Term paper in Anthropology regarding how CSSP students from UP Diliman dress
***
I. INTRODUCTION
The University of the Philippines (UP) prides itself for being known for, at least discursively, academic freedom and excellence. The social characteristics attached to the institution also translate into a material form such as in students’ clothing. Dress, defined by Entwistle (2000) as “meanings given to particular practices of clothing and adornment”, can function as a way of differentiating a group of people from the rest of society. Dress can be seen as a means of conforming to a group while also expressing differentiation against other groups. Non-conformity in the manner of dressing, however, can also happen within a group. With that said, students from UP actively engage in defining the discourse of “how UP students dress” while also performing how they dress within UP. This paper aims to compare the discourse of dress in UP with the actual performance of dressing by UP students.
II. THEORETICAL APPROACH
Being part of a social group such as UP brings a dual tension for the individual. The first is how they are going to identify themselves as part of the university by emulating the freedom that discursively defines it, and the excellence it endorses as a state university. It is not doubtful that in emphasizing liberalism as one of characteristics of the UP culture, its students are doubly compelled to be liberal, original and stand out against other universities. While UP technically has no uniform, its institutional image may have become the dress code itself.
The second tension that the institution brings is that students within the context of UP are compelled to be unique not just against students from other universities but also against each other. As a state university, UP is a mix of students from different hometown influences, socio-economic backgrounds and ideologies to name a few. One can safely say that UP is a demographic “fruit salad” and may reflect in the way we dress. How are we able to express individuality or commonality at the same time?
Bourdieu (1984, cited in Entwistle 2000) emphasizes that dress is a means of distinguishing a social group, especially in relation to power. His concept of “habitus” characterized the body as a vessel of acquired information, containing one’s sexuality, religion, class, race, ethnicity, and other intersectionalities within an individual. But aside from individuals, dress may also be affected by external influences, such as the prescriptions of peer groups, the media and ever-changing fashion trends and preferences. All these social and individual factors, not just the fact that they are from UP, affect how students dress.
The dualism and dichotomy of Structure against Agency is noted by Simmel (1971, cited in Entwistle 2000:114) in pointing out that in terms of dress, there is an inconsistent desire to express both identification with the social group and differentiation with individuals. Not everyone may conform to the “dress code” of UP, but most likely UP students are aware of the “dress code” and their placement within it — whether or not they conform of rebel against it.
However, it is also important to note that dress may not express what is natural. Dress may not be a mere reflection of what an individual is like. Similar to Foucault’s concept of “technologies of the self”, dress can either be a means of “authenticity or artifice” (Entwistle 2000:113) – it can express the character of the individual or can mask it and manipulate it into projecting another one such that the information it portray may not necessarily be accurate. It can be both a means and an end. The studies of Featherstone and Shilling (1991, 1993 cited in Entwistle 2000:74), showed that dress functions as a means of achieving personal gratification. Therefore, students dress may not just reflect the natural self-expression but also can be utilized for goal-attainment.
Ethnography and discourse analysis will be used in this study, because it will provide a means for cross-checking whether or not students participate in the discourse they create about the UP dress. The study will also triangulate the discourses with actual performance. It is not enough to rely on the discourse of how UP students dress if it is not grounded on empirical evidence, especially that dress is an empirical fact that can also be affected by social change.
III. ETHNOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
The research setting and the participant selection was done at the Palma Hall, more commonly known as the “AS”. The Palma Hall may be considered as the place with the most diversity because it holds some of the Foreign Language and General Elective subjects that every student must take, especially by freshmen. It houses hang-outs of several academic organizations, fraternities and sororities, and is the center of student mobilizations in the campus.
The Palma Hall is the home of the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP). The College includes eight courses, namely: Anthropology, Geography, History, Linguistics, Philosophy, Political Science, Psychology and Sociology. CSSP’s demographics are different from other colleges, thus the need to avoid the generalization of the results of this study to be a UP-wide phenomenon.
I conducted short interviews with 50 currently enrolled CSSP students at the Palma Hall using convenience sampling. Some research participants were selected at organization hang-outs, others were approached randomly and still others were students I know personally. As I was selecting research participants randomly at the AS lobby, I realized that it was actually difficult to find CSSP students since most students from different colleges also hang out at the lobby.
Majority of the research participants were freshmen and sophomore students. Their courses and year levels were recorded but were not considered to be a significant factor. The research participants were asked four main questions, together with follow-up questions for verification and further solicitation of answers:
1) How would you describe how UP students typically dress?
2) What do you think are the factors that affect how they dress?
3) What does our clothing say about UP?
4) How has the way we dress changed through the years?
In Question #4, freshmen, who might not be around to witness social change, were asked to compare their initial impression of how UP students dress when they were in high school and their actual experience in UP. Research participants from higher year levels were asked to compare the changes from when they entered UP.
The research participants were not asked whether or not they think they conform or rebel against the discourse they gave about the UP students dress. Instead, after the interview, I asked for permission to take their photographs in order to compare their answers with the actual way they dress. Overall, interviewing CSSP students about the UP dress is easy. Not many declined an interview. But several participants refused to be photographed, especially those who I met through random selection. Only 36 participants agreed for a photograph, which is rather unusual because the discourse often constructed of UP is that of a safe place for freedom and self-expression. I expected that they would not be shy or intimidated when asked to be photographed.
In answering the interview questions, I am also surprised how research participants construct more or less the same discourse. It was almost as if they were answers right out of common sense or tradition, and they came more or less from a generalized point of view. However, the research participants came to rethink their answers in the question of how the dress changed through the years, where they were made to look at the specific influences of the UP dress (that is, aside from the weather and things as such). They noted the current demographic shift in terms of the socio-economic backgrounds because of the increasing tuition fee in UP. But when asked to encapsulate the UP dress again, they unhesitatingly go back to their first answers.
IV. ANALYSIS
The discourse on the UP dress is rather individualistic, in a sense that in using Entwistle’s dualism of authenticity vs. artifice, most of the research participants expressed that UP students dress out of what is natural to them or according to their current situation.
In the first question, how UP students typically dress, the word “Comfortable” has almost become a catchphrase. 23 out of the 50 research participants used “Comfortable” in describing how UP students typically dress. It describes the discourse of practicality and utilitarianism that primarily defines everyday wear of UP students. “Comfortable” may be seen as adaptive of the culture in UP as well, which has, according to one participant, a walking culture. One participant also attributed the fact that some courses may be so difficult or some students live nearby that it is difficult to even bother about dressing up.
It is important to note that “Comfortable” is an individualized term. It is possible that there is no standard definition of what “Comfortable” is, as what is comfortable for one may be uncomfortable to another. According to majority of research participants, the primary factor that affects the way UP students dress is the “Weather”, which includes physical experiences such as the temperature and seasons. Often during the interviews, “Comfortable” is accompanied by the statement, “You wouldn’t want to wear a jacket on a hot day!” The weather, thus, is still a function of comfort. Because “Weather” can determine the UP dress, it can be said that “Comfortable” may be a socially defined to some extent and that it is not an absolutely individualized term.
Generally, the photographed research participants were dressed simply. A huge majority wore just t-shirts. The only participant wearing long sleeves was with a jacket, and it was raining on the day of the interview. Only one participant wore a sleeveless top, and one also wore a skirt. In taking into account the walking culture in UP, most of the research participants wore closed shoes. Contrary to the common stereotype, only five of them wore slippers, most wore rubber shoes and ladies’ flats.
The word “Comfortable” was followed closely by “Diverse”, meaning students dress differently from each other. In answering the third question, majority of the research participants claimed that the way students dress portrays the “Freedom” there is in UP. Some students mentioned that in the university, it was up to the students to choose among the wide varieties of subjects, courses, organizations, beliefs and activities. And aside from the positive notion of freedom, the research participants answered that the UP dress reflects the “Lack of uniform” in UP, which means the way we dress shows how there are no restrictions or dress codes to follow. This freedom and lack of restrictions would allow students choose among wider types of dress. It allowed for more diversity.
However, there is not much diversity in the way the research participants described the typical UP dress and what they actually wore. In describing what UP students typically dress, the research participants mentioned jeans, shirts, shorts and slippers, in that order of frequency. Similarly, majority of the participants wore jeans and shirts. Contrary to the discourse, only five participants wore slippers. Other dresses, such as boots, scarves, skirts and accessories were either not mentioned as much or regarded as something of special use or out of the ordinary. These types of dresses were perceived more as an “artifice” than a reflection of “authenticity”. Among the research participants themselves, only one wore a skirt. Only one female participant wore hair accessories, and it was even just a simple clip. Nobody wore a necklace as well, as only ID straps hung around their neck. The more common accessories were ballers and wrist watches. At least in this study with CSSP students, there is only modest amount of evidence of diversity in terms of dress.
“Self-preference” is the third most common word that the research participants used to describe the UP dress. It includes the individuals’ personalities, tastes and moods, often expressed in statements like, “Well, they dress in any way they like!” As established earlier, the “Freedom” in UP permitted diversity and various preferences. Some participants also mentioned that the way we dress showed that UP is “Tolerant” and “Open to influences”.
“Preferences”, different from the “Self-preference” category, is also a factor in determining the dress, which ranked second to “Weather”. “Preference” is an ambiguous term as it may entail both authenticity and artifice. It also function both as a means for self-expression or goal-attainment. And it is different from “Self-preference” because of the element of choice. While “Preference”, such as taste or mood, can affect how one dresses, preference alone may not translate into an actual performance. For example, a female student may have the taste for high heels, but may not choose to wear it to school as often because it is not comfortable. Students, therefore, may not always dress just in any way they like even though it may affect their dress.
While UP on its own is free and free from dress codes, individual circumstances may inhibit students from self-expression. In the same way, “Activities”, which encapsulates the lifestyle of students and the things they do throughout the day, is also considered as another factor that affects the UP dress after “Preferences”. In this study itself, there were research participants who were wearing Org shirts and PE shirts. They may not like wearing these shirts, but they are compelled to because of their activities.
In taking into account social change, most students answered that the way UP students dress are relatively “Similar” or unchanging through the years. Most freshmen answered that their pre-conceived notions of the UP dress during their high school years, which was “Comfortable” were proven to be the true when they started studying in the university. Following “Similar” is the view that the UP dress is becoming “Trendier”. The participants who answered this way attributed it to the rising tuition fees in the university that allows more people of the higher social class to enter UP. Indeed, among the research participants, I find only one who wore house-clothes (wearing loose shirt, shorts and slippers). Majority wore more or less simple clothes that one would still use to go out with, such as jeans and closed shoes.
CONCLUSION
In general, the discourse of how UP students typically dress was very individualistic: students were perceived to wear whatever they want in their own terms. It helped that the university allows its students the freedom to choose among wide varieties of clothing without being restricted, as it has been a lifestyle in the university to exercise these kinds of freedom of expression. Freedom and the lack of restrictions are therefore a factor that causes students to note that where diversity is possible, the people within it are most likely also diverse, especially in a place like UP where people from different walks of life meet. However, this study showed that in CSSP, there is not much actual deviation in terms of clothing. Comfortable wear outweighs even personal preferences, even though the latter is a key influencer. The UP dress, at least in CSSP, is reflects the agency exercised by individuals by being basically adaptive to that of the life in the university instead of the image it carries. Students in CSSP also perceive that the UP dress had not changed much in the recent years. Only a minority notes that the dress was getting trendier, attributed to the demographic shift in terms of socio-economic statuses of students because of recent increases in tuition fees.
Reference:
Entwistle, Joanne. (2000). The Fashioned Body: Fashion, Dress and Modern Social Theory. Polity Press.
Discussion