Functions of Clothing Flashcards
The four main theories for wearing clothing
Modesty, immodesty, adornment and protection
modesty
The modesty theory suggests that people first wore clothing to cover or conceal the “private” parts of the human body. This theory was derived from
a Christian, biblical explanation of clothing-namely, that clothes were initially worn by humans (Adam and Eve) to cover nakedness because of instinctive shame. The modesty theory was based on the idea that morality is dependent upon modesty, as expressed through the concealment of the human body. Psychologist
Dunlap (1928) noted that because moralist writers were frequently males, there was an inordinate emphasis in their writing on female sexuality and the maintenance of morality through the covering of the female body. Moreover, he noted, the theory was accepted largely because it fit the assumption that the wearing of clothes was based on a cause, rather than the result of experimentation with the body. Arguments against this theory are that young children are not instinctively modest and that, instead, modesty is socially learned. Also,standards of modesty vary from one culture to the next and one historical era to the next. Yet modesty is frequently acknowledged as a factor in why people continue to wear clothes, although numerous other factors exist that are equally, if not more,
compelling.
immodesty
Recognising that humans not only cover their bodies but also display them to attract others, psychologist Westermarck (1921) focused on immodesty, or
sexual attraction. Proponents of this explanation point out that individuals may have first worn clothing in order to attract attention to, rather than to conceal, the sexual organs. This theory was based on the doctrine that familiarity breeds indifference, whereas conceahnent breeds interest. Though many have since agreed that clothes do serve a function of sexual appeal, few accept the idea that immodesty was the reason for wearing clothing. How would early humans have known of this alluring effect, and how can cross-cultural differences be explained?
For example, Tuareg males in the Middle East wear a veil to cover the mouth, which is perceived to be as erotic as the sexual organs. In Japan, the back of a woman’s neck has traditionally been considered sexually erotic. The clothes that have been worn in these cultures have most likely promoted perceptions of eroticism. Psychologist Dunlap ( 1928) argued that both the modesty and immodesty theories may be refuted. He pointed out that historical evidence supports neither of these explanations. Furthermore, individuals may appear either clothed or nude before others with accompanying feelings of either modesty or immodesty.
adornment
This theory refers to the decorative nature of clothes and
other forms of appearance modification for purposes of display, attraction, or aesthetic expression. Anthropologists around the turn of the century frequently
identified adornment, or ornamentation, as the initial reason for wearing clothes, citing evidence that “savages” may be naked but still adorned, as compared to
the modestly covered “civilise” Western people. The assumption underlying this emphasis on adornment was that people “evolved” from merely decorating their bodies to the wearing of clothing, and once they wore clothing they became modest without it and also realised the functional advantages of clothing. The following passage is an example of early writing attributable to this reasoning,which reflects the influence and potential bias of evolutionary thinking (asnoted by Jasper and Roach-Higgins, 1987): Ornament is never lacking- clothing often is. There are tribes who, when first discovered,lived naked. All these people,dwelling in a stare of nudity, seemed co have no idea of shame on that account. It seems co us, from these facts, that the idea of clothing as a modest covering is relatively recent, and that it is subsequent to dress development.
Dress has generally developed out of ornament. As soon as man hung an ornament, dress evolution had begun (Scarr, 1891). The fallacy in this thinking lies in the implication that “advanced” standards
of modesty and status displays evolved from simple decoration of the body. There has always been room fur a great deal of variation in appearance management
among unclothed persons of the world. The various forms of appearance management they have used are likely to have had rich cultural meanings in and of themselves; thus unclothed but decorated bodies should be regarded as more than “previews” to modem clothing. (See Figure 1-14 for an illustration of the potential for bias when srudying unclothed people from an evolutionary perspective today.) In 1930, psychologist Fltigel noted that anthropological evidence for this theory consists primarily of the face that there exist unclothed but not undecorated
people. He indicated that psychologists were not likely to contradict anthropologists’ explanations but rather were likely to focus their attention on other matters, such as unconscious emotions reflected in clothing (Fltigcl, 1950, p.17). (See Social Focus 1-1.)
protection
A fourth and final explanation of why people first wore clothing was provided by the protection the body, which suggests that clothes protect humans from the
elements, animals, or even supernatural forces (see Figure 1-15). Although protection is an important function of clothing, this explanation as an initial motive for wearing clothing has been largely discredited because clothing is thought to have originated in tropical regions of the world where there was the least need for protection against the climate. However, psychologist Dunlap (1928) proposed that cloches were originally adopted to protect humans not from the weather but from insects, as people wore hanging scrips of leaves or
animal hides that flapped along with the movements of the body (serving as types of fly swatters). Later, he argued, people began to focus on how clothes
could enhance social status, particularly when costly materials and expensive dyes were developed. He went on co say that modesty probably arose as the
upper classes began to conceal themselves, using costly materials. A critical examination of Dunlap’s ideas points once again to some biases prevalent in the social thinking of his time-namely, the: assumption that people: evolved from savages in clothing-like insect swatters co higher orders of cultured classes. The danger of applying such a line of thinking co the study of clothing today is chat one might judge some: cultures as more advanced than others on the basis of clothing cues, therefore leading to cross-cultural bias. Some anthropologists and psychologists focused on the psychic or magical protection provided by ornaments or clothing that did not physically protect, but instead served religious functions or unconscious protection. For example, psychoanalysts pointed out that clothing envelops and protects the body, not unlike a mother’s womb.
