246

Toward a Definitionof Freedom in Dress

Much clothing research examines conformity in dress as if the antithesis, freedom indress, were possible. While conforming behavior has been documented, no research on socialinteraction has shown that a continuum occurs from conformity through varying degrees ofconformity -freedom to complete freedom in dress; before freedom in dress can be measuredit must first be defined.

When definitions of freedom from various disciplines are applied to dress, it is difficult toderive testable hypotheses from the resulting concepts. All concepts of freedom state thatfreedom is relative, that it involves some degree of individual control over choice or thedecisionmaking process, plus a feeling of self-satisfaction or reward. It is in the area ofsatisfaction, involving a nebulous state of mind, that testing becomes truly difficult. For

purposes of research, three hypotheses concerning freedom in dress are presented.(HOME ECONOMICS RESEARCH JOURNAL, June 1973, Vol. 1, No. 4)

Elizabeth D. Lowe and Karlyne A. Anspach

It has not been established that freedomin dress can or does exist. The most relevantresearch examines conformity in dress andseeks to correlate the degree of conformityshown by individuals with psycho-social fac-

tors such as group acceptance and socio-economic class (Taylor and Compton, 1968,p. 656; Eicher and Kelley, 1972; Takahashiand Newton, 1967; Smucker and Creek-

more, 1972; Kelley and Eicher, 1970).Results of the studies are compiled as as-

pects of conformity. Therefore the assump-tion is that conforming behavior exists, not

Authors’address: Division of Textiles and Clothing,Department of Home Economics, University ofIllinois, Urbana 61801.

247

that freedom in dress is possible. No researchon social interaction has shown that a con-tinuum occurs from conformity throughvarying degrees of conformity-freedom to

complete freedom in dress. Before freedomin dress can be measured it must first bedefined.

Freedom is an elusive concept whichevokes strong feelings, but has few concisedefinitions. For research purposes a defini-tion of freedom should be: (1) internallyconsistent-that is, the definition is logicallycorrect, (2) so inclusive that it covers most

situations, and (3) suggestive of testable

hypotheses that could be derived from thepropositions that make up the definition.The following discussion of the meanings offreedom as viewed in various disciplines is anattempt to synthesize these ideas and relatethem to dress.

Philosopher Kurt Riezler (1940, pp.

538-554) believes that inevitably man’s free-dom is relative since he is finite. Further-

more, human beings are restrained by thefact that they live in cultural systems thatrestrict their freedom. However, Riezlerstates that &dquo;though norms limit our free-

dom, absence of norms would be butlicense&dquo; (1940, p. 543). According to Riez-ler, then, to be free is to follow both one’sown norms and those of the culture. This

type of freedom depends on tolerance fromothers who may follow different norms.

Indeed, he feels that if freedom exists, it is

something which each individual must definefor himself.

Relating Riezler’s ideas (1940) to freedomin dress, the free dresser would be one whofollows both his own norms and those of theculture. But there is some logical incon-

sistency in the use of the term &dquo;norm.&dquo;

According to Robin Williams (1968, p. 207)a norm is a set of rules for conduct shared

by two or more individuals which calls for&dquo;right action.&dquo; Under this definition there

could not be an individual norm. Moreover,it is also necessary to differentiate between

general cultural norms and norms of smallreference groups. It has been suggested thatthe latter have more effect on what peoplewear than the former (Koelling, 1966). Adefinition of freedom in dress derived fromRiezler’s explanation suggests testable hy-potheses, assuming that it is possible to

define and measure the so-called &dquo;norms&dquo; ofan individual and the norms of a culture.

Anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski

(1964), like Riezler (1940), agrees that free-dom is a relative concept set in a culturalcontext. Malinowski further defines freedom&dquo;... as the conditions necessary and suffi-cient for the formation of a purpose, itstranslation into effective action throughorganized cultural instrumentalities, and thefull enjoyment of the results of such activ-ity&dquo; (Malinowski, 1964, p. 25). In other

words, an individual is free within the con-text of a social system to the extent that he&dquo;has a part in the planning, a full access tothe means of execution, and a share in therewards&dquo; (p. 35).

Relating this concept to dress, freedom indress can be said to exist when an individualdecides what he will wear, is not preventedfrom wearing what he likes, and enjoys wear-ing what he has planned. Malinowski (1964)seems to have created a definition of free-dom which remains consistent when appliedto dress and is inclusive enough to en-

compass any situation. The major difficultywith this definition is devising from it test-able proposals. All three elements (planning,execution, and reward) are subjective in

nature, based on an internal state of mind. Ittakes more research skill than most peoplepossess to test the validity of subjectivefeelings.

Psychoanalyst Bruno Bettelheim (1961)also speaks of a balance between the indi-vidual and his society. Like Malinowski

248

(1964), he feels that freedom is a state ofmind. It is man’s inner ability to govern him-self, to feel capable of making decisions andacting upon them. Bettelheim points out

that although it is theoretically an expres-sion of freedom to choose between equallyattractive alternatives, it is often unsatisfyingto the individual. He states that &dquo;to know

definitely that you do not want this one orthis one, and then to select that one as beingbest or most appropriate for you, is a satisfy-ing experience. Though less actual choice

making may be involved, it leaves the in-dividual with a feeling of accomplishmentand well being&dquo; (Bettelheim, 1961, p. 78).

Applying Bettelheim’s (1961) definitionto dress, an individual would dress freely ifhe is capable of deciding what he wants towear from a number of alternatives, some ofwhich are more satisfying to him thanothers. By this definition some individualswould have more chance to dress freely thanothers. Those with the largest number ofalternatives would have the greatest chanceof selecting satisfying clothes. If an indi-vidual has enough alternatives to choosefrom and is capable of making a decision,then he will select clothes which are satisfy-ing to him. This is logically consistent. Themajor problem with the definition revolvesaround the term &dquo;satisfying.&dquo;

People have numerous needs which mayconflict. For example, a man may be able tomake decisions, have sufficient money to

buy the clothes he likes, and yet still wearclothes which are not truly satisfying inorder to keep his job and his position in thesocial hierarchy. While choosing what is bestand most appropriate for one role, he mayhave left incomplete the total self-image hehas of himself.

Both Malinowski’s (1964) and Bettel-heim’s (1961) definitions deal with a state ofmind. It is difficult to get truthful answers

to questions dealing with nebulous conceptssuch as satisfaction. A person might con-sciously state that he is satisfied with theclothes he chooses, yet subconsciously wishhe were wearing something else.

Behaviorist B. F. Skinner (1971) acknowl-edges that people live in a social envi-

ronment, which greatly affects them. He dif-fers from Bettelheim (1961) and Malinowski(1964), however, in that he does not believethat freedom is strictly a feeling or a state ofmind. To Skinner, freedom is the &dquo;absenceof aversive control or punishment&dquo; (Skinner,1971, p. 29). This punishment can be phys-ical in nature but is more often in the formof social subtleties such as censure andblame. To make the social environment asfree as possible, Skinner states that socialcontrol must be redesigned. Control will re-main important; however, control by aver-sion (punishment) will be replaced by posi-tive reinforcement (praise, reward). Thus,Skinner believes that freedom is most nearlypossible in an environment which controlsindividuals through positive reinforcement.A related view of freedom in dress might

be that a person feels he dresses freely if heis positively rewarded for wearing what hechooses to wear. For example, by Skinner’sdefinition (1971) it is theoretically possiblefor two individuals-one wearing the sametype of clothes every day and the otherwearing different styles daily-to feel equallyfree in dressing so long as others praise themfor what they wear.

Describing both individuals-one whowears the same type of clothing every dayand one who changes his styles of dress

daily-as equally free dressers sounds

contradictory to the uninformed observer.Yet the dilemma is resolved when Skinner’sstatement (1971) that people associate withdifferent reference groups that reward dif-ferent types of behavior is considered. Skin-ner feels that &dquo;we weaken punitive social

249

contingencies by associating with more tol-erant friends&dquo; (Skinner, 1971, p. 59). Hence,in group A, an individual who wants to wearthe same thing every day may be rewardedfor doing so-if he is dressing freely in rela-tion to his reference group. Conversely, ingroup B, an individual who wishes to wearsomething different every day may be re-

warded for doing that. He, too, may be freein relation to the norms of his reference

group. To test freedom of dress as thus de-fined, one would need to establish the norms(Skinner would call them a statement of

contingencies) of a specific reference group.Then, those members who dressed accordingto the norms of the group would be posi-tively rewarded. While this sounds like con-formance, freedom has entered the picturethrough the individual’s selection of a ref-erence group that positively reinforces hisown tendencies.

Psychologist Erich Fromm (1966) sharesthe belief that man must live in cooperationwith others, which limits individual freedom.However, to Fromm, freedom involves unre-stricted choice among many possible ways oflife leading to &dquo;the full realization of ... in-dividual potentialities together with ... abil-ity to live actively and spontaneously&dquo;(Fromm, 1966, p. 297). By &dquo;spontaneous&dquo;Fromm means that an individual remains in-tact as he embraces the world. Thus, hestresses the importance of preserving the in-dividuality of the person.

Adapting Fromm’s ideas (1966) to free-dom in dress, one would say that a persondresses freely if he has unrestricted choice ofwhat to wear, leading to a full realization ofhis individual potentialities. But Fromm’sdefinition presents a contradiction. If one

acknowledges that cooperation with othersreduces man’s freedom, it is illogical to de-fine freedom in terms of &dquo;unrestrictedchoice,&dquo; unless, of course, one is trying toprove that freedom cannot exist. This dif-

ficulty is noted by Fromm when he statesthat because all people must live in coopera-tion with others, no one is completely free.Therefore, according to this definition, iffreedom of dress involves unrestricted

choice, no one dresses freely.Sociologist Felix E. Oppenheim (1968)

defines freedom as follows: &dquo;with respect toB, A is free to do either X or Z if and only ifB makes it neither impossible nor punishablefor A to do either X or Z&dquo; (Oppenheim,1968, p. 555).

Applying this definition to dress, one

could say that with respect to B, A is free towear X or Z if and only if B makes it neitherimpossible nor punishable for A to wear

either X or Z. This definition of freedom indress is logically consistent, but it may notexplain all cases. For example, some indi-viduals deliberately wear clothes they knowwill provoke criticism by others. Are theydressing freely if they can ignore this criti-cism ? While punishment (in this case verbalcriticism) does exist, if it is desired by theindividual involved and brings attention tohis person, what seems like punishment be-comes instead a reward. In this sense, one

difficulty in using this definition is how to

distinguish punishment from reward. An-other difficulty is how to define B. A is theindividual whose behavior is in question. Xand Z are different outfits he could wear.But what is B? Is B an individual? A primaryreference group? A society? A culture? If Bis an individual, the definition is relativelyeasy to test, but as B represents more andmore people, testing becomes less possible.

ConclusionsWhen restated in terms of freedom in

dress, it appears that some aspects of thedefinitions of freedom discussed in this

paper lead to more easily tested hypothesesthan do others. All definitions state thatfreedom is relative because human beings

250

exist in cultural systems that necessarilylimit the freedom of individuals for the com-mon good. All definitions suggest that

choice or decisionmaking is involved in free-dom-an individual must have some controlover what he chooses. The authors differ onhow much control constitutes freedom andthe source of the control. Finally, most ofthe authors suggest that freedom involvesmore than choice; it involves a state of mind,a feeling of self-satisfaction or reward. It isin the area of satisfaction, involving a nebu-lous state of mind, that testing for freedomin dress becomes truly difficult, and moreknowledge on valid measures and techniquesis needed.

For purposes of research on freedom indress the following three hypotheses weredeveloped from the definitions of freedomdiscussed:

0 The feeling of dressing freely is a stateof mind which each person defines for him-

self ; it will not be associated with one par-ticular combination or variety of styles,colors, or fashions at any given time or

place. Consequently, a state of freedom in agiven situation for any one person cannot

objectively be identified by others without averifying subjective evaluation of the samesituation by the person involved.

0 There are three phases involved in thefeeling of dressing freely: (1) purposefulplanning, (2) execution of the plan into ef-fective action, and (3) enjoyment of the re-sults of the activity. In other words, a personwill believe that he dresses freely when hefeels capable of making decisions, activatinghis decisions, and enjoying the results of thedecisions. Therefore, the person who is themost capable of deciding between equallyattractive alternates in choosing his clothesand who is the most satisfied with the ap-parel he has chosen will feel he has the great-est freedom in dress.

0 A person will feel he dresses freely if heis rewarded with praise when wearing theitems of dress he has chosen and experiencesno aversive social control such as censure orblame. It is not the specific content of whathe wears but rather the degree of favorableacceptance accorded his dress by others thatdetermines his feeling of being free.

Reference

Bettelheim, B. The Informed Heart. Glencoe, Ill.:

Free Press, 1961.Eicher, J.B., and Kelley, E.A. High School as meet-

ing place. Michigan Journal of Secondary Educa-tion, 1972, 13 (Winter), 12-16.

Fromm, E. Escape from Freedom. New York:

Avon, 1966. (Originally published: New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1941.)

Kelley, E.A., and Eicher, J.B. A longitudinal analy-sis of popularity, group membership, and dress.Journal of Home Economics, 1970, 62, 246-250.

Koelling, C. A study of perceptions of clothing con-formity in reference groups. Unpublishedmaster’s thesis, University of Nebraska, 1966.

Malinowski, B. Freedom and Civilization. New

York: Roy Publishers, 1964. (Originally pub-lished : Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1944.)

Oppenheim, F.E. Freedom. In D.L. Sills (Ed.), In-ternational Encylopedia of the Social Sciences,Vol. 5. New York: Macmillan and Free Press,1968.

Riezler, K. What is freedom? In R. N. Anshen (Ed.),Freedom: Its Meaning. New York: Harcourt,Brace, 1940.

Skinner, B.F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. NewYork: Bantam/Vintage, 1971.

Smucker, B., and Creekmore, A.M. Adolescents’

clothing conformity, awareness, and peer ac-

ceptance. Home Economics Research Journal,1972, 1, 92-97.

Takahashi, C.L., and Newton, A. Perceptions ofclothing conformity. Journal of Home Eco-

nomics, 1967, 59, 720-723.Taylor, L.C., and Compton, N.H. Personality cor-

relates of dress conformity. Journal of HomeEconomics, 1968, 60, 653-656.

Williams, R.M., Jr. The concept of norms. In D.L.Sills (Ed.), International Encylopedia of the

Social Sciences, Vol. 11. New York: Macmillanand Free Press, 1968.