Hi, I found both of this week’s articles to be interesting as both regarded areas of history which can often be forgotten or looked over. The first reading excellently delves into the causes and effects of the change to women’s fashion and lifestyle. It was intriguing to see the idea of this change in fashion being described as a catalyst towards further change as this is something which can certainly be seen looking at the era as a whole. One thing surprising within this article was that only 20 years prior women’s fashion was completely different, and that many men would hide the women within their families if they participated in these changes was a rather ‘disturbing image’. The final point which Neil touches on about the importance of fashion due to uniforms, etc is a point which I certainly agree with as I also would say that fashion was made into something which could not only represent women but also would liberate them.
The second article by Sutton details the developments of different sexual cultures resulting from industrialisation. It was interesting to read that due to there being no law against transvestism, transvestites only had to avoid gross mischief by being granted ‘certificates’ which allowed for them to dress in the ways they desired. The main item of interest from the article is that between the wars there was a large and structured transvestite subculture within Germany.
Rhys McGowan
I agree with Rhys that both articles this week were very interesting as it is not an area of history I have given much thought to. After listening to Matt’s podcast I had an idea in my head of how it was the war and women’s contribution towards it as well as doing “men’s work” that lead to the change in fashion to become less feminine. However, as I was reading Robert’s article I couldn’t help but wonder if it took a hold throughout France due to advertising, consumerism, and the fact that media and communication had increased during this time, meaning fashion reached further afield that just within the cities closer to department stores. Perhaps I was relating it more to the present day and how fashion and beauty trends can take off around the world where people are wearing clothes either by designers, or cheaper alternatives for the lower classes, so I was glad when Roberts also brought up the argument around mass advertising and consumerism. This is why it has made me question whether or not it was actually more of a fashion trend, rebelling against the constraints of society, but having more awareness that other people were doing it because of better communication and coverage of what was going on and how people were dressing in other areas. Was it just a rebellion against society which became more widespread when fashion designers got involved? Did fashion designers spot a trend in the market and go with it to make a profit by selling the idea that the fashion choices were enough to liberate you from social constraints? Maybe I am way off the mark with this one. The fact that people wanted to look liberated whether or not they actually felt it on the inside is something I feel could still be relevant today, as well as the fact that within this time period it was more fashionable to be thin than curvy and seemed to generate eating disorders and misuse of pills to lose weight to achieve the ideal body. Roberts also mentions how in the 1930s, women started embracing their curves again, going back to a time before the 1920s, and how they curled their hair around their face so it would appear softer and warmer rather than the cold, sterile look of the short hair which is why it feels more like a rebellion that perhaps went too far away from how they actually wanted to look, so started reverting back slightly to the corseted, curvy look.
I found Sutton’s article interesting as it is not a topic I have given much thought to previously. I thought it interesting that transvestite groups formed to enlighten the public about the “transvestite condition”, in a bid battle loneliness, depression and suicide among fellow transvestites who perhaps feel secluded from society. What is interesting however is that it only seemed to apply to male-to-female transvestites, while female-to-male and homosexual transvestites were excluded. So even within these groups trying to establish a place for themselves within society, there are still groups getting left out due to their sexual preferences and identities which I thought was rather hypocritical.
Siobhan
Thanks to Neil for this very detailed summary and critique. You do a particularly good job of pointing to the historiographical debates, which is exactly the kind of thing you need to be doing for the Critical Review. In terms of what you say about Roberts being nuanced, I wonder if she is actually more provocative in declaring that fashion was a ‘maker’ of historical change. What do we all think of this argument? I’m not convinced Roberts fully pursues it. This precise question of fashion as a catalyst is something I’d like to discuss in the seminar but there is also space to explore it here.
Siobhan and Rhys both raise some very important points in their thoughtful comments. The intersection with consumerism which I think is present in both comments is important I think. We can talk about clothing as something that’s universal as a source in history, but there is clearly something different about it in a modern consumer society – and the 1920s do seem very different from previous decades.
The ‘reach’ of these changes explored by Siobhan is also very important. I agree – it is easy to see these as urban phenomena, but this can perhaps assume too much. In my research into mining communities in northern Spain, much of paid labour for women was as seamstresses in small workshops. I think it is highly likely that a large number of young women skilled with sewing machines and with access to print culture did end up copying designs seen in magazines and the press. Of course we also have the cinema, too, which can lead us to thinking about the primary sources…
Finally, with regard to Sutton – I wonder if this tells us something new or different about the Weimar Republic?
Hi, I found both of this week’s articles to be interesting as both regarded areas of history which can often be forgotten or looked over. The first reading excellently delves into the causes and effects of the change to women’s fashion and lifestyle. It was intriguing to see the idea of this change in fashion being described as a catalyst towards further change as this is something which can certainly be seen looking at the era as a whole. One thing surprising within this article was that only 20 years prior women’s fashion was completely different, and that many men would hide the women within their families if they participated in these changes was a rather ‘disturbing image’. The final point which Neil touches on about the importance of fashion due to uniforms, etc is a point which I certainly agree with as I also would say that fashion was made into something which could not only represent women but also would liberate them.
The second article by Sutton details the developments of different sexual cultures resulting from industrialisation. It was interesting to read that due to there being no law against transvestism, transvestites only had to avoid gross mischief by being granted ‘certificates’ which allowed for them to dress in the ways they desired. The main item of interest from the article is that between the wars there was a large and structured transvestite subculture within Germany.
Rhys McGowan
I agree with Rhys that both articles this week were very interesting as it is not an area of history I have given much thought to. After listening to Matt’s podcast I had an idea in my head of how it was the war and women’s contribution towards it as well as doing “men’s work” that lead to the change in fashion to become less feminine. However, as I was reading Robert’s article I couldn’t help but wonder if it took a hold throughout France due to advertising, consumerism, and the fact that media and communication had increased during this time, meaning fashion reached further afield that just within the cities closer to department stores. Perhaps I was relating it more to the present day and how fashion and beauty trends can take off around the world where people are wearing clothes either by designers, or cheaper alternatives for the lower classes, so I was glad when Roberts also brought up the argument around mass advertising and consumerism. This is why it has made me question whether or not it was actually more of a fashion trend, rebelling against the constraints of society, but having more awareness that other people were doing it because of better communication and coverage of what was going on and how people were dressing in other areas. Was it just a rebellion against society which became more widespread when fashion designers got involved? Did fashion designers spot a trend in the market and go with it to make a profit by selling the idea that the fashion choices were enough to liberate you from social constraints? Maybe I am way off the mark with this one. The fact that people wanted to look liberated whether or not they actually felt it on the inside is something I feel could still be relevant today, as well as the fact that within this time period it was more fashionable to be thin than curvy and seemed to generate eating disorders and misuse of pills to lose weight to achieve the ideal body. Roberts also mentions how in the 1930s, women started embracing their curves again, going back to a time before the 1920s, and how they curled their hair around their face so it would appear softer and warmer rather than the cold, sterile look of the short hair which is why it feels more like a rebellion that perhaps went too far away from how they actually wanted to look, so started reverting back slightly to the corseted, curvy look.
I found Sutton’s article interesting as it is not a topic I have given much thought to previously. I thought it interesting that transvestite groups formed to enlighten the public about the “transvestite condition”, in a bid battle loneliness, depression and suicide among fellow transvestites who perhaps feel secluded from society. What is interesting however is that it only seemed to apply to male-to-female transvestites, while female-to-male and homosexual transvestites were excluded. So even within these groups trying to establish a place for themselves within society, there are still groups getting left out due to their sexual preferences and identities which I thought was rather hypocritical.
Siobhan
Thanks to Neil for this very detailed summary and critique. You do a particularly good job of pointing to the historiographical debates, which is exactly the kind of thing you need to be doing for the Critical Review. In terms of what you say about Roberts being nuanced, I wonder if she is actually more provocative in declaring that fashion was a ‘maker’ of historical change. What do we all think of this argument? I’m not convinced Roberts fully pursues it. This precise question of fashion as a catalyst is something I’d like to discuss in the seminar but there is also space to explore it here.
Siobhan and Rhys both raise some very important points in their thoughtful comments. The intersection with consumerism which I think is present in both comments is important I think. We can talk about clothing as something that’s universal as a source in history, but there is clearly something different about it in a modern consumer society – and the 1920s do seem very different from previous decades.
The ‘reach’ of these changes explored by Siobhan is also very important. I agree – it is easy to see these as urban phenomena, but this can perhaps assume too much. In my research into mining communities in northern Spain, much of paid labour for women was as seamstresses in small workshops. I think it is highly likely that a large number of young women skilled with sewing machines and with access to print culture did end up copying designs seen in magazines and the press. Of course we also have the cinema, too, which can lead us to thinking about the primary sources…
Finally, with regard to Sutton – I wonder if this tells us something new or different about the Weimar Republic?