Page 241 - Več kot moda: onkraj oblačilnih, telesnih, spolnih, odnosnih in komunikacijskih ortodokcij.
P. 241
Summary
within collectives are revealed: for instance, ways of performing masculin-
ity and femininity, of performing and justifying socially-determined im-
ages of physical attractiveness, and, not least, of performing class and
status through clothing practices – all of which point to social orthodox-
ies, that is, the ever-present need to be distinguished and included, as
well as the attempts at, and resistances against, fitting within categories
attributed and assigned in advance. Situations and actual practices where
individuals transgress established categories speak less of individuals than
of the arbitrarily-determined status of boundaries themselves, pointing
to the constructedness of conceptual categories of the fitting, the normal,
the appropriate, the attractive, the tasteful. In conclusion, all individual
practices – being practices – are equally significant and pertinent, even if
not equally functional. Labelling or rejecting certain practices as trivial,
superficial, or irrational, the need to degrade and demean certain (fash-
ion) practices, are first and foremost an attempt at (self-)deception, an
attempt at creating the impression that there are practices that are im-
portant and others that are not. The individual’s striving towards unity,
towards performing supposedly important practices, and their need to sys-
tematically devalue other practices as unimportant, point above all to the
fundamentally constructed and costumed character of all practices. Thus,
there exists no communicational practice, not even clothing, that reflects
a ‘natural state’ of things; rather, it is only in and via communication that
the ‘natural’ character of things is constructed. All our communicational
practices, then, are ‘masquerades’ of sorts; the only difference being that
some are socially recognised as fitting and appropriate while others are
seen as inappropriate for norm transgression. According to Praprotnik,
the recognition of our own constructed and ‘masquerade-like’ character
is the basic precondition for a more thorough understanding of the indi-
vidual and of how they fit in their collectives. Additionally, it is a starting
point for a further exploration of our own internalised orthodoxies and an
entry point for a different understanding of our own practices.
In Kotnik’s exploration, the focus is on transgressive fashion. The topic
is opened by challenging the hackneyed expression that ‘clothing makes
the man,’ which seems to function as a folkloric ‘fashion dictate’ from a
vague past immemorial, accompanying us as an unconscious or at least
continually latent day-to-day reminder not to forget what we are wear-
ing, should be wearing, or are supposed to be wearing. The aim here is
to show that the ‘natural state’ of clothing actually has a mythological or
at least pseudomythological origin, and thus a cultural background, a cul-
241
within collectives are revealed: for instance, ways of performing masculin-
ity and femininity, of performing and justifying socially-determined im-
ages of physical attractiveness, and, not least, of performing class and
status through clothing practices – all of which point to social orthodox-
ies, that is, the ever-present need to be distinguished and included, as
well as the attempts at, and resistances against, fitting within categories
attributed and assigned in advance. Situations and actual practices where
individuals transgress established categories speak less of individuals than
of the arbitrarily-determined status of boundaries themselves, pointing
to the constructedness of conceptual categories of the fitting, the normal,
the appropriate, the attractive, the tasteful. In conclusion, all individual
practices – being practices – are equally significant and pertinent, even if
not equally functional. Labelling or rejecting certain practices as trivial,
superficial, or irrational, the need to degrade and demean certain (fash-
ion) practices, are first and foremost an attempt at (self-)deception, an
attempt at creating the impression that there are practices that are im-
portant and others that are not. The individual’s striving towards unity,
towards performing supposedly important practices, and their need to sys-
tematically devalue other practices as unimportant, point above all to the
fundamentally constructed and costumed character of all practices. Thus,
there exists no communicational practice, not even clothing, that reflects
a ‘natural state’ of things; rather, it is only in and via communication that
the ‘natural’ character of things is constructed. All our communicational
practices, then, are ‘masquerades’ of sorts; the only difference being that
some are socially recognised as fitting and appropriate while others are
seen as inappropriate for norm transgression. According to Praprotnik,
the recognition of our own constructed and ‘masquerade-like’ character
is the basic precondition for a more thorough understanding of the indi-
vidual and of how they fit in their collectives. Additionally, it is a starting
point for a further exploration of our own internalised orthodoxies and an
entry point for a different understanding of our own practices.
In Kotnik’s exploration, the focus is on transgressive fashion. The topic
is opened by challenging the hackneyed expression that ‘clothing makes
the man,’ which seems to function as a folkloric ‘fashion dictate’ from a
vague past immemorial, accompanying us as an unconscious or at least
continually latent day-to-day reminder not to forget what we are wear-
ing, should be wearing, or are supposed to be wearing. The aim here is
to show that the ‘natural state’ of clothing actually has a mythological or
at least pseudomythological origin, and thus a cultural background, a cul-
241
