Read: Barthes, The Fashion System pp. 3-18 (article)
Neich, "A Semiological Analysis of Self-Decoration in Mount Hagen, New Guinea" (article)
McCracken, Culture and Consumption chap. 4, pp. 57-70 (article)
Hebdige, Subculture

1. What does Barthes mean by "image-clothing" and "written clothing"? How are they different? How do they both relate to and differ from "real clothing"?

2. Why does Barthes refer to "Fashion" with a capital "F"? Based on our earlier examination of the different ways theorists have defined fashion, which definition do you think he is using? What are the strengths or weaknesses of Barthes' definition?

3. How does Neich use Barthes to do a semiotic analysis of self-decoration among people living around Mount Hagen, Papua New Guinea? Based on his account, what do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of his approach?

4. Based on these readings, what is the semiotic study of fashion? How does it compare to a sociological study of fashion? What are the advantages and disadvantages of a semiotic approach?

5. Why does McCracken say that language is an inappropriate metaphor for understanding clothing? Do you agree with his argument?

6. How does Hebdige apply Barthes' semiotic approach to read the meaning of punk style? How might Hebdige respond to McCracken's critique of semiotics?

7. How is punk a form of motivated communication? What role do the concepts of bricolage, homology, "generative set," polysemy, signifying practice, noise, and floating play in Hebdige's reading of punk style?

8. How, according to Hebdige, does a subculture relate to a parent culture? To what extent is style a successful form of resistance?

For more information, contact:  aleshkow@holycross.edu