Clothes-in-Process: Touch, Texture, Time

Abstract

Contemporary research on fashion consumption has largely focused on the surface qualities of dress, comprising questions of esthetics, expression, and identity. Rather than thinking about how clothes look, this paper considers how clothes feel. Theorizing clothes as always in-process rather than stable or static, this paper uses touch as lens to explore haptic and sensuous engagements that occur across a garments prosaic biography. Informed by five vignettes from a broader ethnographic project concerning clothes use, touch is located in conversations with hands and bodies. These conversations cultivate somatosensory relations with clothes that are “in-process”, in various states of wear and repair, texture, and time. The material qualities of garments emerge as an active, tangible force that works alongside an evolving dialog of use—as clothes “wear in” or “wear out.” This paper illustrates two ways in which touch informs clothes-in-process: how bodies come to know the fabric of clothes, and how the surface qualities of clothes push back against bodies of wearers. Although mundane and instinctive, the liveliness of materials and the haptic skills that attend to the use of clothes-in-process speak to value, care, and responsibility. But somatosensory relations also encompass discomfort and anxiety, leading to accumulations of clothes as matter out of place. Paying greater attention to the somatosensory registers of the body provides insights about the material meanings of clothes as garments wear over time. In light of the social and environmental implications of clothes and clothes use, such insights are important for advancing knowledge about how wearers interact with their clothes, over time.

Keywords:

• clothing
• touch
• materiality
• temporality
• surfaces

Acknowledgements

This research has been conducted with the support of a Australian Government Research Training Scholarship. Heartfelt thanks goes to Catherine Harper for her support and advice, and the two anonymous referees for their generous and helpful reviews. I thank Chris Gibson and Natascha Klocker for their generosity and guidance on earlier drafts. I am also grateful to all of the participants who opened up and shared their wardrobes to this research.

Data availability

The data that support this manuscript are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Notes

Notes

1 Microgeographies are a matter of scale. In this paper, I am interested in the everyday associations of clothes use with and within localized (micro)practices of wearing, storing, and routine acts of maintenance and care. I am concerned with the both physical materiality of objects and the immateriality of particular practices or events that may influence clothes use.

2 In this paper, and indeed across the wider project from which the empirical material is drawn, I have traced the commonplace interactions that young adult wearers have with clothes. The interactions considered here, such as storing or tidying, are not spectacular. They are part of everyday, mundane, and prosaic patterns and practices of clothes use. I argue that all clothes—regardless of cost, value, material, or make—have a prosaic biography that is closely entangled with intimate bodily use and wear.

3 Bobbles (or pilling) are the result of damaged fibres that become separated through friction from wearing and washing clothes (Crăciun 2015). Talking the shape of small balls of fibres, bobbles form on the surface of clothes and give “a rough appearance to the surface of the fabric” (Crăciun 2015, 4).

4 Although the focus of this paper is on wearers—rather than designers or producers—I acknowledge the role of designers and manufacturers in the “feel” of textiles and clothes. Haptic knowledge of design and production is passed on to the wearer via marketing materials, the technical aspects of textile production, or smart materials, among other design processes (Delong et al. 2012; Foroughi et al. 2016).

5 All but one of the participants involved in this project were from Sydney. Eight lived as independent adults in their parents’ homes, another eight were in shared living arrangements, and five lived as part of couple or alone. Two participants were part of miscellaneous living arrangements, such as house-sitting or couch-surfing. At the time of participation, 11 were enrolled in either full-time or part-time study, six held part-time employment, seven worked full time in either white-collar professional or trade roles, and four in precarious or freelance contract work. Four participants identified as first-generation immigrants to Australia, eight as second-generation immigrants. The remaining 11 participants were of Anglo-Australian ancestry.

6 Across the sample of young adults involved in this study, acts of making, mending, and repair were relatively limited. Three participants in the study drew attention to their amateur making skills. Knowledge of making and mending had usually been passed on across a longer period of time from mothers or grandmothers.

7 ‘Daggy’ is commonly used in Australia and New Zealand to describe something that is unfashionable or scruffy.

8 Australians commonly use “pants” rather than “trousers.” To maintain consistency across this paper, “pants” is used rather than trousers.

9 In Australia, recent reporting suggests that up to 40% of all clothing donated to charity stores is sent directly to landfill (Pepper 2017; Press 2017).

10 The term “op-shop” (shorthand for “opportunity shop”) is commonly used in Australia to describe secondhand, thrift, or charity stores.

11 Blinky Bill is a fictional anthropomorphic koala popularized in Australian children’s books, television, and film.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) scholarship

Notes on contributors

Elyse Stanes

Elyse Stanes is a cultural geographer in the School of Geography and Sustainable Communities at the University of Wollongong. Her research investigates everyday cultures of consumption, alongside the wider politics of excess and waste. [email protected]