Second-Hand Dresses and the Role of the Ragmarket (Angela McRobbie)

I really enjoyed this article. I love fashion and shopping so to look at the industry and more specifically at the ragmarket in a more attentive and critical way was quite eye opening. The way she analyses fashion through culture and gender is really interesting. However, the only negative comment I have about the article is that all her examples are based on Britain made it a little difficult to relate to.

The main argument of the chapter is that second hand style should be analysed within the broader context of postwar subcultural theory. So to understand this I had to look up the definition of 'subcultural theory' first. Wikipedia defines it as a "distinctive culture within a culture, so its norms and values differ from the majority culture but do not necessarily represent a culture deemed deviant by the majority."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcultural_theory)

McRobbie focuses on entrepreneurial infrastructure within youth cultures and on the opportunities which second-hand style has offered young people, at a time of recession, for participating in fashion. (135) She also makes a point to identify a discrepensy in the cultural academic literature on the act of buying and the process of looking and choosing.

McRobbie identifies shopping as having been put under the category of domestic labour – absorbed into consumerism where women and girls are seen as having a particular role to play – she criticises contemporary feminism lack of challenge to the idea that women were the slaves to consumerism. I think this idea is still very current. In ads, tv shows and in our own daily conversations and actions, women are portrayed as the endless consumers.

Notice the reactions of those around you if a woman, perhaps yourself, says that they do not enjoy shopping. The immediate reaction is that of shock and lack of understanding why and how a woman does not have that "natural" shopping instinct that is too often labelled onto women. Or look at it differently and imagine the reaction towards a man saying that he enjoys shopping. What is the immediate reaction to that? O.k. I seem to have gone way off topic now but this would make for really interesting research I think. To look at how dominant discourses have dictated who should what kind of shopping and the reasons why.

To come back to the ideas of the article, the author analyses the 60s hippy fashion as a statement against materialism , « a casual disregard for obvious signs of wealth, and a disdain for the "colour of money" » (137) Stuart Hall’s analysis of it was that this was an «identification with the poor » and sort of a disavowal of conventionality of the middle-class. I never actually saw it in this way, I always thought it was just forming and/or portraying a different identity, trying to be a rebel. I never thought of it in terms of poverty and the power to create such an image. She does argue that this behaviour or way of dressing is an unconscious identity formation and is not meant to be hurtful to those who « need » to shop the ragmarkets. This introduces the question she raises through Angela Carter’s work, on whether those who rummage in those « jumble » sales make light of those who search in need and not through choice. « Does the image of the middle-class girl "slumming it" in rags and ribbons merely highlight social class differences? » Does it bring the idea that middle-class individuals have the power to pull off that look, the power to move through various social classes without feeling the repercussions or experiencing the reality of it. This is what she calls the idea of being able to «afford » to look back and play around with idea of being poor (138)

Although she points out that this is done unintentionnaly, I started thinking about my childhood clothing. My family was lower middle-class and seeing as I was the youngest, I inheritated my sister’s hand me downs which were 5 years old and only got some new clothes for the new school season. Even then, it was from the cheepest place in town which was K-Mart at the time. I remember being envious of those who had new clothes all the time, especially those with brand names(especially in high school). I wonder what my reaction would have been if I knew that people were purposely wearing hand me downs or shopping at second hand clothing stores even though they had money for the nice things.


McRobbie also mentions that 1960s hippy clothing was a reminder of stigma of poverty, the shame of ill-fitting clothing but for the hippies it was not to create an element of shock rather than to promote a come back to nature, and authentic fabrics and a protest against man made synthetics. There is and was more value in a piece of clothing that was made through and through by one individual. It was also seen (as I still see it today) as a political action in the sense that it was/is creating an alternative society. Today for example, we boycott brandnames (Nike and Gap for example) to demonstrate our disapproval of sweat shops and child labour exploitation. I also think that buying from subculture markets is a way of encouraging local vendors and promoting local economy instead of buying into the whole capitalist consumerism 'thing'.

I've included cartoons and pictures boycotting certain stores that I thought would be not only entertaining but somewhat relevant to the article.

This image is of a boycott the Gap protest where the people said they would rather wear nothing than "The Gap".
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/images/0626-02.jpg

This is just to show how ridiculous capitalism and exploitation is.
http://www.gearnosweat.com/frameset/swetshrt.gif

This is by far my favorite. I think it fits perfectly well with the discussion about 'ragmarket' clothes.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban835l.jpg

Just as a side note, although I did find this article interesting in its analysis of the ragmarket and consumerism, I was bothered by the following comment: « still the case that those who possess cultural capital can risk looking poor and unkempt while their black and working class conterparts dress up to counter the assumption of low status." I feel as though she assumes that those who do not possess cultural capitial are Black and working class. I might be true that some Black people fall into that category but so do a variety of other races, Whites included. It is unfair to make such an assumption. She should have been specific or problematised this claim.