04/03/2015

Introduction

SearchUCLwebsites,people,andmore
Go

UCLHome
Prospectivestudents
Currentstudents
Staff

Introduction
DanielMiller
MATERIALCULTURE
Theprincipleaimofthisvolumeistoputanendtowhatnowseemsaratherunnecessaryif
ancientantagonism.Materialculturestudies(seeBuchli2002),hasrootsintwoquitedistinct
trajectories.Manyresearchershaveabackgroundinspecialistinstitutionssuchastextile
conservation,designormuseumcollections.Theretheymayhavegainedconsiderableexpertise
intheanalysisofclothandtextiles.Bycontrasttherearemanystudentswhosebackgroundlies
moreinculturalstudies,sociologyorsocialanthropologywithtraininginsemioticandsymbolic
analysisandaninterestinthe`sociallifeofclothing.Specialistsintextilesmayhaveverylittle
respectforthosetheylumptogetheras`culturalstudies.Theyseethissocialanalysisasmerely
mappingdifferencesinclothingandfashionontosocialcategoriessuchasclass,ethnicityand
gender.Suchmappingremovesanyspecificitytoclothingstudiessincemuchthesamemapping
canbeachievedwithforexample,foodorhousing.Inturn,socialscientistsmaydenigrate
scholarsoftextile,pattern,form,andtechnologyas`positivistswhostudysuchthingsmerely
becausetheyhavecollections.Theyseesuchattentiontodetailasemulatingtheassumptionsof
objectivityinthenaturalsciencesandthusakindof`rightwing,failuretoproperlyappreciatethe
politicisednatureofallsuchresearch,whichtheyhavebeentrainedtoelicitfromthematerialas
whatreally`matters.
Theaimofthisbookistoshowhowcontemporarymaterialculturestudiestranscendsandrefuses
thissimplisticdualism.Inourbookthedissectionofclothingintopattern,fibre,fabric,formand
productionisnotopposedto,butpartof,itsconsiderationasanaspectofhumanand
cosmologicalengagement.Thesensualandaestheticwhatclothfeelsandlookslike,isthe
sourceofitscapacitytoobjectifymyth,cosmologyandalsomorality,powerandvalues.Weare
concernedwithwhatmighthavebeentermedthepolitical,orthestudyofgender,butviewthese
asdiminishedbybeingabstractedasseparateacademic`debates.Ratherweseeintegrityinthe
complexinterweavingofwhatcanrarelybeseparatedoutintodistinctmaterialandsocial
domains.Theunderlyingclaimisthatsuchtranscendencerepresentsacertainmaturityof
perspective,onethatrecognisesthevirtuesofvariousdisciplinesandformsofexpertiseand
seekstobringthesetogetherwithinthelargerprojectofacademicunderstanding.Italso
representsanewconfidencewithinmaterialculturestudiesmoregenerally,asmorethana
meetingpoint,ratheranalloyfromwhichcanbeforgedasharperinstrumentwhosepointcan
strikefurthertowardsthesegoalsofunderstanding.
Underlyingthesepossibilitieshasbeenadeepertransformationofmaterialculturestudiesand
generalapproachestomaterialitywithinanthropology.Inarecentvolume,(Millerinpress)Ifocus
uponthemeaningofmaterialityitself.Usingthistocomplementthecommoncritiqueofthe
conceptofculturewithamorespecificcritiqueoftermssuchassociety,socialrelationsandthe
subject.Aseriesofcasestudiesrangingfromthestudyofreligiontothatoffinancedemonstrate
whatisgainedbytakingonboardtheintrinsicmaterialityofwhatareotherwiseregardedassocial
relations.Thisisdefendedbothonphilosophicalgroundsbutalsopragmaticallyasoftencloserto
thewaypeoplesinmanypartsoftheworldunderstandthemselvesandstrugglewiththe
relationshipbetweenwhattheyregardasthespiritualandmaterialaspectsoftheirlives.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology/people/academic_staff/d_miller/mil7

1/12

04/03/2015

Introduction

Withinthatvolumearetwopapersthatarespecificallyconcernedwiththetopicofclothingand
textiles.WebbKeane(inpress)arguesagainsttheideathatclothesaresignsorrepresentations
ofsocialrelations.Thishasbeenthebalefullegacyofmanyapproacheslabelled`semiotic,
althoughKeanearguesthattheworkofPeircewasneverlimitedinthisway.Theproblemwith
suchstudiesispreciselythatclothingbecomesreducedtoitsabilitytosignifysomethingthat
seemsmorerealsocietyorsocialrelations,asthoughtthesethingsexistaboveorpriortotheir
ownmateriality.Ineffect,Keaneissaying,notjustthattheemperorhadnoclothes,butthatthe
clothesshouldnolongerhaveanemperor.Thattheyarenotmerelythehandmaidenstothestudy
ofsociety,orcultureoridentity.Ratherwearepreparednowtoseeclothesthemselvesashaving
agency,aspartofwhatconstitutesandformslives,cosmologies,reasons,causesandeffects.
Kchlerschapter(inpress)takesthisstillfurtherthroughacritiqueofourprivilegingofhumanity
ashomosapient,thosewhoaredistinguishedthroughtheirpossessionofintelligence.By
focusinguponnewformsoftextilethatincludeelementsthatcanrespondtoandanticipatetheir
environment,sheshowshowintelligencecanalsobeconsideredanaspectofmateriality,andthat
itisnotjustthesocialbutalsotheintellectualcharacterisationofhumanitythatneedstobere
introducedtoitsownmaterialityinordertotranscendafalsedualismthatimpedesratherthan
facilitatesourunderstanding.
Behindtheclashofprejudicesfoundamongststudentslieswhatisoftenalreadyanassumption
andtherebyanassertionaboutwhatreally`matters.Incolloquialdiscussionofclothing,the
principleproblemhasbeenpreciselythatthewholetopicdoesntreallymatter.Sinceitisusedas
acoveringorasasurface,clothingiseasilycharacterizedasintrinsicallysuperficial.Thismaybe
connectedtoawidercritiqueoftheconceptofsurfacesthatcanberelatedtoarchitectureand
otherdomains(e.g.Wigley1995).Westrugglewithwhatmightbecalledadepthontology,avery
specificWesternideaofbeing,inwhichtherealperson,myself,issomehowdeepinsideme,
whilemysurfaceisliterallysuperficial,aslight,transientaspectthatisshallow,morecontrived,
somehowlessrealandcertainlylessimportant.Politicsasabstractandexplicitdebateis
profound,whileattentiontoformssuchasclothingistrivialandselfindulgent.Thisdenigrationof
surfaceshasbeenpartofthedenigrationofclothingand,byextension,ofthosesaidtobe
particularlyinterestedinclothing,oftenseenaswomen,orblacksoranyothergroupthatthereby
cometoberegardedasmoresuperficialandlessdeep.ButIhaveargued(Miller1994)that
Trinidadiansforexample,seethingsverydifferently.Whattheyregardasreal,therealperson,is
consideredtobeonthesurface.Itisatthissitethatyoucanhonestlyappraisethem,findoutwho
orwhattheyare.Bycontrast,thatwhichishelddeepinsidethemisseenasfalse,beinghidden
frompublicscrutiny.Itisnottherealselfbutthesiteofliesanddeceptions.SoforTrinidadians
clothingistheverybestroutetofindingoutwhoapersonisreallyabout,bothforothersviewing
themandevenforoneself,sinceitisthroughdressingthatoneconfrontswhooneis,andreveals
howcertainselfrepresentationsandpretensionsarereallydelusions(comparealsoStrathern
1979forasimilarcritiquebaseduponMelanesianevidence).Thisindicatesthatthereislittlepoint
insuggestingitisrightorwrongtotalktointermsofthemoralityofsurfaces,ratherwesimply
cannotassumethatthewayWesternPhilosophyandconversationusestheseconceptwill
necessarilyapplytoanyothersociety.Indeedinamarvellousreconstructionofthehistoryof
Franceintermsofitsattitudestoclothing,appearanceandthesiteofreality,RichardSennett
(1976)showedhowmuchtheseassumptionshavechangedoverthelastfewcenturieswithinthe
Westitself.
Similarlywerecognisethatsomeofthesedistinctionspertaintoadifferenceinthematerialbeing
discussed.WriterssuchasSimmel(1978/1907),ormorerecentcommentatorsonfashionsuchas
Davis(1994)orEntwhistle(2000)mayattimesgivelessattentiontothedetailsoffabricwhenthe
primaryinterestishowquicklythesechangeaspartofafashionsystem,whereitisthe
temporalityofknowledgethatcommandsrespect,nottheformtakenbyfashionatanygiven
moment.Itisnotsurprisingthatintheearlystudiesoffolkcostumeswhichwereoneoftheorigin
pointsofmodernsemiotics,orinanthropologicaldecodingofcolourandpatternsofweaving,
moreattentionisgiventoparametersofdifferencethatarerelativelystable(e.g.Weinerand
Schneider1989).Ontheotherhandincreatingmodernmaterialcultureitisoftenthosewhowork
againstthisgrain,suchasananthropologistwhofocusesuponthedevelopmentofnewfibres
(Schneider1994)thatprovidesthebestprecedenceforthecurrentvolume.Itisthosewhomay
bedevotedtothestudyofclass,butunderstandthatappearancecanbethesubstanceandnot
justthemechanismofclass,andthosewhoseprimaryconcernislustrewithinacollectionof
fabric,butrealisethatlustremayhavebeenunderstoodastheidiomforsweatandthereby
relationsoflabour,thatpavedthewayforcontemporarymaterialcultureapproaches.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology/people/academic_staff/d_miller/mil7

2/12

04/03/2015

Introduction

Ihaveportrayedthisclashanditsresolutionfromtheveryspecificperspectiveofmaterialculture
studies.Itisnotmyintentiontoprovideageneralsurveyofdisciplinaryworkonthetopicofdress
andcloth,butclearlytherearemanytrajectorieshereandineachcasetherewillbeadifferent
variantuponthesetensions,sothatalthoughthecontributionsinthisvolumemaynotfollowso
clearlyuponthistrajectoryIsuspectitwillalsohaveaplaceinresolvingtensionsthatexist
elsewhere,Withregardtothebroaderstudyofdressandclothinanthropology,wearefortunate
inthattherehasbeenaverysurveyoftheliteraturebyHansen(inpress),whichcomplements
worksbyEicherbothascollections(e.g.Eicher1995)andassynthesis(e.g.Eicher2000).Since
asEichernotesoneofthemaincontributionsofanthropologyfosteredbyitsconceptofcultureis
toemphasisthesocialcontextofmaterial,thesestudiesarechangingwiththetransformationsof
thesocietiesanthropologyworkswith.Sotherewasatimewhensuchstudieswouldlargelyhave
focuseduponrituals,ancestorsandkinship,somethingevidentinthefinalsetofpaperswithinthis
volume,butmanyoftherecentstudiessummarisedbyHansen,areacknowledgmentsona
regionalbasisoftheincreasingimportanceoffashionandmassconsumptionasreflectedinthe
earlysectionofthisvolume(e.g.Freedman2000forBarbados,Heath1992forSengal,Kondon
1992forJapanandLeichty2003forNepal).Ofcoursethisisonlyatrend,oneoftheearliest
influentialanthropologiststoworkonclothingA.E.Kroeber(1919)actuallystudiedcontemporary
fashion.
Theamountofrelevantworkmoregenerallycomingoutofdressandtextilestudieshasgrown
hugelyinparticularthroughtheworkofBergthepublisherofthisvolume,bothinitsbookseries
andthroughthejournalFashionTheory.AsAttfield(2000)hasshowntherearemanypointsof
integrationbetweensuchworkandthekindofmaterialculturestudiesdiscussedhere.The
historicalstudyofdressandfashionhasitselfundergoneradicalchangeswhicharereflectedin
thisliterature(forexampleTaylor2002,2004)whichhasalsoinvolvedrethinkingtherelationship
betweenformandcontext.Taylor(1998),inparticular,hasarguedforamovementbeyondthe
olderformofobjectbasedresearchwhichparallelsthecasemadehere.Onestrongcomponent
ofthisistheemphasisuponmaterialitythatcomesfromafocusuponclothingandthebody,a
topicwhichEntwhistle(2000)discussesingeneralandanexemplarymonographmaybefoundin
Summers(2001)studyoftheVictoriancorset.Therehasalwaysbeenaclearinterdisciplinary
focusinthesestudies,whichcontinuestobereflectedinboththeBergcataloguewhichincludes
ethnographicworksuchasMcVeigh(2001)onuniformsinJapanoronHaynes(1998)debutant
ballsintheUS,andinFashionTheory.Butthisinterdisciplinarityisequallytrueofthetraditionof
studiesrepresentedhereandmoregenerallyintheJournalofMaterialCulture.Sothatingeneral
termstheattemptbythisvolumetoreachanewformoftranscendencethroughanemphasis
uponmaterialitythathaslittleincommonwiththeearlierfetishismofthingsinthemselvesshould
haveresonanceacrossawidespectrumofcurrentdebatesandstudies.
Inreferencetothisinterdisciplinaryitisclearlyoneoftheintentionsofthepresentvolumeto
ensurethatforitsownpartweseethestudyoffibresuchas`washandwearfabricsandclothing
suchasaMaxmaraskirtasusedinNewYorkorLondoncanandshouldbesubjecttothesame
kindofunderstandingasbarkclothandCookislandquilts.Heretooissuesofcosmology,morality,
ortheobjectificationofagenerationmaybebetterexcavatedthroughasensitivitytothenuances
offormandfibre.Sothevolumestartswiththeclothingofmassconsumption.Forthisreasonalso
itendswithamoreconcentratedregionalcasestudythathelpselaborateuponsomeofthese
ideas,throughaseriesofpapersconcernedwiththeconstitutionofPacificpersons.Herethe
richnessofanthropologicalapproachestoregionssuchasMelanesiaarebroughttobearonthe
intricaciesofclothproduction,patternandform.
THEWORLDBENEATHHAUTECUTURE
Incontemporarymaterialculturestudiesthechallengehasbeenasmuchtoreuniteworkon
designerlabelswithworkontraditionalikat,asithasbeentorejectthedualismofsocietyand
materiality.OurunderstandingofbothbarkclothfibreandaMaxmaraskirtareconsiderably
enhancedbytheirjuxtapositionandbothhavebeendenudedbytheartificialseparationwhich
tendstocorrespondalsotothedivisionbetweenanthropologyandsociology.Theway
Woodward,withheranthropologicaltraining,understandsthisskirtisafteralllargelyderivedfrom
herinterpretationofwritingsbyStrathernandGell.Importantly,andunlikemostwriterson
contemporaryfashion,herfocusisonpeoplewearingtheselabels,nottheproducersandfirms.
Sheisnotdrawnupwardstoeitherthestudyofhautecoutureorhauteculture.Furthermoreher
examplesarelargelyofsocialfailure,ofhowtheseitemsbetrayedandfailedtoaccomplishtheir
expectedandintendedeffects.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology/people/academic_staff/d_miller/mil7

3/12

04/03/2015

Introduction

InthetwomostextendedstudieswithinWoodwardspaperweareintroducedtoindividualswith
strongdesiresastowhotheywanttobe,andaclearsenseofthemselves.Butinbothcasesthe
clothingisthesuperioragent,itsverymaterialitythwartsthemandpreventsthemfrombecoming
thosepersons.Katehassevenwardrobes,andisfacingforherakeyoccasion.Yetsuchan
expertstrategistgetseverythingwrong.Shefailstoseehowaretreattoclothessuchasthis
Maxmaraskirt,thathavealwaysworkedinthepast,iscompletelyinappropriateforfacinguptoa
contextthatisunprecedentedandthatreallydiddemandsomethingnew.Asaresultthenew
Katethatshelooksforwardtofailstocomeintoexistence.ZinaistheinverseofKate,theperson
whowillnotbuyclothesordressupforanoccasion.Butasaresultshealsosuffersfrom
extraordinaryconstraints.AtleastKategottotheIvyrestaurant,ZinacannotevengototheSony
awardceremony,sinceherclothingdictatesagainwhatshecannotbeandbyextensionwhere
shecannotgo.Thereisnopostmodernfreedomhere,ratherhighlyconstrained,highlyanxious
acts,whichinstarkcontrasttothepromiseofthepostmodern,aremomentswhenyoucannot
escaperesponsibilitytoclaimstoauthority,sincethesearefoisteduponyoubythejudgementsof
others.Exactlythepointmadeearlierwithregardtosuperficiality(Miller1994,OHanlon1989,
Strathern1979).
AsWoodwardnotesthisrevealsanothersidetoGells(1998)theoriesoftheextendedperson.
ForGelltheemphasisuponthispermeablerelationshipbetweentheindividualandtheir
externalitywasthewayinwhichtheircreativeworkcouldextendthemoutwardstoinfluence
others.ButseenthroughWoodwardsexampleweseethatthissametheoryrevealstheextentto
whichtheindividualistherebyequallymadevulnerabletothepenetratingcriticismsofothersand.
SojustasinthePacificcasesweseeherethekeyattributesofclothisitsconductivitynotits
settingapart.Clothingisthecarapacethatoftenconductsandconnects(Thriftinpress)rather
thanseparatesoursenseofwhatlieswithinandoutsideourselves.
TopositionWoodwardschapterbeforeOConnorsaccordswellwithOConnorsownpointthat
thenaturaltendencytotreatproductionaspriortoconsumptioncanoftenbemisleading.Inthese
Pacificpapersthereisnoassumptionofdirectionality.Pacificpeoplemayshredtheirfibresso
thatclothingcanenacttheirunderstandingofrelationshipstechnologyisacreativeand
expressivemediumandnotjustameanstoapreviouslydeterminedend.Thefinalclothmaybe
theretojustifythetechnologyaswellastheotherwayaround.OConnorstartsfromthe
observationthatmostcontemporaryclothingistheproductofnewartificialfibres,andthe
relationshipbetweenfibreandproductisnotgiven.ItisnotthatonedayLycraisbettersuitedto
makinggirdlesandthenextdayitisbettersuitedtomakingleggings(seeOConnor2003).There
isnotechnologicaldeterminismhere.Thefibresdonotdeterminewhethertheyareusedtoholda
stomachinorassistinaerobicexercises.Ratherforgarmentsmadeofartificialfibrestosimply
existinanyrealquantity,therehadtodevelopaneffectiveconnectionbetweenthedemandfor
particularkindsofclothingandtheabilitytomakethese.Asinopticalfibresthissocialeconomy
canonlyworkifpeoplecanseethelightatbothendsofthethread.
Tobeentirelynewisinasensetobeentirelyold.Fibresatfirstcouldonlybeartificialsilk
becausetheyhadnoresonanceoftheirown.Tocomeintobeingintheirownrightmeantnotjust
thestudyofthenewpropensityoffibrebutjustasmuchastudyofthenewpropensityofwomen.
Theytoowereinventingthemselvesinmanyunprecedentedways,theytoowerediscoveringnew
waysinwhichtheycouldgainstretchandflexibility,forexampleinthemanagementoftime,and
needednewlabelstodesignateandthusunderstandwhotheyhadbecomeasageneration.
IndeedwhatOConnorshowsisthatitwasntsomenewfashionorstylethatmatchedproduction
toconsumption,itwastheemergingconcernwith`convenience.Thenewsystemofproduction
thatcamenotfrommanufacturing,butfromthetechnologiesofhousewifery,becamethecritical
sellingpointofthesenewmaterials.Theproductionsystemofmanufacturehadtoaccordwiththe
changingproductionsystemofwomenasconsumers,Sotounderstandinnovationasmuchasto
understandcustomweneedtoseetheresonancesbywhichpeopledevelopthemselvesas
materialculture,andbecomethe`washandweargeneration.
Oneoftheprimarydifficultiesinjuxtaposingthestudyoftheselfdesignatedmodernwithmore
traditionalanthropologicalworkisthedegreetowhichthefieldswestudybecomeabstractedand
designatedasdistinct.WithmuchofthePacificmaterialwedonotneedanthropologiststoinsist
uponaseamlessconnectionbetweenreligionandclothing,becauseitisthedesignationofthese
astwoseparatecategoriesthatappearsartificial.Whenfibres,fabricsandwaysofwearingare
themediumforonesrelationshipstootherpeopleandtothegods,wecannothave`clothand
`religionwecanonlyhavethematerialityofcosmology.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology/people/academic_staff/d_miller/mil7

4/12

04/03/2015

Introduction

Intheselfdesignatedmodernsocieties,bycontrast,thetendencyistoseethingsanddiscuss
themasseparatedoutdomains,sothatbeingreligiousandbeingfashionableseemnaturally
opposedratherthannaturallyintegral.Itbecomesincreasinglyclearthattheprocessof
categorisationisitselfdeeplypolitical,ormoreproperlyideological,theattempttogainhegemony
foroneorotherviewastothe`natural.ThemodernmovementinTurkey,whichtookitspolitical
formthroughAtatrk,triedhardtodesignatereligionanditsunitywitheverydaylifeasantiquated
andopposedtomodernity.SoasSandikciandGerdemonstratetheradicalismoftheirinformants
ascontemporaryurbanwomenlieslessintheirexplicitavowalofreligion,andmoreintheir
espousalofreligionasalegitimateandalternativeformofmodernity.Unlikethesecularmodernity
thatstartswiththeseparationofthesecategories,suchaspoliticsandreligion,wefindclothbeing
usedasanexpressionofinterconnectivity.Onceagainweseeaninsistenceuponaunifying
cosmololgy,whichtakesamaterialandaestheticform.
Soforthesewomenthereisnocontradictionbetweentheespousaloffashionandhaving
collectionsofscarvestomatchthecollectionsofclothingthatWoodwardstudiesintheUK.The
riseofthemassmarketdoesnotdiminish,butrathermakespossible,thefulfilmentofreligious
ideals.Inthiscasetheproblemforthesewomenishowtosimultaneouslyconformtothe
commandmenttobemodestandavertthemalepredatorygaze,butalsotoembodytheIslamic
idealsofbeautyandorder,andtotherebyexpressandembodyIslamsaestheticunderstandings.
Consider,forexample,thewaycalligraphyhastraditionallyalsobeenusedtoresolvetheproblem
ofexpressingthebeautyofIslamwithouttheprofanationofrepresentingthebody(adilemma
fictionalisedrecentlyinPamuk2001).Whatindustrialcapitalismprovidesisavastarrayof
materials,shapes,coloursandformswhichcanhelpwomeninterprettheseinjunctionssoasto
resolvethem.Howtohavecolourwithoutbeinggaudy,tohaveeleganceofshapewithout
sexualisedallure,tohaveopacityandalsolightness,comfortandalsoconvenience.AsSandikci
andGershow,theworkof`interpretationissimultaneouslyverbalandmaterial.Thesewomen
canexplainwhattheyaredoingandhowitrelatestotheirstruggletounderstandandinterpret
Koraniccommands,butthemosteloquenttestimonyisintheirpractice,whatistermedtheir
`beautywork.Theinterpretationconstructedfromtherichnessofpracticeisoftenfarmore
nuancedthananythingthattheycansayabouttheirrelationshiptoreligioustext.Outsidersseea
contradictionbetweentheassumedmaterialismofmassconsumptionandreligiousspirituality,but
insiderswelcometheprovisionofnewformsandmaterialsasGodsblessingthatenablethemto
resolvecontradictionandasafurtheranceofcosmologicalimperatives.Whenwestepbackand
considerthecentralityoftheheadscarftopoliticalstrugglesfromIrantoFrancetoday,wecansee
thatthisappropriationbynomeansdiminishesthepoliticalimpact,onthecontraryitisthevery
essenceofitspolitics.Thereisnothingsuperficialaboutheadscarves.
LOCALWEARING,GLOBALTEARING
Thisgeneralrefusalto`seethematerialityofclothingaspartofthepoliticsofclothingbutinstead
toassumethattobepoliticalistosuppressthematerialmakestheendpointofSandikciand
GerschapterthestartingpointofthechapterbyHansen.Hansenbeginsbyconsideringtheway
thephenomenonshehasbeenstudyingtendstoberepresentedinthemediaastheinternational
clothingtrade.Thepointshemakesisthatforthejournalistssuchtradeissimplyabstractedasa
`symbolfortheirstanceonthestateoftheworld,forexample,exploitation.Butassuch,thereis
nospecificitytotheirenquiryandthusnounderstandingofwhyclothing,whythisclothing.Whatis
ignoredbysuchaglibreductionofthiscomplexencounterisanyrealisationofhowclothingis
constructedbythewayitiscombinedandworntocreateaneffect.Thematerialityofclothis
manifestintheemphasisuponappearance.Theverytermsalaulaorsorting,makesreferenceto
theactivecomponentofselectionandrecombinationthatmakessuchclothinginessence
performative.
ToillustratethispointHansenlooksatthedevelopmentofwhatshecalls`clothingcompetencein
circumstancesrangingfromyoungmenconsideringsuitsandjeanstoolderwomenssensitivities
tothevariouscontextsforwhichtheyneedspecificclothing.Fromthepointofviewofthese
consumerstheimportantqualityofsalaulaisnotthattheyhavebeenworn,butgiventhevast
rangeofsources,itisthatcomparedtohighstreetclothinginothercountriesthisclothinghasa
muchhigherpercentagechanceofbeinguniquewithintheuniverseofclothingworninthisregion.
Theinteractivenatureofthisaestheticmeansthat,ineffect,theclothingbecomethesummation
ofthereactionofotherstoonesattempttocarryitofftoappropriateitasonesnewappearance
intheworld.Tomasterthiscompetencerequiresasmuchconcernforthematerialityofclothingin
thiscaseofsecondhandclothingasitdoesinWoodwardsanalysisofclothingcompetencesin
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology/people/academic_staff/d_miller/mil7

5/12

04/03/2015

Introduction

firsthandclothing.IndeedHansen,likeWoodwardisdrawntotheinstructivelessonstobelearnt
fromclothesthatfailwhenworntoapublicoccasion.Buttheironyinthiscaseisthatthe
specificityofclothingisheightenedbecausesecondhandclothescometorepresentnotlackof
choicebutgreaterchoicethanisavailableforfirsthandclothesandthusagreaterburdenof
expectationsandresponsibilityuponthoseengagedintheworkofthisreassemblingclothes.
Theveryfirstchapterandtheverylastchapterofthisbookechowiththesoundoffibresbeing
shredded.Norrisalsoservesbrilliantlyasafinalchapterbecausethemessageofherpaperis
preciselythattheapparentendisoftenalsoanunacknowledgedbeginning.Thatshreddingold
clothcreatesthebasisfornewmaterials,butalsoreleasestheirsymbolicandsocialsignificance,
sothatfragilityandreconstitutionaremadeavailableagainaswarpandweft.Anideaagain
reminiscentofKchlerandHenaresexaminationofthefibresofsocialconnectivity.Inthecaseof
Norris,asalsobefitsIndiansocialmores,wholecastesareconstitutedbytheirpreciseplacein
thisprocessofreconfiguringvalue,forexamplethesuspicionofthatcasteseenasresponsible
forremovingoldclothingaswasteandreplacingitwithshinynewkitchenutensils.Particularly
importantisthewayNorrisuseshermaterialtocritiqueonemoredualismthatsofarhasbeen
largelyignored,thatbetweenthestudyofsocialsymbolismandpoliticaleconomy,sincehereitis
theemphasisuponmaterialityitself,whichagainservestoconnectratherthanseparateoffthese
twogenresofacademicstudy.
IncomparingthereuseofoldIndianclothingwith,inparalleltoHansen,thereuseofimported
Western,Norrisrevealsthemediumbywhichwecanperhapsbestunderstandmaterialityitselfas
anaspectofmaterialculture.Itismaterialityastheformofvalue.Whilethetermvaluesounds
likethestrippeddownsubstancefromwhicheconomic,social,religiousdeterminationsofwhat
matterstopeoplecanbebuiltup,evenatthismostbasiclevel,valueisstillmaterial.Ittakes
materialformwithinherentpropensities,inwhichformittravelscontinents,becomesre
configured,isreducedorsubstantiallyincreasedasvalue.Usuallywethinkofabstractionasa
lossofform,butinthisbookwecanseethatequallyoftenitismaterialitythatconstitutesrather
thanlimitstheverypossibilitiesofvalue.Forexample,topassthroughandaccumulatevalue
doesclothhavetobefirstslashedandtranslatedintothecategoryof`mutilatedhosiery?What
regulations,nationalandmultinational,attempttocontroltherelationshipbetweentheseformsof
materialityandtheirvaluepotential?Whoseeandidentifiesthemselveswithopportunitiesto
createvaluebyentrepreneurialtranslationsthroughselection,findingmarkets,relabellingor
seeingthecachetinoldlabelling?Norrisshowshowtheseentrepreneurshavetobecomeexperts
intranslation.Tosecurevalueistobeabletosniffouttheprecisecolour,texture,orqualityofthe
materialandproperlyassessitspotentialinitsnextclothinglife.CentraltoNorrisspaperisits
ownrevelatoryquality.Somuchofwhatshedescribeswasnotonlyunknowntous,butis
unknowntolocalbuyers,anditsvaluedependentuponnotrevealingcertainaspects,suchasits
neverhavingbeenwashed,orthefactthatitisnotactuallymadefromIndianmaterials.Shoddy
comesoverasawonderfullyambiguousterminthisaccountofclothinglies.Itistheseliesthat
permittheextraordinarycycleofclothfromthekindsofwardrobestudiedbyWoodword,toIndia
andsometimesbackagain.Duringthisjourneykeyattributessuchaslabelsmaysuddenlyfade
intoinsignificance,whileotheraspectsofmaterialityriseupandmakesaclaimtobethe
determinantqualityofthematerial.Inconclusionthischapter,aswithallitspredecessors,shows
howmuchisgainedbycloseattentiontothefabricofidentity.
THECONSTITUTIONOFPACIFICPERSONS
Thecumulativeeffectofthepaperspresentedhere,istooverthrowconventionalideologiesthat
havelimitedourperceptionofcloth.Butwehopethisisnotsomeesoteric,theoreticalgambit,
resonantofacademicstryingtoshowhowclevertheyare.Onthecontraryitmostoftenarisesas
atearingasideofwhathaspreventeduscomingclosertothewayclothandclothingisactually
regardedbythepeoplewhoproduceandwearit.Thisisparticularevidentintheseriesofpapers
thatdealwithclothinthePacific(seealsoColchester2003).Inthesepaperstheauthorsseeksto
conveytheexperiencesofsuchpeopleswherecosmology,thatisonesunderstandingofthe
natureoftheuniverseandonesplacewithinit,isoftenformulatedthroughthemaking,wearing,
displayinganddestructionoffibres.Thecomplexityofallmannerofrelationshipsareunderstood
throughtheidiomoffibreandcloth,whichisnotthereforetobeunderstoodasrepresentationor
metaphor,butisthatfromwhichthoseunderstandingsandexpectationsarewoven.Theytellyou
whatanancestorfeelslike,whatitmeanstosayarelationshipisfragile.Suchworkhasbeen
considerablyenhancedbyStrathernsworkinopeningupoursenseoftheselfasoftenonly
emergentthroughthereflectionuponappearance.Indeeditisworthrememberingthatmanyof
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology/people/academic_staff/d_miller/mil7

6/12

04/03/2015

Introduction

Strathernshighlyinfluentialinsightsastothepartibleandflexiblenatureoftheself(1986)
followeduponherearlierstudiesofselfdecorationinMountHagen(Strathern1979,also
StrathernandStrathern19)
ForStrathernthisselfemergesasarelationalformthatoftenknowswhatitismainlythroughthe
impactofitsownappearance.Thematerialityofpresence,orpersonification,iswhatgives
relationshipstheirpresenceandtheireffects.Butequallytherehavebeenimportantwritings
aboutmaterialsandappearancessuchasMcKenzies(1991bookonnetbagsinNewGuinea,or
Gell(1993ontattooinginthePacific)orThomas(1991)onexchangethathavegivenusa
freedominthinkingaboutthissamesetofrelationshipsfromtheperspectiveoftheformand
patternthattheytake.Theseareinturninformedbyasenseofrelationshipsovertimethatmake
clothingandfibresomethingthatembroidersthepresent,givesitshapeandformontofabricthat
isgivenbyhistoryanditsembodimentinformssuchasancestorsandcustom.
AcriticalterminStrathernsworkispersonification,whichrespondstoherfocusupontheperson
astheformbywhichwecometoseewhatconstitutesrelationships,butthisisamorespecific
versionofamoregeneralterm,thatofobjectificationwhichliesatthebedrockofmaterialculture
studiesinitsattempttotranscendsubjectsandobjectsandfocusonthisprocessofdialectical
culture.Butthiswordobjectificationhaspassedthroughquitedifferentmeaningsalso.Whatdoes
itmean,forexample,toconsiderlawasaformofobjectification?Whenappliedtolawtheword
objectificationislikelytoconnoteitsmore`Marxistpejorativeversionofanobjectasafixturefrom
whoseharddryformthefluidhumanityhasbeensuckedout.Wetendtothinkoflawasstatic,as
forcingpeopleintoamoreobjectlikerelationshiptoeachotherandtopossessions.Akindoffall
fromthemoredynamic,mutablerelationshipsofcustomaryunderstanding.Butlawand
possessionareallaboutrelationships,andtheyareconstantlytransformedbyamixtureof
changinginterpretationandchangingmoralitiesoffairnessandappropriateness,saturatedwith
moral,emotionalandaffectivequalities.Considertheadjudicationofpossessioninthecaseofan
heirloomatthetimeofadivorceorinheritance.Solawcanequallywellbeassociatedwiththe
moreHegeliansenseofobjectificationwhichseesobjectsandinstitutionsasthesolemeansby
whichsubjectscreatethemselves,theveryessenceofcreativity.Theformernarrowusage
ignoresthecommonalityoflawandcustom.InAustralianAboriginalsocietyweseethewell
defendedrightsofthepainterasagainsttherightstooverseethepaintingandtherightsto
possessionofthemotifsbeingpainted,allasintegralaspectsequallyofAboriginalkinshipand
Australianlaw(Myersinpress).
ForHenarethisiswhywemustacknowledgethatMaoriclothwastreasuredlongbeforerightsto
culturalheritagewereenshrinedinstatelaws.Henarerecognisesandpartakesintheprocessof
weavingasthemeansbywhichanobject,theclothorcloak,isbroughtintobeing.Genealogy,
sheargues,partakesinthesametechnicalprocess.Arawmaterial,thecorporealbody,issubject
toawholeseriesofritualsandadditionsthatcreatesitspresenceinasocietyasalivingpersonor
eventuallyasanancestor.Indeedoftenthethreadsfromwhichabodyspersonaiswoven,came
throughthepositioning,wrapping,delineationofbodyandspacewithcloaks.TheMaorilanguage
constantlyrecognisesthesamenessofprocessesthroughwhichpersonsandclothareproduced.
Soclothandpersonsareequallytheproductsofobjectification.Assuchtheyarenotsubservient
totheprocesseswithinwhichtheyareemployed.Theperspectiveofobjectificationalready
presupposesthepotentialofobjectsincreatingandreproducingrelationalsubjects.
ItshouldnotbehardforanthropologistsbroughtuponMausss(1966)interpretationoftheHauto
concedeHenaresfurtherpointhere.Theexchangeofclothisgrantedtobealsoanexchangeof
aspectsofpersons,sincethesesamepersonsarepartlyconstitutedbytheirrelationshipcreated
inthatactofexchange.Soalsoacloth,orequallyatechniqueofmakingcloth,thatisheldto
comefromanancestor,isnotjustarepresentationoramemory,butanabidingpresenceofthat
ancestor.Theverywordancestorspeakstoarelationshipjoinedtoadescendent,amutually
constitutingexchange,inthiscase,oftemporalities.Soinweavingatraditionalpatternones
handsandtheirmovementsbecomethehandsandmovementsoftheancestorswhobequeathed
thetechnique.Amistakeisaritualerror,afailuretobethatancestor.Thisfailurewouldbea
breachofMaorilawbecauseitrendstheclothoftheconnectivitybetweenpresentidentityandthe
past,thatwhichmakesthefabricMaori.Theclaimtoarighttoinherit,thatistobeMaori,is
alwaysaresponsibilitytoanancestralgenealogythatwoveoneintobeing.Toappropriately
possessandemploytherightcloakandtoweaveintherightwayistofulfilthatresponsibilityto
keepalivebothancestorandancestry.Soculturalheritageisanobjectification,notbecauseof
thepropertiesofWesternLaw,butbecauseitcannoteverhavebeenanythingelse.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology/people/academic_staff/d_miller/mil7

7/12

04/03/2015

Introduction

ThereareclearcontinuitiesbetweenHanerasconcernsandColchester,sinceitispreciselythe
roleofclothintheobjectificationofpowerthatliesattheheartofColchesterspaper,thoughhere
itistheambiguitiesandcompetitivenatureofthatprocessofobjectificationthattakescentre
stage.Consistentwiththepreviouschapterweseethattoobjectifyistoconstitutethatpower
existsinlargermeasuretothedegreetowhichitcantakeaformaformthatreconfiguresthe
authorityofthepastwiththatofthepresent.ThesituationColchesterdescribesisoneofpower
inflation,inwhichpowerasalimitedgoodwasbeingreducedbyvirtueofthesheernumberof
attemptstoexpressitintheformofprojectssuchaschurchbuildingfornewdenominationsorco
operatives.Thisaccountsfortheparadoxofmasi,whichwassimultaneouslyarevival,toreturn
asanewplayerinthisgame,butonewhichdependeduponbeingdeeplyconservative,sinceonly
itsapparentlyunmediatedformborewitnesstoitscapacitytobringbackancestralefficacyinto
thepresent.Itsstabilityandcontinuityascustomarylegitimacybecomesstillmoreimportantata
timewhenthereisincreasinguncertaintyastothenormativeformthatshouldbetakenbyclaims
topower,acommonfateformaterialssuchasclothingunderconditionsofmodernity(Clarkeand
Miller2002).
Masiiseffectivealsobecauseitissubstantive,itcombinesakindoflabourtheoryofvalue,where
labourititselfbothsignandsubstanceofcommitment,withagenealogicalmodelofpersonhood,
whereobjectsactasrememberances.Atagenerallevelthechapterupdatestheanthropological
discussionofthePacificconceptofmanaasalocalconceptofobjectification,thatisthenecessity
ofamaterialaspecttopower.ButColchestershowsthatthisimplicatesthespecificityofthe
materialitself.Herethestabilityofitspatternandformasmaterialisationofthepasttakesonnew
aspectsbecauseofitsjuxtapositionwithnewmaterialssuchasphotography.Thechangein
contextmeansmasicouldhardlybestaticforalltheirappealtothepast.Thisemergesinvarious
creative,ambivalentandsometimeshumorousandironiceffects.Inturnthishighlightsonemore
synthesis,whichisthenecessityofsuchspecificmaterialformsasanessentialcomponentof
generalqualitiessuchaspowerandspirituality.Anambivalencetomaterialityisitselfcentralto
Christiannotionsofspirituality(e.g.EnglekeinpressKeane1997).Sounderstandingtheprecise
materialityofmasibecomeameansforunderstandingthenatureoftheemergentsyncretism
betweenChristianandpreChristianformsofreligiosityandpower.
CentraltoColchestersargumentistheroleofpattern,inparticulartheroleofstabilityinrelation
toconditionsofchange.PatternisevenmoreevidentlycentrestageinthenextchapterbyWere.
ThegistofWereargumentsrestsupontheabilityofpatterntocreateconnectionsratherthanto
bethebearerofdifferencesanddistinctions.Workonothermediasuchasshellsandornaments,
especiallywhenconsideredinthelightofrecenttheoreticalworkbyGell(1998),suggeststhe
wayspatternmighthavebeenusedinthePacifictofacilitatethisworkofconnecting.ButWere
arguesthatwiththeEuropeanintroductionofcalicoclothintheregion,patternalsobecomes
importantforcontrollingthenatureoftheconnectionbetweentheislandersandthenewcomers.
Thereisapoignantcontrastdrawnhere.Ontheonehandtheimpotenceofislandersintheface
oftheviolenceexhibited,forexample,inthepracticeofblackbirding,thatiskidnappingmento
workinplantationssuchasinQueensland.Ontheotherhandthesubtlemeansbywhich
discriminatingbetweendifferentimportedcalicosandwearingtheseorreconfiguringthesein
accordancewithpriorcustomallowedtheislanderssomedegreeofagencyindeterminingthe
conditionsofthiscolonialencounter.ThisfollowsthegeneralargumentofThomas(1998)with
regardtothetwowaynatureofselectionandappropriationofmaterialculture.Assuchthevery
goodsthattheislanderstakefromtheEuropeansbecomesoneofthemeansbywhichtheyseek
to`tametheinfluenceofmissionariesandothersandmakethisinfluencemoreappropriateto
localsensibilitiesandcustoms.
ThesepapersreachtheirconclusionintheessaybyKchlerwhichreturnstoourintitialandbasic
questionofwhatwegainthroughanewopennesstothematerialityofrelationshipsasconstituted
byfibreandcloth.Whatwedowithmaterialssuchasfibreandclothisoftenthemeansbywhich
wecometo`seetheverynatureofourrelationships.Thisisamaterialitythatincorporatesthe
processofproduction,shreddingandrecombiningfibresthatreflectsthecompositionand
decompositionofstatesofbeing,andisverydifferentfromourusualconceptualisationofclothing
intermsofsurfaceanddepth.Textileisnothereanappearance.Itistheformofaneveryday
experience.Inthisconstancyofshredding,sewingandaltering,appearancebecomealsotactile
andauditoryhowweuseourhands,whatmaterialfeelslike,theconstantsoundscapearound
thehouse.Sorecompositionisfelttobeinthenatureofrelationships.Textileisamedium
throughwhichpeoplethinktheiranticipationofnewandwithdrawalfromolderconnections.Itis
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology/people/academic_staff/d_miller/mil7

8/12

04/03/2015

Introduction

thesethreadsofconnectionthatperformtherelativedensityofculturalsubstance.
Kchlershowshowthisappliedequallytointroducedsewnclothastotraditionalfibressuchas
barkclothandmats,sincetheformerwerealsoreconstructedthroughtearing,sewingandquilting
andtherebyseentoexpressanimacy.Assuchclothinganimatedwomensemotionaland
relationalattachmentstoboththelivingandthedead.Intricacyinlayeringandpatterncould
`stitchupsensualandaffectiverelationshipsbetweenpeopleandthematerialityofhouses,rituals
andthegeneralformtakenbyconnectivitywithgods,adoptedchildren,ancestorsandlovers.
TodayCookIslanderssewtogetherquiltsandquiltssewtogetherCookIslanderslivingin
disparatelands.Assuchtheyuseanewmediumtoreplicatethesamesymmetryfoundin
traditionswherewrappingimagesofthegodshadbeenthemeansbywhichpeoplefeltinturn
wrappedupinthecomfortaccordedbybeingsurroundedbyspirits.Neitherwassimplya
covering,theywereaformsofconnectionseffectedthroughthejuxtapositionoflayersand
materials.Kchlerillustratesthevisionofmaterialculturethatthisvolumespeakstofine
attentiontodetailcreatesaphenomenologicalsenseofhow,foranothersociety,beingis
experiencedasanexusofrelationshipsinwhichtheideaoflivingandthelightnessoflifeisitself
diffuse.Deadpeoplewithalivingpresence,madecloththatisshreddedandreconfigured,
childrenthatareremovedfromtheirpastandreconfigured.Asewnclothanticipates,
acknowledges,constitutes,recallsandmemorialisesrelationships.Justasgenealogytracesthe
threadsofconnection.
CONCLUSIONS
IwanttoconcludebymakinganalogouspointswithreferencetoourrecentstudyoftheSari
(BanerjeeandMiller2003),astudywhichaddsonefurtherdimensiontothisreintegrationof
materialitywithsociality.Thisisthedimensionofwearing,whichalsocanbeseentointernalise
aspectsofthematerialityofclothing,apointalsomadebySandikciandGer.Thechaptersofthis
booksetinthePacificmakeclearthatthesematerialcultureapproachesareasmuchabout
returningtoasenseofthematerialityofthepersonastothematerialityofthecloth.Thisisnot
simplythematerialityofthebody.Thematerialpresenceinquestionmayequallywellbean
ancestororanaspectofkinship.Thepointisthatthereisnosimpleboundaryordistinction
betweenpersonsandtheirenvironment.
Thisbecomesveryclearwhenwelookatcloththatstandsattheveryplaceofthis`boundary.In
examiningtheSouthAsiansari,oneisalwaysdrawntowhatiscalledthepallu(Banerjeeand
Miller2003:2941).Thisistheendofthecloththatnormallyhasfarmoreelaboratedecoration
thantherestand,inthemostcommonstyleofsaridrapingtoday,isalsothepartofthesarithat
appearstobe`semidetached,drapedovertheshoulderasalooseitemofcloth.Itisthepartof
thesarithatstandsatthisambiguousboundary,simultaneouslypartandnotpartoftheperson.
Investigatedinitsownright,thepalluisseentobeinconstantuseasafunctional,sortofthird
hand,forwipingchairs,holdingkeys,protectingfromthesun,orholdinghotpansinthekitchen.It
isequallyinconstantuseasameansofshiftingtheappearanceofthewearerinrelationtothose
aroundherandtherebyindicatingbothattitudeandemotion.Itcanbetuckedintothewaistto
makeoneauthoritative,heldbetweentheteethtoindicatemodestyandveiling,itcanbeusedto
flirtortodemonstrateconfidenceasa`powersariinanoffice.Finallythepalluturnedouttobe
`instrumentalinexaminingtherelationshipbetweenmothersandinfants.Itcanbeplayedwithby
achild,inapeekaboogametocreateaffection,itiswhataninfantmayholdontowhilesleeping
withtheirmotherorlearningtowalk.Likethefamous`transitionalobjectofpsychoanalysis
(Winnicott1971,bestknownastheLinussblanketinthecartoonPeanuts),itbecomesthat
aspectofthemotherthatappearssemidetachableandthussemiappropriatedbythechild.
Inallthreecasesweseethesarinotsimplyasthecoveroftheindividualbutasthemediation
betweentheindividualandthatwhichliesoutsideofthem,theirchild,theirkitchen,theiroffice
workers.Thissemidetachednaturemeansthatapallumayextendtheindividual,butcanalso
betraythem,forexample,bycatchingonfireorbeingcaughtinacardoororsteppedonbya
maliciousmale.Soitisnotsimplyanextensionofwill.Whatthisimpliesisnotjustadifferencein
clothing,butasignificantdifferenceinwhatitmeanstobeawoman.Tohaveclothingthathas
thisdynamicbuiltintoit,sothatonecanradicallychangeonesappearanceseveraltimesina
hour,ifneedbe,hasnoequivalentintherelativelyfixed,tailoredclothingthatdominatesthewest,
whichalsohasnoneoftheambiguitycentraltothesari.AsarguedinTheSarithishasanimpact
onhowtheindividualrelatestothemselves,toothers,andtowiderissuessuchasthenatureof
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology/people/academic_staff/d_miller/mil7

9/12

04/03/2015

Introduction

rationalityormodernity.
Butnoneofthisisanintrinsicfeatureofdrapedclothing.Anotherdrapedclothinanotherplaceor
timemayexhibitnoneofthisdynamism.Sothematerialitycanbeconsideredapropensitybutnot
simplyacause.Andthishasbeentrueofeverychapterinthisbook.AsOConnorshowed
artificialfibrestoohavepropensityasmaterials,butthisdoesnotdeterminewhattheyhave
becomeoverthedecades.Biologicalanthropologytellsuseveryyearmoreabouthowpeople
havepropensities,giventheirgeneticsandthecourseofhumanevolution,butnoamountof
biologicalanthropologywilleveraccountforthediversityandtheextraordinarypossibilitiesof
culturethataredetailedinthisbook.Propensitydoesmatter,anditisthewayinwhichmatter
becomesintegraltoculturalprocesses.Itwouldbeashallowanalysisthatfailedtounderstand
howandwhythepallu,orrayonorbarkclothorcottonlendthemselvestowhattheyhave
become,orinsomecaseshowausagehashadtoovercometheintractabilityofmaterial.Indeed
manyofthesechaptersareabouttearing,shredding,reconfiguringandtransformingthepotential
offibreandtextileasitmovesfromonecontexttoanother,oftenhidinganddenyingitsownstory.
Weneedtorespectbiologicalanthropologybutalwayswithaclearunderstandingofits
limitations.Inthesamewaytorefocusuponmaterialityisinnosenseareturntodeterminism.
Thisthenisthecurrentstateofmaterialculturestudiesastheypertaintotextileandclothing.
Theyleadtoanewrespectforthescholarshipinvolvedinthepreciseanalysisofthepropensities
offibre,shape,textureandpattern.Theyleadtoanewscholarshipthatconsidersdraping,feel,
comfortandassemblage.Thetechnologiesofwearingandofgenealogyarereintroducedto
thoseofweaving.Theresultisimmeasurablyricher,becausewecannowunderstandgenealogy
astechnology,weavingasaformbywhichpatternsofvaluearecreatednotjustpatternsofstyle,
Assemblageemergesnotjustascraftbutalsoasathwartedorfailedexpressionofwill,inthe
faceofstrongerforceswhetherthatofelitesocietyorofcolonialauthority.Buttoproducethis
richnessoftexturedemandsouracknowledgmentofonemoretechnology.Wehavealsore
integratedthetechnologythatwetermscholarship,foundinanthropologyandothersocial
sciencesthatinvestigatethenuancesofkinship,cosmology,deathandcommensality.Weare
forcingthescholarshipthatpertainstoanalysingkinshipandsocialdistinctions,andthatwhich
pertainstounderstandingfibresandstyleandthatwhichpertainstoexchangeandinternational
trade,tonotjustrespecteachotherbutbeinterwovenintoatherebymuchstrongermaterial
culture.Noneofthesetechnologiescanbeappraisedoveranyother.Allbecomerequisite.Wedo
notreducetoasimplecategoryofclothforthesamereasonwedonotreducetoasimple
categoryofgender,classorethnicity.
Whenwegooutintotheworldwewant,evenasacademics,tolookgood,andlookinggoodand
stylishdependsuponourabilitytowearnewgarmentsamaterialculturethatnolongerunravels
intothewarpofmaterialityandtheweftofsociety,butistheretoaccentuateandexpressevery
subtlecontourofthatbodyofunderstandingwebringoutintothepublicgaze.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Attfield,J.2000WildThings.Oxford:Berg.
Banerjee,MandMiller,D.2003TheSari.Oxford:Berg
Buchli,V.Ed.2002TheMaterialCultureReader.Oxford:Berg
Clarke,AandMiller.D.2002FashionandAnxiety.FashionTheory6:191213
ColchesterC.Ed.2003,ClothingthePacific.Oxford:Berg.
Davis,F.1994FashionCultureandIdentity.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress
EicherJ.Ed.1995.DressandEthnicity:ChangeAcrossSpaceandTime.Oxford:Berg
EicherJ.2000.TheAnthropologyofDress.Dress27:5970
Engelke,M.(Inpress)StickySubjectsandStickyObjects.InD.MillerEd.MaterialityDurham:
DukeUniversityPress
Entwistle,J.2000.TheFashionedBody.PolityPress,Cambridge
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology/people/academic_staff/d_miller/mil7

10/12

04/03/2015

Introduction

Freeman,C.2000HighTechandHighFeelsintheGlobalEconomy:women,workandpinkcollar
identitiesintheCaribbean.DukeUniversityPress
Gell,A.1998ArtandAgency:Ananthropologicaltheory.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress
Gell,A.1993WrappinginImages:TattooinginPolynesia.Oxford:ClarendonPress
Hansen,KT.2004TheWorldinDress:Anthropologicalperspectivesonclothingfashionand
culture.AnnualReviewofAnthropology33:.
Haynes.M.1998DressingupDebutants.Oxford:berg
HeathD.1992.Fashion,antifashion,andheteroglossiainurbanSenegal.Am.Ethnol.19(1):19
33
Keane,W.(1997)SignsofRecognition:HazardsandRisksofRepresentationinanIndonesian
Society,UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Keane,W.(inpress)SignsareNottheGarbofMeaning:OntheSocialAnalysisofMaterial
Things.InD.MillerEd.MaterialityDurham:DukeUniversityPress
KondoD.1992.TheaestheticsandpoliticsofJapaneseidentityinthefashionindustry.InRe
MadeinJapan:EverydayLifeandConsumerTasteinaChangingSociety,ed.JTobin,pp.176
203.NewHaven:YaleUniv.PressKroeber,A.L.(1919).Ontheprincipleoforderincivilization
asexemplifiedbychangesinfashion.AmericanAnthropologist21(2):235263

Kchler,S.(inpress)MaterialityandCognition:The
ChangingFaceofThings.InD.MillerEd.Materiality
Durham:DukeUniversityPress
LiechtyM.2003.SuitablyModern:MakingMiddleClassCultureinaNewConsumerSociety.
Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniv.Press
McVeigh,B.2001WearingIdeology.Oxford:Berg
MacKenzie,M.1991AndrogynousObjects.Chur:HarwoodAcademicPress.
Miller,D.1994.StyleandOntology.InJ.Friedman,ed.,ConsumptionandIdentity.Chur:
Harwood,pp.7196.
Miller,D.(inpress)Materiality.InD.MillerEd.MaterialityDurham:DukeUniversityPress
OConnon,K.(unpublishedPhDthesis2003)Production,ConsumptionandTechnology
Innovation:TheMaterialCultureoftheMidlife.
OHanlon,M.1989ReadingtheSkin:Adornment,DisplayandSocietyamongtheWahgi.London:
BritishMuseumPublications
Mauss,M.1966TheGift.London:CohenandWest.
Pamuk,O2001MyNameisRed.London:FaberandFaber
Schneider,J.1994.InandOutofPolyester:Desire,DisdainandGlobalFibreCompetitions.
AnthropologyToday,Vol10,No4.
Sennett,R.1976TheFallofPublicMan.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Simmel,G.1957Fashion.AmericanJournalofSociology,62,54158.
Strathern,M.1979Theselfinselfdecoration.Oceania44:24157
Strathern,M.1988TheGenderoftheGift.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology/people/academic_staff/d_miller/mil7

11/12

04/03/2015

Introduction

Strathern,A.andStrathern,M.1971SelfDecorationInMountHagen.London:Duckworth
Summers,L.2001BoundtoPlease:ahistoryoftheVictoriancorset.Oxford:Berg
Taylor,L.1998Doingthelaundry:Areassessmentofobjectbaseddresshistory.FashionTheory
2(4)337358
Taylor,L2002TheStudyofDressHistory.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress
Taylor,L.2004EstablishingDressHistory.Manchester.ManchesterUniversityPress
Thomas,N.1991EntangledObjects.CambridgeMass.HarvardUniversityPress.
Thrift,N.(inpress)BeyondMediation:ThreeNewMaterialRegistersandtheirConsequences.In
D.MillerEd.MaterialityDurham:DukeUniversityPress
Weiner,AandSchneider,J.Eds.1989ClothandHumanExperience.Washington:Smithsonian
InstitutionPress.
Wigley,M.1995WhiteWalls,DesignerDresses:thefashioningofmodernarchitecture.MITPress
Winnicott,D.1971PlayingandReality.London:Tavistock
Requestpageupdate
UCLAnthropology,14TavitonStreet,London,WC1H0BWTel:+44(0)2076798633

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology/people/academic_staff/d_miller/mil7

12/12