Unit 9 - Semiotics/Communication Perspectives

Introduction

I would, to begin with, hold that clothing styles and the fashions that influence them over time constitute something approximating a code. It is a code, however, radically dissimilar from those used in cryptography; neither can it, more generally, be equated with the language rules that govern speech and writing.
-- Fred Davis, 1985

As an introduction to Semiotics/Communication perspective to fashion, below is an excerpt from Changing appearances: Understanding dress in contemporary society (Sproles & Burns, 1994, pp. 218-221).

The Language of Fashion Symbols

Virtually every fashion object can be considered a fashion "symbol". The study of symbols, known as semiotics, has been used to explain a possible systematic organization of fashion symbolism. Many semioticians contend that fashion symbols can be viewed and studied as a language of artificial symbols that approximate the semiotic concept of a "code" (Barthes, 1983; Davis, 1985a; Eco, 1979; Simon-Miller, 1985). Similar to letters of the alphabet, the "code" of fashion is sometimes thought to include the type of fabric, the texture of the material, the color and pattern of the material, the volume and silhouette of the structure, and occasion for which it is worn. The specific combinations of these components of the fashion code can be used to convey specific social meanings to others. For example, a suit made of dark blue pin-stripe wool fabric would convey a different meaning than a similarly styled suit made of light yellow silk fabric because of the varying color and fabrics of the two suits.

In the study of semiotics, theorists and researchers have attempted to demonstrate that appearance is a visual language with its own distinctive grammar, syntax, and vocabulary (Lurie, 1981). For example, Fowles (1974) noted that in a system of fashion language, fabrics and colors were the phonemes, dress items the words, wardrobes the vocabulary, outfits the sentences and the pattern of putting an outfit together the grammar. Lurie (1981) outlined the "vocabulary of fashion" which included archaic words (eg., out-of-date fashions), foreign words (eg., fashions from other cultures), slang (eg., fads adopted by a small number of people), adjectives and adverbs (eg., trimmings or accessories that serve as "modifiers" of the fashion object), and lies and disguises (eg., costumes).

In The Fashion System, Roland Barthes (1983) used a semiotic approach to analyze the language used to describe fashion. According to Barthes there are "for any particular object (a dress, a tailored suit, a belt) three different structures exist, one technical, another, iconic, the third, verbal" (p. 5). The technical structure is the actual fashion object; the garment itself. The iconic structure is any photograph, picture, or image of the object, and the verbal structure is the written or spoken description of the object. Thus the "language of fashion" is essentially the translation from the technical structure to the verbal structure, the words used to describe actual fashion objects. Fashion acquires its meaning through its "language"; that is, the descriptions of fashion objects in media sources such as fashion magazines, advertisements, or newspaper articles (e.g., "a sweater with a boatneck collar", "a pullover with a closed collar", "a hat with a high crown", p. 63). And the meaning of the technical structure of fashion can best be studied by analyzing these descriptions. Thus, according to Barthes, to understand the meaning of fashion one must understand how the fashion is described.

Although the semiotic approach to the study of fashion symbols can provide us with a useful analogy of equating fashion with language, fashion symbols are unique in several respects that prohibit a direct parallel between "language" and "fashion symbolism" (Davis, 1985a, Hoffmann 1984).

First, unlike verbal communication, messages transmitted through fashion symbols are often emotional impressions or, what Hoffmann (1984) called "illusions". Fashion symbols can communicate impressions or illusions such as physical attractiveness, femininity and masculinity, power and dominance, and self-confidence and assurance. Fashion designers, aware of clothing's ability to represent feelings and ideas, often use fashion symbolism to convey emotional and expressive content in their designs (DeLong, 1987). For example, a black leather jacket elicits different emotions than a light pink cashmere sweater. Through aesthetic expression in fashion symbolism, fashion designs can communicate feelings such as excitement, calmness, strength, or delicacy.
Second, messages transmitted through fashion symbols are nonlinguistic. Receivers of verbal communication usually respond to this communication with additional verbal communication; you may answer a verbal question with a verbal response. On the other hand, receivers of communication conveyed by fashion symbolism often do respond to this communication through the use of fashion symbols. One may get verbal reactions to fashion symbols in the form of comments such as "how nice you look" or "is that a new suit?" However, the remainder of the response is nonlinguistic in terms of judgments of and attitudes toward the cultural meaning associated with the symbol.
Third, the code used to transmit fashion symbol messages does not have the same characteristics as the code used for verbal messages. The code of any language consists of specific units that can be combined based upon rules of syntax. The speaker is both "constrained and empowered by the code" (McCracken, 1988, p. 63). Although the speaker is constrained by the use of the established language code (such as letters of the alphabet) in order to convey meaning, the speaker also has the power to create new meanings by combining the codes in new ways. One has the ability to create new words, sentences, paragraphs by combining letters and words in ways that had not been done before. Fashion symbols, however, do not allow the speaker this power.

In fact, according to Grant McCracken (1988, p. 64), when fashion symbolism "as a code is most like language, it is least successful as a means of communication." In other words, the newest and most innovative fashions may often elicit the most varied meanings. To better understand fashion symbols as language codes, McCracken examined the various categories of interpretation individuals use when they draw meaning from fashion symbols. He examined individuals' responses to a series of slides which pictured a variety of contemporary fashions. He discovered that:

the first level of interpretation was a social salience category in which individuals interpreted the symbols in a general stereotypic manner. Single-word descriptions such as "housewife", "hippie", "wealthy" were common.
In the next level, when cues were not easily associated with a stereotypic image, individuals had difficulty interpreting the cues and often relied on the most salient feature from which they drew meaning (e.g., most evident color or style detail).
In the third level of interpretation, cues were presented in new and unique ways. Because of this, the cues were perceived as ambiguous in meaning and difficult to interpret.

Thus, it appears to be impossible to use fashion symbols as a code in creating new meanings. The perceiver examines a fashion statement "not for a new message, but for an old one fixed by convention" (McCracken, 1988, p.66). Because of this, McCracken inferred that fashion symbols would be most effective in communicating culturally defined categories, principles and processes (e.g., age, sex, social norms) that have emerged through human interaction.

Additional references

Barthes, R. ( 1983). The fashion system. New York: Hill and Wang/Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Eco, U. (1979). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Fowles, J. (1974, December). Why we wear clothes. ETC:A Review of General Semantics, 31, 343-352.

Hoffmann, H. (1984). How clothes communicate. Media Development, 4, 7-11.

Lurie, A. (1981). The language of clothes. New York: Random House.

McCracken G. (1988). Culture and consumption: New approaches to the symbolic character of consumer goods and activities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Simon-Miller, F. (1985). Commentary: Signs and cycles in the fashion system. In M.R. Solomon (Ed.) The psychology of fashion (pp. 71-81). Lexington, MA: D.C.Heath/Lexington Books.

Sproles, G. B., & Burns, L. D. (1994). Changing appearances: Understanding dress in contemporary society. New York: Fairchild.