societies (Wilson, 2003; Barnard 2020). If the fashion
industry and the field of fashion studies cannot break free
from this self-fulfilling loop (Kawamura, 2018), a decolonial,
inclusive fashion does not stand a chance.
Subjecting select works by representative Eurocentric
thinkers to a Critical Discourse Analysis, or CDA (Fairclough,
2001) unveils the theoretical insidiousness within Fashion
Studies of their ideas. CDA sees language in its multiple
forms (visual, gestural, written) as an intrinsic aspect of social
practices and social practices as inherently imbued with
meanings (Fairclough, 2001). This method of critical analysis
allows us to see first, that the theoretical perspectives
of dominant Eurocentric intellectuals, their discourse,
continues to influence the community of practice that is
Fashion Studies. Second, a Critical Discourse Analysis of the
work of these thinkers uncovers how their negative effects
in Fashion as both, a scholarly discipline and a practice is
amplified as these theories continue being unchallenged.
Let’s use the CDA method to examine the overarching
theoretical perspective of Georg Simmel (1858-1918), one
of the most influential sociology theorist of the 20th century
and still one the most widely cited authors in contemporary
fashion studies (McNeil, 2015). In the abstract for his 1904
article Fashion, republished in 1957 in The American Journal
of Sociology, Simmel argued about fashion that:
“It unites those of a social class and segregates them from
others. The elite initiates a fashion and, when the mass
imitates it in an effort to obliterate the external distinctions
of class, abandons if for a newer mode -a process that
quickens with the increase of wealth. Fashion does not exist
in tribal and classless societies. It concerns externals and
superficialities where irrationality does no harm. It signalizes
the lack of personal freedom; hence it characterizes the
female and the middle class, whose increased social
freedom is matched by intense individual subjugation.”
(Simmel 1904, 541)
Consistent with the ideas of contemporary theorists such
as Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), Simmel’s positioning of
fashion is explicitly elitist; he assigns fashion the primary
role of distinguishing class and gender in social settings.
Most importantly, Simmel’s discourse on fashion excludes
societies that don’t share modernist, classist, or capitalist
Western values. Furthermore, when reading Simmel
(and other Eurocentric theorists from his time) “tribal and
classless” societies is code for Non-Modern, Non-Western,
and non-capitalist societies.
It would be easy to think that the theoretical tendencies of
Simmel, Veblen and other thinkers of that period were just a
product of that time (Elliot, 2011). That would be an accurate
assessment, except that the discourses of both, Veblen and
Simmel continue to enjoy healthy popularity within fashion
studies circles and their ideas and theories are widely cited
directly as well as indirectly, through the work of subsequent
late 20th century and 21st-century scholars. Furthermore,
their elitist and colonial-tinged stance has its continuity
in post-modern and post-structuralist theorists popularly
cited in fashion scholarship such as Roland Barthes (19151980). In the foreword to his seminal book The Fashion
System, published after his death in 1983, Barthes sets the
methodological and discursive tone for this influential text
by declaring that:
“Calculating, industrial society is obliged to form consumers
who don’t calculate; if clothing producers and consumers
had the same consciousness, clothing would be bought
(and produced) only at the very slow rate of its dilapidation;
Fashion, like al fashions, depends on a disparity of two
consciousnesses, each foreign to the other. In order to blunt
the buyer’s calculating consciousness, a veil must be drawn
around the object-a veil of images, of reasons, of meanings;
a mediated substance of an aperitive orders must be
elaborated; in short, a simulacrum of the real object must be
created, substituting for the slow time of wear a sovereign
time to destroy itself by an act of annual potlatch. Thus, the
commercial origin of our collective image-system (always
subject to fashion, not merely in the case of clothing) cannot
be a mystery to anyone.” (Barthes 1990, xi-xii)
Thus, with a less direct but not less clear intent than Simmel
and Veblen prior to him, Barthes’s theoretical discourse
equates fashion with elitist conspicuous consumption and
serves it with a garnish of neo-colonialism. Note for example
the condescending use of the Chinook word “potlatch”
to illustrate what Barthes sees as the destructive frenzy
characterizing the transition towards a new (consumerist)
fashion cycle. Never mind that in Barthes’ Eurocentric
view, the dress practices of tribal and classless societies
such as the Northwestern Canadian First nations do not
qualify as fashion (Miller et all, 1996). Never mind either
that as practiced by Northwest coastal Indigenous nations
of Canada and the US, the potlatch is a sacred ceremony;
one that centres around strengthening family ties through
the gathering of the community to celebrate births, the
consummation of marriages, name-giving rituals, the
mourning of a loved one, or the assignment of leadership
roles (Beck, 2013).
By way of contrast to the theoretical discourses from
intellectuals such as Simmel, Veblen, and Barthes, I
propose a Social Practice Fashion theoretical lens. As a
fundamentally equitable, diverse, and inclusive theory,
Social Practice Fashion is positioned to challenge the
Eurocentric theoretical frameworks established by these
male, white scholars of yore who still enjoy immense
currency in fashion studies. Social Practice Fashion offers
an alternative foundational theoretical approach to their
Eurocentric paradigms, which are preventing fashion from
fully fulfilling its inclusive and decolonizing potentials.
Towards Social Practice Fashion
The tenets of Social Practice Fashion theory consider
174
fashion as an eminently social happening (Thornquist,
2018), which has been part of the human experience
since time immemorial irrespective of ethnicity, culture,
or geographical location. In other words, Social Practice
Fashion adheres to the school of thought that sees
fashion as a social phenomenon practiced by all humans
throughout our history on this planet (Kawamura, 2018;
Thornquist, 2018). Such theoretical stance is fundamentally
inclusive and equitable, both in discourse and practice,
because it centers on the deep-rooted social nature of
fashion (Kawamura, 2018; Thornquist, 2018) while at the
same time extricating the discipline from a (wrongly)
perceived Eurocentric origin and a contested (and suspect)
object-based character. By the same token, the Social
Practice Fashion theoretical framework highlights fashion’s
inherent capabilities to engender better social experiences
and relations (Navarro, 2014; Navarro Delgado 2018;
Thornquist, 2018).
However, in demonstrating that fashion is a social practice
encountered in all human societies throughout history, it
is important to stress that garments or dress styles don’t
constitute fashion by themselves (Jensen, 2013; Kawamura,
2018). As a universal social practice, fashion is better
described as a phenomenon taking place when a society
agrees that certain styles of dress will have currency for a
period of time (Jensen, 2013; Kawamura, 2018). Thus, in
this Social Practice Fashion model, garments, accessories,
hairstyles, and other elements of dress, are used by
individuals to participate in or showcase their degree of
approval (or disapproval) of whatever dress styles their
society has agreed to assign currency at any given time.
Based on this understanding, fashion is less a category of
products or artifacts (ex. designer garments, luxury branded
accessories), nor is the invention of a specific human society
or cultural tradition (ex. European or Western peoples),
neither is limited to a historical period (ex. Modernity).
I developed and coined the Social Practice Fashion
theoretical framework alongside a series of fashion-based
socially engaged creative research projects completed
between 2009 and 2018 (Navarro Delgado, 2018). Through
these sited projects, diverse Indigenous, racialized, rural,
or otherwise marginalized communities, explored topics
relevant to their localities using fashion as a lens (Navarro,
2014; Navarro Delgado, 2018). While realizing these
projects, it became evident that extant theoretical lenses
were inadequate for apprehending the methodological
and epistemological implications of implementing fashion
design from a socially engaged perspective (Navarro, 2014).
The resulting Social Practice Fashion theoretical framework
integrates elements of Social Practice Art and Conceptual
Fashion into a comprehensive theoretical instrument
(Navarro, 2014; Navarro Delgado, 2018). Beyond these
projects, the Social Practice Fashion theoretical lens
encompasses, includes, and celebrates the diversity of
material cultures, histories, practices, and contributions
to dress and fashion by all human societies throughout
history. Such an intrinsically inclusive approach makes
Social Practice Fashion a theory much more elastic and
welcoming to the contributions by Indigenous, racialized,
Non-Western, or otherwise ignored, marginalized, or
discriminated, fashion paradigms and traditions.
Furthermore, a Social Practice Fashion theoretical
framework expands fashion’s spectrum of social functions.
Although the social functions of dress that influence fashion
such as adornment, protection, group, gender, and social
status identification are still valid under this theoretical
model, social functions that are peculiar to a specific
cultural tradition or historic period are included as well.
For example, in the Sub-Saharan African dress tradition,
body modifications have historically taken precedent over
clothing as the main form of dress and are subject to fashion
change (Hansen, 2013, Willman et all, 2020). Throughout
the entirety of their histories, Sub-Saharan African societies
have privileged body modification as a literal embodiment
of their societys’ ideals (Hansen, 2013), which in this manner
become a shared physical and social reality that is however
connected to the spiritual realm of ancestors and ancestral
spirits (Hansen, 2013). This contrasts with the WesternEuropean tradition of dress and fashion change; in which
clothing has primacy and the social functions emphasized
in dress practices are individualist expression and temporal
meanings. Under a Social Practice Fashion lens, the SubSaharan dress tradition and the Western-European dress
traditions can not only co-exist but be equally appreciated
within their own cultural distinctiveness.
Proof that fashion has been practiced by all human societies
is evident from the material culture (Benson, 2001; Gilligan,
2010, Riello, 2017) and artistic artifacts found in archeological
sites in all geographical settings humans have inhabited
(Benson, 2001; Thomasson, 2019). These articles of clothing
and depictions of dress in prehistoric and ancient artworks
evidence that not only human populations have always used
dress styles to differentiate themselves from other human
groups, but also, that dress styles have always evolved or
changed over time (Benson, 2001; Chapdelaine, 2008). In
the context of the Americas, for example, elements of precontact dress exhibited material and stylistic distinctions
amongst different geographic regions and linguistic groups
of North America, South America, Central America, and the
Caribbean (Webster, 1997; SELF-FASHIONING, 2014). As
well, dress styles in the Americas evolved and continued
doing so after the arrival of European colonists and persist
until now (Webster, 1997; Metcalfe, 2010; Pass, 2017).
Conclusion: The Implications of
a Social Practice Fashion Lens
Through an analysis of the current state of fashion, both
as a contemporary industry and as a growing scholarly
discipline, and through conducting a Critical Discursive
Analysis (Fairclough, 2001) of representative theoretical
approaches that dominate fashion studies, this paper
supports the adoption of a Social Practice Fashion
theoretical perspective. By implementing this theoretical
framework, the business of fashion and the study of fashion
can finally become truly inclusive. As discussed in the
paper, most fashion theories currently in vogue, although
widely recognized and favored by many scholars, exclude
a diversity of dressed body practices, symbolisms, and
epistemologies. By contrast, the Social Practice Fashion
theoretical perspective inherently incorporates the widest
possible variety of dress and fashion traditions, experiences
and knowledge encompassing the full spectrum of human
diversity and history. As discussed in the paper, the
theoretical robustness of Social Practice Fashion is such,
that this framework encompasses the Western dress and
fashion tradition as well as any other dress and fashion
tradition from around the world.
But most importantly, Social Practice Fashion theory is
underpinned by an acknowledgement of the colonial roots
of the hegemonic methods, practices, and paradigms of
the fashion industry and the discipline of fashion studies.
One of the roots of these dominant Eurocentric theoretical
positions results from the prioritization of discourses by
male, European thinkers, over the work of more diverse
scholars and intellectuals. The theoretical re-centring of the
discipline from a Social Practice frame of reference then,
has significant methodological, ethical, discursive, and
practical implications, not only for scholars but for fashion
practitioners, business leaders and educators. For more
diverse voices to be heard within fashion’s visual, written and
object-based discourses, we need much more inclusionary
theoretical devices. The Social Practice Fashion theory
provides just that, a fundamentally inclusive, decolonizing
frame of discourse and reference.
Acknowledgments
I want to acknowledge the outnumbered but graciously
resilient Indigenous, Black, and racialized fashion scholars
on whose shoulders I had been able to raise my own voice.
This paper recognizes both, the paths you have paved with
your resistance in the form of scholarship that provokes
and embraces discomfort, and the immense labour that
lays ahead of us all. I also want to thank the individual
community members, organizations and institutions that
supported and participated in my site-specific-fashion
projects. Because of your trust and generosity, I was able to
learn that alternatives to the current fashion system and to
how fashion research is conducted are possible.
References
175
•
Allen, R. C. (2011). Global economic history: a very
short introduction (Vol. 282). Oxford University Press.
•
AMFI. (nd). About AMFI: Social engagement. https://
amfi.nl/about-amfi
•
Barnard, M. (2020). Fashion theory: A reader.
Routledge.
•
Barnard, M. (2002). Fashion as communication.
Psychology Press.
•
Barthes, R. (1983). The fashion system. Farrar, Straus &
Giroux.
•
Barry, B. (2020). Op-Ed: How fashion education
prevents inclusivity. Business of Fashion, 2020. https://
www.businessoffashion.com/opinions/workplacetalent/op-ed-how-fashion-education-preventsinclusivity
•
Beck, M. G. (2013). Potlatch: native ceremony and myth
on the Northwest Coast. Graphic Arts Books.
•
Benson, E. P., & Cook, A. G. (Eds.). (2001). Ritual
sacrifice in ancient Peru. University of Texas Press.
•
Chang, C. C., Lin, A., & Mak, C. (2004). The Silky
Strategy of Victoria’s Secret. Retrieved October, 17,
2008.
•
Cheang, S., & Suterwalla, S. (2020). Decolonizing the
Curriculum? Transformation, Emotion, and Positionality
in Teaching. Fashion Theory, 24(6), 879-900.
•
Chapdelaine, C. (2008). Moche Art Style in the Santa
Valley: between being “à la mode” and developing
a provincial identity”. The art and archaeology of the
Moche. An ancient andean society of the Peruvian
North Coast, 129-152.
•
Craik, J. (2020). The political culture of non-western
fashion identities1. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture,
7(1), 9-27.
•
Elliott, A. (2011). Book review: Simmel and ‘the social’.
•
Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a
method in social scientific research. Methods of critical
discourse analysis, 5(11), 121-138.
•
Feng, Y. (2019, December). Victoria’s Secret
Performance Report 2019. In Proceedings of the
2019 3rd International Conference on Software and
e-Business (pp. 177-182).
•
Gilligan, I. (2010). The prehistoric development of
clothing: archaeological implications of a thermal
model. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory,
17(1), 15-80.
•
Golden-Biddle, K., Locke, K., & Reay, T. (2006). Using
knowledge in management studies: An investigation
of how we cite prior work. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 15(3), 237-254.
Hansen, K. T. (2004). The world in dress:
•
176
Anthropological perspectives on clothing, fashion, and
culture. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 33, 369-392.
•
Ross, R. (2008). Clothing: A global history. Polity.
•
Kawamura, Y. (2018). Fashion-ology: an introduction to
fashion studies. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Rovira, C., Guerrero-Solé, F., & Codina, L. (2018).
Received citations as a main SEO factor of Google
Scholar results ranking. El profesional de la
información, 27(3), 559-569.
•
Ling, J. (2014). Production, Symbolic Production,
Spiritual Production and the Spread of Brand Value——”
Victoria’s Secret” as An Example. Commentary on
Cultural Industry in China.
SELF-FASHIONING, F. N. (2014). DRESS AND
ADDRESS: FIRST NATIONS SELF-FASHIONING AND
THE 1860 ROYAL TOUR OF CANADA. The Art of
Clothing: A Pacific Experience, 135.
•
School of Fashion, Ryerson University. (nd). About: The
school of fashion has a strong international reputation
rooted in from over 65 years of leadership in fashion
education. https://www.ryerson.ca/fashion/about/
•
Shadish, W. R., Tolliver, D., Gray, M., & Sen Gupta, S.
K. (1995). Author judgements about works they cite:
three studies from psychology journals. Social studies
of Science, 25(3), 477-498.
•
Shimemura, Y. (2002). Globalization vs.
Americanization: Is the World Being Americanized
by the Dominance of American Culture. Comparative
Civilizations Review, 47(47), 7.
•
Simmel, G. (1957). Fashion in American Journal of
Sociology, n. 62. May I957. p. 54I-558.
•
Slade, T. (2020). Decolonizing Luxury Fashion in Japan.
Fashion Theory, 24(6), 837-857.
•
Jansen, A. M. (2013). Notions of Tradition and
Modernity in the construction of National Fashion
Identities. In 5th Global Fashion Conference, Oxford:
Birleşik Krallık.
•
•
•
•
Culture (pp. 27-50). Routledge.
Lisk, S. (2021). Resurgence and brilliance: How this
program is supporting Indigenous fashion. TVO
Online, https://www.tvo.org/article/resurgence-andbrilliance-how-this-program-is-supporting-indigenousfashion, July 21, 2021
Martin-Martin, A., Orduña-Malea, E., Harzing, A. W.,
& López-Cózar, E. D. (2017). Can we use Google
Scholar to identify highly-cited documents?. Journal of
informetrics, 11(1), 152-163.
•
McNeil, P. (2015). GEORG SIMMEL. Thinking Through
Fashion: A Guide to Key Theorists, 63.
•
Metcalfe, J. R. (2010). Native designers of high
fashion: Expressing identity, creativity, and tradition
in contemporary customary clothing design. The
University of Arizona.
•
Miller, B. L., Steiner, C. B., Kasfir, S. L., Dark, P. J., &
Dutton, D. (1996). Commentary on” Mythologies of
Tribal Art”. African Arts, 89-104.
•
The New School Parsons Fashion. (2021). The school
of fashion: School highlights. https://www.newschool.
edu/parsons/fashion-school/
•
Navarro Delgado, H. (2018). Ahola (aloha backwards):
Social practice fashion Honolulu style. Art, Design &
Communication in Higher Education, 17(1), 107-122.
•
Thomason, A. (2019). Clothing and Nudity in the
Ancient Near East Archaeological and Iconographic
Aspects. Clothing and Nudity in the Hebrew Bible, 87.
•
Navarro, H. (2014). Fashion as public art:
Strengthening communities through site-specific
fashion collections. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture,
1(3), 445-457.
•
Thorne, F. C. (1977). The citation index: Another case
of spurious validity. Journal of clinical psychology,
33(4), 1157-1161.
•
Niessen, S. (2020). Decolonizing the Fashion
Curriculum in Denmark and Beyond: Interview with Kat
Sark. Fashion Theory, 24(6), 971-974.
•
Thornquist, C. (2018). The fashion condition:
Rethinking fashion from its everyday practices. Fashion
Practice, 10(3), 289-310.
•
Parkins, I., & Sanders, L. S. (2020). Introduction: Fashion
in the Magazines. The Journal of Modern Periodical
Studies, 11(2), 161-173.
•
Webster, L. D. (1997). Effects of European contact
on textile production and exchange in the North
American Southwest: A Pueblo case study. The
University of Arizona.
•
Pass, V. R. (2017). Native Fashion Now. Design and
Culture, 9(3), 347-350.
•
•
Plous, S., & Neptune, D. (1997). Racial and gender
biases in magazine advertising: A content‐analytic
study. Psychology of women quarterly, 21(4), 627-644.
Willman, J. C., Hernando, R., Matu, M., & Crevecoeur,
I. (2020). Biocultural diversity in Late Pleistocene/
Early Holocene Africa: Olduvai Hominid 1 (Tanzania)
biological affinity and intentional body modification.
American journal of physical anthropology, 172(4),
664-681.
•
Puga, R. (2018). Decolonizing the Runway: Cultural
Appropriation in Fashion.
•
Wilson, E. (2003). Adorned in dreams: Fashion and
modernity. Rutgers University
•
Riello, G. (2017). Things that shape history: material
culture and historical narratives. In History and Material