| HOME |
| NERVE |
| REVIEWS |
| ARCHIVE |
| EVENTS |
| LINKS |
| ABOUT US |
| CONTRIBUTORS |
| BACK ISSUES |
| CONTACT US |
Back to index of Nerve 20 - Summer 2012
BRANDED
By Keelin
Sweeney
Image by Wayne Blackledge
You wake up one morning and you hear an announcement that a strict new dress code has now been enforced. Any lack of conformity to the ‘new uniformity‘ will mean you running the risk of being ridiculed , pressured by your peer group, ostracized and even rejected, socially. The new clothing regulations will be as follows:
- Clothing should be a shade of blue, grey or black (white is acceptable on special occasions and sunny days)
- All clothing should not be subject to any notion of ‘value for money’
- You have 5 popularized major brand names to choose from
- Sports and leisurewear only
- Parents who may now find themselves bearing the brunt of the added financial pressure have no avenue of discourse to complain
Perhaps this is more a reality than a notion for some, in some sections of society, only no one made an announcement, no one laid down the law. But an unspoken, largely unchallenged rule exists and seems to apply to what some people wear, particularly in the case of teenagers!
As the mother of a young teenage boy, currently in full growth mode, already being well into adult sized shoes and now also needing men’s clothing sizes (not vat free like children’s clothes), the financial stress of finding the money for new shoes, clothes and other must have items, has reached new heights! So much so, a few weeks back, the frustration and pressure of clothes shopping with my son, lead me to behave in a way that my son did, at age 3 in a supermarket when being denied something that had tempted him! But the difference being, I am an adult, I know that throwing a strop will change nothing, likely make worse and I was protesting, at the bank- busting price tags on the requested items, not demanding goods! That’s still my son’s job! When asking him why he is so particular in wanting certain clothes, he tells me “I like the style of these clothes” but also says that has nothing to do with him also believing that he will be bullied and laughed at if he does not dress in what he describes as ‘smart well known brands’ like those his friends wear. It dawned on me, I am no longer just clothing him; I am now equipping him with the right clothing, so he can feel accepted and as so not to be bullied!
Until recent decades, children mostly wore what parents choose for them, this being what the parent could afford, provide and perhaps deem necessary. And good hand-me- downs were a part of poorer people’s lives. But times have changed and clothing conformity is not a new phenomenon, it now seems to be firmly established, spanning several generations. The 1980’s saw a retail revolution transform the British high street; this was symbolized by the success of the Next chain, which first brought fashion with a higher design input within the reach of average income consumers. The availability of more varied goods, together with what appeared to be a carefully designed appearance may have reinforced the process of social fragmentation as tastes proliferated, and people strove to be different though the access they appeared to have to a wider range of goods. Even low income groups began participating in this activity were people were invited; it seems to ‘invent themselves’ in different ways, a mark of individuality or a sign of identity! Consumption of clothing had reached a new prominence. Suddenly the “idealism of want became the realization of have”, no matter who you were. The single mum would deprive herself in order to buy goods seen on television by her children, as it was for the more affluent classes. For some young people in the poorest areas, consumption of these goods could only be accomplished through illicit means and the 1980’s gave rise to a new hidden economy, from weekend street markets, handling stolen good and drug dealing. Nobody wanted to be a ‘have not’!
It was not long after this first major retail clothing boom that ‘labels’ began appearing on the outside of clothing.... What was once just an irritant on the back of your neck citing design details and care instructions was now a stitched on statement that ‘labelled’ the wearer as well as the garment. It meant something to wear these goods! Margaret Thatcher was prime minister and the country was buckling under the strain of mass unemployment and intense class war, yet those from low income backgrounds were spending more of their disposable income on new clothing than ever before! And despite this happening in a period of this country’s worst economic recession and remaining the case through the subsequent downturn in the 90’s through to the present day economic misery, many people, mostly youngsters will still strive to attain what they and their families cannot afford’. It is perhaps easier to have what you cannot reasonably afford than to be seen to ‘not have’, as that would suggest you could not afford such goods, such costly brands, and that simply is not an option for some, particularly working class kids. From most of these financially put on people, there was, no uproar about the system failing to support its most vulnerable, no outcry about the growing gap between the rich and the poor, instead, the initial tell tale signs of poverty were in way disguised by displaying the ability to possess desirable branded goods. Who would dare to admit to being poor!
A recent Unicef study, comparing families in the UK, Sweden and Spain, found UK parents buying high status brands to “protect” their children from bullying. The study follows a Unicef report of 2007, which ranked the UK in bottom place out of 21 developed countries for the well being of children. Reality being, that clothes and possessions do not lead our children to health and happiness. Researchers from MORI have now looked in depth at the particular pressures on UK parents and children, they also concluded, that UK families felt under much greater pressure. Fears about not having the right brand of trainers or electronic gadgets for children meant parents here in the UK, particularly those on low-income, felt they had to buy these goods even if this meant getting into debt. A 14 year old boy told researchers “No matter how much money they have, people still manage to put up a front of like they have money... you could live in a dustbin, as long as you have an iPod, blackberry, then your accepted” this value attached to such possessions was a particular feature of family life in the UK, said report author Agnes Nairn. “There was an incredibly strong feeling that children have to have these things to fit in.”
In Liverpool where I live this subject matter can be easily related to, we are in ways typical of any northern city in England, but without doubt we also have our own ‘clothing culture’, from football fashions to wag wannabe’s, we even cater for an alternative to the high street, now a lucrative market in itself., can people really be unified in what they wear is that what they strive for and why accept such pressure? And even in disregarding such pressures,, can one ever be a real individual in the way that we dress, or do we always feel the pressure to conform, depending on what others around us are wearing, no matter what that is? Some dress codes just being more prevalent than others.
At the end of the day ‘clothes are clothes’, they clothe us! They can undoubtedly make us feel good, but at times inadequate. They can be an indicator of who you are, your purpose, your status your wealth and even your politics, but many, judge others by the clothing they wear. So I feel I cannot end this article without mentioning the ‘labels’ that are attached to people purely because of the clothes they choose to wear, particularly the young boys and girls who choose to dress in sportswear. Dressing themselves in brand clothing, they have now been re-branded by some, as well as a large section of the media with ‘labels’ such as ‘teenage thugs’, ‘chavs’ and ‘hoodies’. These clothes now bring notoriety also. Too many labels exist already perhaps!!
My son may be increasingly expensive in his tastes, and I understand why, but he is part of a ‘brigade’ by clothing only. Whether he asks for Chino’s or North Face, a cheap alternative does not exist in his peer-pressured psyche. I will probably continue to struggle to clothe him until he is old enough to provide for himself. The clothes he chooses to wear and that I feel pressured to buy, do not make him, they just break the bank. For better or for worse, the marketing barrage that exists has created a generation hypersensitive to the power of brands. For teens, insecure as ever about fitting in, the barrage of brand names offers the irresistible promise of instant acceptance!
Printer friendly page