random fashion thoughts

[zamb]

Now that I deleted my comment I feel like a fool. But I'm with Defender as well.

Edit: was able to retrieve it:

If you define politics as the exercise of power (and you should ;)), then most decisions are political. It doesn't really matter whether you believe they are or not. It doesn't really matter either whether they appear political or not. They are. Some things are more politicized than others (e.g., food, smoking), but it doesn't mean that the rest of our decisions aren't political. Being rich and moving into a gentrifying neighborhood. Buying clothes at Zara. Reprimanding a boy for dressing like a girl. Investing in company ABC. These all both showcase, affirm (negate) existing norms, power dynamics, and where you are positioned in these debates, and by doing so are politically-laden decisions. Power and resistance can operate very visibly, but more often than not do so in plain sight.

And reading higher in the thread, Faust, even aesthetics can be politics. An example of this is Native headbands in electronic music festivals. I don't know how you can decide to just cast aside "identity politics" from a conversation on politics.

I believe that part of the reason why this is "suffocating society" is that we've recently been made aware of this, i.e., "politically correct" is a recent societal, hum, endeavor. So we have a lot to deal with at the moment in understanding the dnyamics of power and what cna be done to try to live in a more equitable society.

why should anyone define politics as an exercise of power?
so that it fits the definition to which you and Defender want it to mean?

I asked him a simple question, and both times he evaded the question

I did not ask him what a political issue or a political decision is.......
I asked him to DEFINE POLITICS, because to him it means something very different from what it means to others......and if we look at the definition of politics as you want it to mean........then to NOT MAKE a decision is also an excercise of power and would also be political, and if ALL decisions are Political then no decision would also be political because one would have to exercise power to NOT make a decision or at least refuse to decide on a matter.

Again in such a case then, there is no Politics because if "ALL IS FULL OF WHAT IS" then we can make no separation between a thing and no thing.

If there isn't any decision that is NOT political then there is no political decision because there would be no way of distinguishing between the two..........

if there was no death, we would have no knowledge of what life is and this is getting rather ridiculous

[zamb]

Also,

defender, I am neither democrat nor republican, neither liberal nor conservative and I have intentionally made a decision to stay outside of any kind of commentary on American Politics because on both sides of these things you have a bunch of raving rabid lunatics who are quick to throw out labels and go crazy without having any kind of civil, reasonable discourse about matters......

you also must understand that America is NOT the world and not everything in the word can and should be defined by an American lens.

your Lawyer friend made a decision to comment on a politically charged matter and whatever ire he experienced whether justly or unjustly is a part of the process of throwing your hat into the ring

this is exactly what Faust was talking about in the article........fashion is, can, be and should remain a source of escape from this kind of raging lunacy that is making Zealots out of people who are living on the other side of the enlightenment but behaving no better than radicals shouting death to infidels..........the worse is that when most people in fashion design takes on this kind of political activism it detracts from the clothes and the presentation thereof because it is done in such a cheap and tacky way that in nether helps the political process nor does it take fashion to the heights in can reach without it.

[Defender]

That's just not the case. That's a nihilistic feedback loop theory or something. Just because something is so doesn't mean that it's to the exclusion of all other relevant factors. Politics is present, but not omnipresent. It's a consideration and influence, but not the only consideration and influence.

[stagename]

why should anyone define politics as an exercise of power?
so that it fits the definition to which you and Defender want it to mean?

No, because it is usually how it is defined.

Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, definition "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

Power:
In social science and politics, power is the ability to influence or control the behavior of people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_..._and_political)

[zamb]

That's just not the case. That's a nihilistic feedback loop theory or something. Just because something is so doesn't mean that it's to the exclusion of all other relevant factors. Politics is present, but not omnipresent. It's a consideration and influence, but not the only consideration and influence.

this is where you argument now collapse.
my argument is not nihilistic, it is simply to show you the absurdity of yours and to show you now how you are contradicting yourself

If there are OTHER factors that can be included or excluded then you cannot say that ALL decisions are political.

If Politics is present but not OMNIpresent, it them means that decisions outside of the reach and scope of politics are NOT political ones. but you did not make room for that in your argument..............
I wouldn't hire you as a lawyer

[Arkady]

Politics is present, but not omnipresent. It's a consideration and influence, but not the only consideration and influence.

Every act being a political one as you just insisted on for two pages would make politics omnipresent. That is kind of the definition of omnipresence.

Again you may feel you're in the Twilight Zone but you're hammering an abundantly obvious point while claiming superior insight and (bonus) directly contradicting yourself.

If we're going to actually have any coherent conversation on the subject, using the term "political" to describe the inscription of power on a subject or the subject's exercise of it is dangerously reductionist. This is like saying "technology makes people antisocial and isolated." Ok, which technology?

There is political economy and power of controlling and displacing means of production, there is the power of identity and culture and shame which are fashion's obvious domains that it is most often able to address , there is biopower insofar as authority is distributed horizontally throughout society in as much as its delegated vertically. There is the power of communication, control of symbols and language as it pertains to subject-object relations. All of these are political if you articulate them as being political -- piling shit together for the purposes to be conveniently vague may work in a courtroom but that doesn't mean it results in meaningful conclusions.

So far we have effectively said nothing, but the origin of the conversation was in fashion as art objects having the ability to effect social change and not in the underlying industry of these art objects representing social change. The latter, as already mentioned, can be found in ateliers like Geoffrey B. Small's and Zam's that attempt to use more of a participatory economic model to run an ethical company. Leading by example. But this is a given.

[Defender]

[/B]If Politics is present but not OMNIpresent, it them means that decisions outside of the reach and scope of politics are NOT political ones. but you did not make room for that in your argument..............
I wouldn't hire you as a lawyer

No...that's not what that means at all. In that instance, politics can and does have an influence on all decisions, but it might not be the deciding factor for all decisions. Someone can want to support buying local so he sources his materials locally, but he would make much more profit by having the materials assembled overseas. In that case, he weighs his "buy/hire local" political leanings against his potential profits and decides that his profits is a more important factor, so he outsources. If he decides his neighborhood is more important, then he would sacrifice profits in order to hire people to make his goods locally. This is an intrinsically political decision.

You don't understand this, even though I've said it many times, so I'm not going to try again.

I wouldn't buy your clothes.

[zamb]

No...that's not what that means at all. In that instance, politics can and does have an influence on all decisions, but it might not be the deciding factor for all decisions. Someone can want to support buying local so he sources his materials locally, but he would make much more profit by having the materials assembled overseas. In that case, he weighs his "buy/hire local" political leanings against his potential profits and decides that his profits is a more important factor, so he outsources. If he decides his neighborhood is more important, then he would sacrifice profits in order to hire people to make his goods locally. This is an intrinsically political decision.

You don't understand this, even though I've said it many times, so I'm not going to try again.

I wouldn't buy your clothes.

well, the fallacy of thinking because someone disagree they don't understand. I understand your position all too well, which is why I strongly disagree and went on to show how your argument cannot stand on it's own defense.

Don't worry, I make more clothes than the one's bearing my name. you might own them and not know.
My reach is greater than your awareness

[stagename]

If we're going to actually have any coherent conversation on the subject, using the term "political" to describe the inscription of power on a subject or the subject's exercise of it is dangerously reductionist. This is like saying "technology makes people antisocial and isolated." Ok, which technology?

If one might be reductionist (and it's debatable), the other is deterministic. And reductionist (ic?). That's a huge difference. And how is reductionism dangerous? The only thing your statement shows is that power and politics operate at different levels. I mean all of what you have mentioned are located in fields with politics in the name of the field (politics, identity politics, biopolitics...)

And I believe that we had addressed somewhere else in this forum that the plights of the world were mostly structural, and that it was structural and not indivudal actions that were required to enact change (although I much welcome initiatives such as ZB and GBS).

[Arkady]

My capacity to give a shit is maxed out. Talk about the Twilight Zone -- I'm gonna stick to music if I want to argue about nothing for hours.

I might add that when someone says this: "A political issue is one that is based on the rule of law, set by politicians, the outcome and status of which is based on who we elect"

...they've already demonstrated they're talking out of their ass while insisting no one understands their brilliant point.

Politics is the theory of influence, not of politicians and not of statecraft.

Indeed I might rather have a fool for a client and represent myself than get this type of coverage in court, but thankfully we're talking about pants right now.

[stagename]

My capacity to give a shit is maxed out. Talk about the Twilight Zone -- I'm gonna stick to music if I want to argue about nothing for hours.

[Faust]

No, because it is usually how it is defined.

Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, definition "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

Power:
In social science and politics, power is the ability to influence or control the behavior of people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_..._and_political)

That's faulty reasoning. You can and must influence people without exercising power. That's what the presidential election circus is for. Politics, in a broad sense is influencing other people (basically, getting people to do what you want). It'd not necessarily an exercise of power. I maintain that fashion has no such power. You didn't read my article, did you?

I excepted identity politics because it's simply a topic for a differnt article.

[stagename]

I maintain that fashion has no such power. You didn't read my article, did you?

I did. I actually read almost everything you write, which is honestly super rare in my case. Anyway, I agree with most of it but I do think fashion is politicized, but by looking at it strictly from a show point of view, you're missing other phenomena such as the everyday of wearing clothes (e.g., introduction of pants; sweatpants and age/class; native headbands at festivals as I have metnioned earlier; the list could go on and on and on). I mean taste is a boundary mechanism so I don't see how fashion could be de-politicized. But yes, in the context of your article, I agree. It's just not the conversation I joined when I made my comments. I thought we have moved away from that.

You cannot influence people without power. Influencing people is power. Power =/ authority. Power =/ coercion. Power does not have to be "exercised" (ie latent) to be effective.

Power: how a change in the behavior of one (the influencer) alterst he behavior of the other (the influencee) (Simon 1953)

anything that establishes and maintains the control of man over man (Morgenthau 1960).

the ability to get someone to do something he/she would not have done otherwise is allowed as the central essence of the power phenomenon (Gaski 1984)

When an agent, 0, performs an act resulting in some change in another agent, P, we say that O influences P. If O has the capability of influencing P, we say that O has power over P (Cartwright 1965)

Morgenthau, H. (1960), Politics Among Nations, New York:
Knopf.

Simon, Herbert (1953), "Notes on the Observation and Measurement
of Political Power," Journal of Politics, 15 (November),
500-516.

Cartwright, Dorwin (1959), "A Field Theoretical Conception
of Power," in Studies in Social Power, Dorwin Cartwright,
ed., Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press

[DudleyGray]

Sick of not owning a Rick shearling simply because I lack the restraint during sales that would allow me to save up for said shearling.

[dji]

^ still want one even though I moved to the PNW and would have next to zero opportunity to wear one..