Miranda Priestly’s Cerulean Speech: Devil Wears Prada
I think the fashion industry and judgements concerning fashion have been used to demonize women, make women appear superficial (especially funny considering the domination of cisgendered white men in the industry). However, superficiality is contrary to the reality of fashion; fashion is powerful and political. The power of fashion is present since before the Victorian times (1837-1901), with another significant fashion era being the 1500s (Tudor England was particularly important for shaping the fashionable into the political, i.e. Anne Boleyn and codpieces). We tend to think of the power of fashion as just being centered in the Occident, but understanding power relations through colonialism requires that we think about the Orient’s effects on the Occident’s clothing, anglophilia, and wealth. If you want to learn more, I would highly recommend you check out information from the Met’s China through the Looking Glass exhibit from 2015.
Exhibit Description: This is The Costume Institute’s first collaboration with another curatorial department since AngloMania: Tradition and Transgression in British Fashion in 2006, a partnership with the Department of European Sculpture and Decorative Arts. China: Through the Looking Glass features more than 140 examples of haute couture and avant-garde ready-to-wear alongside masterpieces of Chinese art. Filmic representations of China are incorporated throughout to reveal how our visions of China are shaped by narratives that draw upon popular culture, and to recognize the importance of cinema as a medium through which we understand the richness of Chinese history.
The Anna Wintour Costume Center’s Lizzie and Jonathan Tisch Gallery presents a series of “mirrored reflections” focusing on Imperial China; the Republic of China, especially Shanghai in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s; and the People’s Republic of China. These reflections, as well as others in the exhibition, are illustrated with scenes from films by such groundbreaking Chinese directors as Zhang Yimou, Chen Kaige, Ang Lee, and Wong Kar Wai. Distinct vignettes are devoted to “women of style,” including Hu Die (known as Butterfly Wu), Oei Huilan (the former Madame Wellington Koo), and Soong Mei-Ling (Madame Chiang Kai-shek).
Anglophilia and Orientalism
In order to understand the political world of English fashion, you have to understand the tension between anglophilia and colonial exploits. Anglophilia refers to “cultural attraction throughout most of Europe and provided a cultural template for various areas of life” (Maurer 2010) since the 18th century. Anglophilia cultivated a positive view of everything from England, extending through fashion to sport to literature to agriculture.
On the other hand, since the early 16th century throughout the 19th century, Europeans have had a fascination with Asian porcelain, silk, and lacquerware, with the greatest number of imports coming from China, Japan, and India. The British did not distinguish between these three nations, instead characterizing the continent of Asia as an “exotic fantasy world” (creating the monolithic Asian continent). Such imports “stimulated Rococo designers of the mid-18th century to imitate and adapt Oriental motifs and ornaments for a wide variety of objects” (Victoria and Albert Museum). Trade between and colonial occupation of Asian countries increased interest and access to Asian textiles. Records of trends in furniture indicate the popularity of possessing and commodifying aspects of the mysterious and exotic East: Willaim Halfpenny’s The Chinese and Gothic Architecture (1752) and Thomas Chippendale’s The Gentleman and Cabinet-maker’s Director (1754).
How do we reconcile the differences between anglophilia and Orientalism, two seemingly contradictory takes on English lifestyle and fashion? The first thing that must be understood is the West’s need for the East: “it is Orientalism that makes Western culture incomplete and that the West uses to see itself as whole” (Koda and Martin 2014). The power of apparel in this absorption is that it is non-verbal; costume is powerful in its capacity to transcend language barriers. The options available to those who wished to own a piece of the East were limited depending on class. Remember: Orientalism is not a picture of the East. Orientalism is suppressed longing for the East, using fabricated depictions of the East. Further suppression of that longing requires forging distance despite cultural exchange from colonial exploits, thus fostering an enforcement of anglophilia.
The Evolution of Victorian Fashion
The beginnings of Victorian fashion included “large dresses, poke bonnets, and modest coverings for the ladies, all while men displayed color, pattern, and rigidity in their attire” (Vintage Dancer). The style was often impractical for both rich and the poor. Freedom in experimentation with style was a mark of privilege and often exclusive to upper class individuals. The mid-19th century marked the beginning of Japanese trade with the West for the first time in about 200 years, spurring pre-existing interest in Chinese, Japanese, and Indian fashion influences in upper class citizens and artists like Vincent van Gogh and Claude Monet. The wave of Asian influence on fashion is known as Japonisme, Turquerie, and Chinoiserie. An 1892 edition of Table Talk, a collection of essays by the English cultural critic and social commentator William Hazlitt, remarks that “the interest recently taken in the costumes and social customs of our Oriental sisters is genuine; and, with various modifications, of course, it is by no means improbable that our own and neighboring social circles may very soon be copying the Japanese modes with the same enthusiasm that for years has induced them to borrow ideas from the Parisian modistes and London tailor establishments.” The same edition also claimed that all fashionable hostesses will “ache to possess a kimono after she has once noticed its graceful proportions setting off the figure of one of her sisters.” Kimono fabric and fabric with Japanese motifs then became key aspects of dressing gowns and tea-gowns. Victorian women did not wear kimonos, but “fashionable society ladies [owned] gowns made with kimono fabric or embellished with Japanese motifs” (A Victorian Lady’s Guide to Fashion and Beauty).
Prior to the East’s influence, Western dress was postmedieval; Eastern dress was antithetical to this fashion. Japonisme and Eastern dress were noted for their use of silk, patterned fabrics, shawls, and kimono designs. Unlike the more structured Western styles, Eastern dress emphasized “the flat terrain of cloth, the looping and wrapping of the garment, and the integrity of the untailored textile” (Koda & Martin 1994). Victorian fashion used accessories like gloves, fans, and parasols to distinguish between class, gender, and race through clothing. Womanhood was expressed through the accentuation of the hands, face, head, and body with these accessories. Motifs from Japonisme, Turquerie and Chinoiserie were incorporated into the gloves, fans, and parasols as more distinct symbols of class and access to exotic styles and textiles (Beaujot 15).
Examples:
Image Sources: “Japonisme: The Japanese Influence on Victorian Fashion”
Middlemarch, Jane Eyre: What to Think about Fashionable Victorian Women
Jane Eyre presents a connection between wealth and extravagant, Orient-inspired clothing. Here, the East is fetishized and imagined as an exotic supplement to the Western lifestyle. During Thornfield Hall’s busy days with many visitors, the house is decorated with “shawls, dresses, draperies of any kind,” along with clothing with brocaded patterns, “satin sacques, black modes, and lace lappets” (Brontë 167). The shawls and drapes reflect the looping and wrapping of garments present in Eastern fashion, and the attention to patterned fabrics and silk indicate Japonisme and Chinoiserie influence. Miss Ingram and Mr. Rochester also adorn themselves in Orient-inspired dress. Mr. Rochester is seen adorned in shawls, again reflective of Eastern fashion, and a turban. His costume is said to make him appear like “the very model of an Eastern emir; an agent or a victim of the bow-string” (Brontë 166). Miss Ingram is “attired in Oriental fashion: a crimson scarf tied sash-like round the waist; an embroidered handkerchief about her temples” (Brontë 166). The sash around Miss Ingram’s waist follows the Victorian trend of using garments around the waist to emphasize the female form and is an alternative to using a corset (Goodman 20). Her other accessories, like the embroidered handkerchief, also contribute to the construction of upper middle-class womanhood through accessories. Both are unstructured fabrics, reflecting the draping of fabrics common in Eastern clothing. The sash and embroidered handkerchief associate the appearance of the Orient in fashion with the use of accessories to emphasize the female form and class in womanhood. Miss Ingram also wears dressing gowns and tea-gowns that incorporate kimono designs with birds, fans, and fish as well as floral hair accessories for her everyday clothing.
In contrast with the use of Japonisme to characterize wealth and extravagance, fashion is used to disguise Mr. Rochester in an attempt to gain more information. Mr. Rochester chooses to disguise himself in a “red cloak and a… broad-brimmed [expletive] hat, tied down with a striped handkerchief under her chin,” designed to make himself appear as a member of the Romani community in England. The Romani people originate from the northern Indian subcontinent and, “unlike the colonial subject who remained a remote and wholly foreign figure… [they] functioned within the English society” (Nord 189). The Romani people were visible in England but were considered unassimilable, due to them being stereotyped as alienated and lawless. Mr. Rochester uses his disguise and leans into the marginalized, deceitful, folkloric stereotype of the Romani people to gain more information. Jane, offended by the deceit, states that “I believe you have been trying to draw me out– or in; you have been talking nonsense to make me talk nonsense” (Brontë 183). The way Mr. Rochester uses his Orientalist disguise is for deceit and leans on stereotypes, whereas Blanche Ingram’s use of Japonisme is for class and status.
In both the marginalization and glorification of the Other’s fashion, Jane Eyre results in the characterization of the Other through the colonizer’s voice. Through the glorification and incorporation of Eastern motifs in fashion that associate the Orient with extravagance, the colonizer “refashions memory to give a coherent identity” to the colonies (Said 179). Access to the colonies is a symbol of wealth, and displaying the riches gained from the colonies in fashion presents an image of the colonies that is saturated with enchantment and exotic riches. Clothing from the Orient is an especially powerful status marker because “clothing has shown itself a readily assimilated object while never losing the characteristics of its place of origin” (Koda & Martin 1994). Using clothing to deceive, like how Mr. Rochester does, depicts the Other as deceitful and relies on negative stereotypes. Thus, an association with wealth presents the desire to colonize, and deceit depicts the explanation as to why colonization may be presented as necessary. The Empire expresses a need to contain and control the Other.
A rejection of Japonisme is expressed through an emphasis on plain European clothing. Jane herself presents a potential counterargument to the desire for the East presented through fashion. Jane is described as wearing plain clothing and being plain herself. Jane marries Mr. Rochester, unlike Miss Ingram. This ultimately expresses the anglophilia that stands at the center of the Empire. Miss Ingram, the Jane Eyre character who wears the most Japonisme-inspired clothing, is portrayed negatively, thus expressing the Victorian fear of “quantities of merchandise being unloaded at our door” (McAdams 14). The shift away from Japonisme is more firmly emphasized in Middlemarch. Dorothea reflects a mindset that rejects Japonisme and extravagance, even claiming that her beloved horseback riding is a “pagan, sensuous indulgence” (Eliot 9). Dorothea rejects keeping most of her mother’s jewelry in favor of maintaining her morals. Following the fear of being consumed by Eastern products, Victorians began looking towards the moral character of women as a means of transforming a person’s appearance. As stated in The Ladies’ Hand-Book of the Toilet, written in England in 1843, “From this mode of reasoning, it results that the fair one, who would become really beautiful, must make the cultivation of her mind” (Beaujot 1). Dorothea aligns with this description. She dresses plainly but is described as incredibly beautiful by the residents of Middlemarch: “Miss Brooke had that kind of beauty which seems to be thrown into relief by poor dress” (Eliot 7). Dorothea also pursues the same method of self-improvement: cultivating the mind with intellectual pursuits. Dorothea seeks a husband who is able to help her intellectual growth. She sees in Casaubon a “vague labyrinthine extension [of] every quality she herself brought” (Eliot 22). She hopes to learn more by helping in his work. The character who finds her happy end is the one who entirely rejects Japonisme and embraces the anglophilia and the enhancement of self instead.
In contrast, Rosamond does not display a rejection of Japonisme and experiences a life that is the negative double of Dorothea’s. Dorothea’s love and attempted abandonment of horse riding occurs while Rosamond loses her child while riding. Rosamond allows herself to enjoy a lavish lifestyle, resulting in Lydgate spending more than he makes.
Dorothea’s relationship with Casaubon complicates this argument. Dorothea follows the beauty standards and behaviors expected of Victorian women who are to reject Japonisme. In “The Clergy in Middlemarch,” Ruth Roberts theorizes that Casaubon’s project is an Orientalist’s attempt at studying “linguistic and historic contexts of the Bible” (Roberts 34). This theory comes from the rise of the school of Historicism in Germany and a school of Orientalists within that of Historicism. If Casaubon’s research was in the school of Orientalism, Casaubon and Dorothea’s relationship becomes another synthesis of the Orient and Occident conflict. Dorothea would represent the Occident, as someone who leans on European standards and rejects Japonisme. Casaubon would represent the Orient. The school of Orientalists “implied that Judeo-Christianity was only one religion among many” (Roberts 34). Casaubon, presenting a different stance on religion and a curiosity in the world outside of England, eventually passes away, signaling, like in the death of Bertha, the taming and passing away of the Other.