"Ritualistic circumstances"?

[Chirs]

The book I'm reading right now is called The Quest for Meaning: A Guide to Semiotic Theory and Practice by Marcel Danesi who is an anthropologist focusing on language. In his final chapter - Applications - he discusses clothing and fashion, and how these differ and interact. On page 146 he talks about how clothing trends fluctuate and create new meanings for both the clothing and the culture.

Feminism was symbolized largely by women wearing pants. In the 1960s, gender equality was symbolized by unisex fashion, emblemized by the wearing of jeans by both males and females. This dress code gave material substance to feminism and to the social ideology that it was constructing. The reverse situation, incidentally, has not as yet transpired. Except in special ritualistic circumstances - for example, the wearing of a Scottish kilt - Western men have never worn skirts. When they do, it is typically labelled an act of 'transvestitism.'

I had planned to visit him in his office; now I will be sure to be wearing a kilt!

[Chirs]

On a serious note: I understand that 'skirt' refers to a garment that covers from the waist down, to varying lengths, and that robes and leines would not qualify. But are there no historical incidences of a skirt being worn as male attire in The West?

[CMcG]

On a serious note: I understand that 'skirt' refers to a garment that covers from the waist down, to varying lengths, and that robes and leines would not qualify. But are there no historical incidences of a skirt being worn as male attire in The West?

In the Balkans, there is also the fustanella:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fustanella

Even in the miscellaneous section though, this thread runs rather close to breaking some forum rules. Let me spin this back towards semiotics... and kilts!

As the most recognizable unbifurcated male garment in Western culture, the Scottish kilt has had an impact on language. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "kilt" can now refer to any unbifurcated knee length male garment with pleats in the back. Some people prefer to call modern kilts "male unbifurcated garments" (MUG) because they feel the word "kilt" should be reserved only for the traditional tartan variety. Usage and the OED beg to differ...

The cat is out of the bag and kilts have spread far and wide beyond the Highlands of Scotland. In 21st century Western culture, kilts can be found in a plethora of both special and mundane circumstances. Since the early 1990s there has been an amazing proliferation of kilt styles, fabrics, designs, etc. As a signifier, the kilt has been destabilized; I would argue that consumers, manufacturers, and retailers have all taken advantage of the semiotic availability of the kilt as a sign.

[Mickey]

Makes me think of the Bugs Bunny/Elmer Fudd episode where they act out accordingly to what hat they are wearing.

You can see the depth of my brain pan

[Chirs]

Makes me think of the Bugs Bunny/Elmer Fudd episode where they act out accordingly to what hat they are wearing.

You can see the depth of my brain pan

Good episode!

[Bugbear]

It's the word "ritualistic" that is throwing me off, the rest I learned to ignore back in college. Sounds like a bit of "top-down-ism," with the dress code giving "material substance to feminism" part. The people had nothing to do with choosing to dress a certain way, or being persuaded in groups to express themselves in commonality...

That, of course, Chirs, means I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[Chirs]

In your defence Bugbear, this is only a small part of a larger work in which the author discusses the reciprocal relationship between signifier and signified - in this case the wearing of jeans by females is the signifier and what is being signified is feminism.

Rather than proposing a one-way relationship wherein agency is removed and "people had nothing to do with choosing to dress a certain way, or being persuaded in groups to express themselves in commonality..." - that people are in some way forced to do something or wear something according to some externally imposed power - Danesi is pointing out that, historically, pants were worn by males and that was reflected in domestic relationships. Most of us are familiar with the expression "... wears the pants in the family." This was too often a situation of male dominance and the feminist movement was an attempt to address that specifically. For this reason women started wearing pants (and burning their bras and rejecting make-up, shaving, and other symbols of traditional female roles). Jeans had meant "outdoor worker", be that a farmer or cowboy but, as it became a symbol of female liberation the meaning changed until today we have no specific meaning attached to jeans and at least a hundred brands to choose from.

[AKScott]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_skirts

I copy/ paste:

Both the Anglo-Saxons and Normans wore skirted garments, as can be seen in the Bayeux Tapestry. These fashions continued well into the Middle Ages

end quote

I suspect the author was choosing his facts carefully to strengthen his point.

[Chirs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_skirts

I copy/ paste:

Both the Anglo-Saxons and Normans wore skirted garments, as can be seen in the Bayeux Tapestry. These fashions continued well into the Middle Ages

end quote

I suspect the author was choosing his facts carefully to strengthen his point.

I see what you're saying, and I was wondering the same thing. However, having looked at the Bayeux Tapestry in your link, it leaves us with the question: Is it a skirt if it starts at the shoulder? If it is then we also have the leine.

[mookien]

Chris: Thanks. Now, when I am asked, "Why are you wearing a kilt?", I can simply say, "I'm trapped in a special ritualistic circumstance".

Why didn't I think of that before!?

John