View the H-SHEAR Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-SHEAR's December 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-SHEAR's December 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-SHEAR home page.
Reply to Gayle V. Fischer, by Michael Zakim Gayle V. Fischer keenly observes that _Ready-Made Democracy_ is not grounded in - or even particularly concerned with - the historiography of dress. The book is, alas, far more engaged in the works of Adam Smith, Tocqueville, Marx, Hannah Arendt, and Walter Benjamin than in those very worthy studies written by Claudia Kidwell, Margaret C. Christman, David Kuchta, and Shaun Cole and cited in her review. I'm sorry for the frustrations this has evidently caused. But the subject of _Ready-Made Democracy_, albeit unremarked by Professor Fischer, is actually a central problem in American political life, and one that I think has been woefully misconstrued by social and labor historians writing over the past several decades: namely, how did capitalism and democracy emerge as twin, and even synonymous, systems of governance in the nineteenth century? A history of dress provides an excellent opportunity to ask this question because - and here I am quoting myself - "clothing has consistently served as both material and metaphor for the social question." That is to say, the ready-made acquired a powerful democratic resonance at the same time that men's suits became one of the country's earliest mass industrial commodities. Allow me, however, to take issue with one of the review's conclusions. I do not agree that _Ready-Made Democracy_ has little to offer historians of clothing. In fact, judging from my own rather extensive acquaintance with this very particular branch of academe, I think that some clothing scholars might profit from reading a study written so far outside the regular confines of their field. Its account of how "getting dressed proves to be a central event in modern life" - I'm quoting myself again - offers a distinctly different view of clothing's relationship to political philosophy, to the construction of labor markets and the invention of sweating, to the cultural practices born of metropolitan life and commodity exchange, to gender's creation of power relations in a democracy, to the rise of business as a social paradigm, to the changing meaning of technology, work, and the male body, and, finally, to the changing relationship of persons with their material world. As such, I would even recommend _Ready-Made Democracy_ to scholars of clothing, as well as to those more interested in "political, social, and economic history." In short, I'm afraid that H-SHEAR has mis-assigned this review, which is too bad since the list's subscribers might have welcomed an opportunity to discuss my ambitious attempt to retell the history of capitalism in America. Michael Zakim Tel-Aviv University firstname.lastname@example.org