论文部分内容阅读
In the film The Devil Wears Prada the 1)titular character is a fashion 2)bigwig who is synonymous with the very personification of evil, played by
3)Meryl Streep. The character is depicted as anything but 4)Satanically undesirable as a role model. While it is true that the other major character ultimately rejects emulating her mentor in the end, the fashion industry is presented as 5)cutthroat but necessary. In reality, of course, the fashion industry is absolutely unne-cessary; anyone could very easily get along with just enough clothing to protect themselves from the 6)elements. But fashion is a very necessary part of capita-list economics, especially as it relates to 7)inculcating the idea of consumption as a means of gaining social status.
One particularly interesting aspect of the fashion industry has been the growth of popularity of handbags and purses. While there can be no argument that purses are a material good, that aspect has been 8)superseded in an attempt to 9)foist them as icons of status. To how great an extent has the
10)utilitarian purse become a symbol of wealth and status? Consider that as far back at the late 90s handbags were going for up to $10,000 during auctions at Sotheby’s. What may be even more interesting than that someone would actually pay that much money for a product they could easily get for $10 at any Wal-Mart in America is how quickly the ori-ginal idea behind high fashion changed.
The origins of high fashion and
11)haute couture lie in the idea of exclusivity. Fashion was designed originally to further 12)delineate the dividing line between the haves and the have-nots; or, to be more precise, between those with status and those without. Fashion has historically been a means by which the wealthy could individuate themselves from the lowly pack; the rich could afford things the poor could not and that simple fact served to further mark their position as somehow better and more deserving than the poor.
Over the course of the latter half of the twentieth-century, however, as credit cards took off, more people became able to buy—if not nece-ssarily afford—fashionable items. It is interesting to note the correlation between easily accessible credit and the fashion industry’s embrace of a new theory that 13)eschewed the traditional exclusivity in favor of transforming high fashion all the way down the wage line. Rather than relying upon the super-rich to keep the fashion companies afloat, top designers from Halston to Louis Vuitton to Dooney & Burke began to design handbags with hefty price tags for those who could afford them along with nearly identical handbags with lesser, though by no means cheap, price tags for those who couldn’t. And, in fact, there is much to suggest that those buying the low-priced versions cannot afford them either.
One of capitalism’s greatest weapons is the idea of collectibility. And the handbag or purse might well be considered—along with shoes, of course—the female equivalent of baseball trading cards or comic books. Many jokes have been made at the expense of how many different shoes the average woman has—though the ridiculous cost of those shoes, which is often in inverse ratio to the amount of material that necessary to design them, is no laughing matter. As the handbag has moved from its humble utilitarian origins to becoming a fashion necessity, something very odd occurred. No longer is the purse consi-dered for its value as a carrying case. The handbag, like footwear before it, has officially moved into that heady sphere that all businesses crave: the object of obsession.
Over the years handbag designs have moved from a reflection of its necessity to novelty to the point now where it just seems to be a game designers play to see who can come up with most outrageous idea. And following in 14)drooling 15)lockstep with the designers are those who will buy any and all just for the purpose of owning it and, even more importantly, letting people know they own it. The story of Sarah Papadopalous is, unfortunately, not unique. Sarah admits to owning so many designer handbags that she can’t even keep them all at her house; many of them must be stored at her parent’s house.
The handbags that women like Sarah buy are clearly not just products to be used, but products to be exhibited. And getting more of them than can even fit inside one’s domicile is evidence that Marx was not being hopelessly 16)polemical when he foresaw a society that attached 17)fetishistic qualities to inanimate objects 18)en masse. The fashion industry is only the most visibly obvious when it comes to how accumulating products has become a means toward gaining some false sense of status and popularity.
电影《时尚女魔头》中由梅丽尔•斯特里普饰演的标题人物“女魔头”是时尚界的显贵人物，亦是恶魔的化身。这一角色并没被刻画成邪恶不仁、让人引以为鉴的反派。没错，片中另一主角最终拒绝仿效这位“女魔头”师傅，时尚界在片中给人的感觉虽然残酷无情，却显得不可或缺。当然，在现实生活中，时尚行业绝对是多余的，穿够衣服遮风御寒还不容易？但是在资本主义经济体系里，时尚行业则是必不可少的一部分，特别是因为时尚界总给人灌输一种概念：消费是赢取社会地位的一种手段。
手袋流行度日增的现象，是时尚界尤为有趣的一个方面。手袋本身无疑是一种实用性的商品，但这一属性已被取代——人们试图把手袋塑造成为社会地位的标志。原本普通实用的手袋究竟在多大程度上变成了财富和地位的象征呢？远在上个世纪九十年代末，苏富比拍卖行就有手袋以1万美金的高价卖出。竟然有人愿意如此大洒金钱去买在美国随便一家沃尔玛用10美元就能轻而易举买到的东西，这还不算，更有趣的是，高端时尚界背后最初“尊者专享”的概念也在迅速改变。
高端时尚、高级订制时装，原本强调的是“尊者专享”这一意念。一开始，时尚服饰就是用来在富人和穷人之间进一步划清界限的，或者更准确点说，是用来区分有地位和没地位的人的。有史以来，时尚一直是富人标榜个性，使自己有别于低下阶层的手段。富人买得起穷人买不起的东西，这个简单的事实又进一步彰显他们的地位——总是在某些方面比穷人优越、更有资格得到某种商品。
然而，二十世纪后半叶，随着信用卡的兴起，越来越多的人都能买到时尚衣饰，尽管他们不一定都真的买得起。一方面人们能轻松地凭信用赊账购物，另一方面时尚界亦接受了一套全新观念，逐步远离传统的“精英专享”的理念，倾向于沿大众的收入线向下发展，从而全面改变了高端时尚的原有概念，这两方面的有趣关联颇值得我们注意。顶级设计品牌都不再依靠超级富人的消费来维持时尚公司的运营，如候司顿、路易威登、杜尼和伯克除了设计标价高昂的手袋供应那些买得起的顾客，同时他们也为那些买不起高价手袋的顾客设计款式几乎相同而标价没那么贵（但也绝不算便宜）的手袋。事实上，买这些低价码名牌货的人也不见得真的买得起。
“搜罗”观念是资本主义的一大杀手锏。手袋，当然还有鞋子，这些对女士们来说就等于男士们热衷收集的棒球明星卡或者漫画书。一个普通女人会怎样不惜代价买各式各样的鞋，这已经成了无数人的笑料，可那些高得离谱的价钱却是实实在在的，而且往往设计所用的材质与鞋子的价格成反比。原本朴素实用的手袋摇身一变成了今天的时尚必需品，怪异的现象亦随之而来。考虑手袋的价值时，大家不再把它视为一种携带物品的袋子。像之前的鞋子一样，手袋也正式进入一切商家渴求的那种令消费者晕乎乎的境界：成为大家疯狂迷恋的对象。
这些年来，手袋的设计从反映其实用性能发展到追求新颖款式，不断演变，到现在似乎已经变成设计师们的竞技游戏，看谁能想出最前卫骇人的点子。而步步紧贴、尾随追捧这些设计师的是一群不论好丑照单全买的人，她们只为占有而购买，更重要的是为了让别人知道她们拥有名牌。很不幸，莎拉•帕帕朵帕勒斯的故事（编者注：这位女士疯狂购买名牌包的举动曾作为新闻被媒体报道）反映的并非个别现象。她承认自己的名牌手袋多到连自己的房子都装不下了，很多都得存放到父母家里去。
像莎拉这样的女士，她们买的手袋显然不是要来用的，而是用来显摆的。买到连自己家里都放不下的地步这个事实，证明了马克思当年预见这个社会将集体盲目迷恋无生命的事物也非一时绝望偏激的言论。说到以积聚物品的方式来获取地位声望带来的虚妄感，时尚界不过是目之所及最明显的例子而已。
3)Meryl Streep. The character is depicted as anything but 4)Satanically undesirable as a role model. While it is true that the other major character ultimately rejects emulating her mentor in the end, the fashion industry is presented as 5)cutthroat but necessary. In reality, of course, the fashion industry is absolutely unne-cessary; anyone could very easily get along with just enough clothing to protect themselves from the 6)elements. But fashion is a very necessary part of capita-list economics, especially as it relates to 7)inculcating the idea of consumption as a means of gaining social status.
One particularly interesting aspect of the fashion industry has been the growth of popularity of handbags and purses. While there can be no argument that purses are a material good, that aspect has been 8)superseded in an attempt to 9)foist them as icons of status. To how great an extent has the
10)utilitarian purse become a symbol of wealth and status? Consider that as far back at the late 90s handbags were going for up to $10,000 during auctions at Sotheby’s. What may be even more interesting than that someone would actually pay that much money for a product they could easily get for $10 at any Wal-Mart in America is how quickly the ori-ginal idea behind high fashion changed.
The origins of high fashion and
11)haute couture lie in the idea of exclusivity. Fashion was designed originally to further 12)delineate the dividing line between the haves and the have-nots; or, to be more precise, between those with status and those without. Fashion has historically been a means by which the wealthy could individuate themselves from the lowly pack; the rich could afford things the poor could not and that simple fact served to further mark their position as somehow better and more deserving than the poor.
Over the course of the latter half of the twentieth-century, however, as credit cards took off, more people became able to buy—if not nece-ssarily afford—fashionable items. It is interesting to note the correlation between easily accessible credit and the fashion industry’s embrace of a new theory that 13)eschewed the traditional exclusivity in favor of transforming high fashion all the way down the wage line. Rather than relying upon the super-rich to keep the fashion companies afloat, top designers from Halston to Louis Vuitton to Dooney & Burke began to design handbags with hefty price tags for those who could afford them along with nearly identical handbags with lesser, though by no means cheap, price tags for those who couldn’t. And, in fact, there is much to suggest that those buying the low-priced versions cannot afford them either.
One of capitalism’s greatest weapons is the idea of collectibility. And the handbag or purse might well be considered—along with shoes, of course—the female equivalent of baseball trading cards or comic books. Many jokes have been made at the expense of how many different shoes the average woman has—though the ridiculous cost of those shoes, which is often in inverse ratio to the amount of material that necessary to design them, is no laughing matter. As the handbag has moved from its humble utilitarian origins to becoming a fashion necessity, something very odd occurred. No longer is the purse consi-dered for its value as a carrying case. The handbag, like footwear before it, has officially moved into that heady sphere that all businesses crave: the object of obsession.
Over the years handbag designs have moved from a reflection of its necessity to novelty to the point now where it just seems to be a game designers play to see who can come up with most outrageous idea. And following in 14)drooling 15)lockstep with the designers are those who will buy any and all just for the purpose of owning it and, even more importantly, letting people know they own it. The story of Sarah Papadopalous is, unfortunately, not unique. Sarah admits to owning so many designer handbags that she can’t even keep them all at her house; many of them must be stored at her parent’s house.
The handbags that women like Sarah buy are clearly not just products to be used, but products to be exhibited. And getting more of them than can even fit inside one’s domicile is evidence that Marx was not being hopelessly 16)polemical when he foresaw a society that attached 17)fetishistic qualities to inanimate objects 18)en masse. The fashion industry is only the most visibly obvious when it comes to how accumulating products has become a means toward gaining some false sense of status and popularity.
电影《时尚女魔头》中由梅丽尔•斯特里普饰演的标题人物“女魔头”是时尚界的显贵人物，亦是恶魔的化身。这一角色并没被刻画成邪恶不仁、让人引以为鉴的反派。没错，片中另一主角最终拒绝仿效这位“女魔头”师傅，时尚界在片中给人的感觉虽然残酷无情，却显得不可或缺。当然，在现实生活中，时尚行业绝对是多余的，穿够衣服遮风御寒还不容易？但是在资本主义经济体系里，时尚行业则是必不可少的一部分，特别是因为时尚界总给人灌输一种概念：消费是赢取社会地位的一种手段。
手袋流行度日增的现象，是时尚界尤为有趣的一个方面。手袋本身无疑是一种实用性的商品，但这一属性已被取代——人们试图把手袋塑造成为社会地位的标志。原本普通实用的手袋究竟在多大程度上变成了财富和地位的象征呢？远在上个世纪九十年代末，苏富比拍卖行就有手袋以1万美金的高价卖出。竟然有人愿意如此大洒金钱去买在美国随便一家沃尔玛用10美元就能轻而易举买到的东西，这还不算，更有趣的是，高端时尚界背后最初“尊者专享”的概念也在迅速改变。
高端时尚、高级订制时装，原本强调的是“尊者专享”这一意念。一开始，时尚服饰就是用来在富人和穷人之间进一步划清界限的，或者更准确点说，是用来区分有地位和没地位的人的。有史以来，时尚一直是富人标榜个性，使自己有别于低下阶层的手段。富人买得起穷人买不起的东西，这个简单的事实又进一步彰显他们的地位——总是在某些方面比穷人优越、更有资格得到某种商品。
然而，二十世纪后半叶，随着信用卡的兴起，越来越多的人都能买到时尚衣饰，尽管他们不一定都真的买得起。一方面人们能轻松地凭信用赊账购物，另一方面时尚界亦接受了一套全新观念，逐步远离传统的“精英专享”的理念，倾向于沿大众的收入线向下发展，从而全面改变了高端时尚的原有概念，这两方面的有趣关联颇值得我们注意。顶级设计品牌都不再依靠超级富人的消费来维持时尚公司的运营，如候司顿、路易威登、杜尼和伯克除了设计标价高昂的手袋供应那些买得起的顾客，同时他们也为那些买不起高价手袋的顾客设计款式几乎相同而标价没那么贵（但也绝不算便宜）的手袋。事实上，买这些低价码名牌货的人也不见得真的买得起。
“搜罗”观念是资本主义的一大杀手锏。手袋，当然还有鞋子，这些对女士们来说就等于男士们热衷收集的棒球明星卡或者漫画书。一个普通女人会怎样不惜代价买各式各样的鞋，这已经成了无数人的笑料，可那些高得离谱的价钱却是实实在在的，而且往往设计所用的材质与鞋子的价格成反比。原本朴素实用的手袋摇身一变成了今天的时尚必需品，怪异的现象亦随之而来。考虑手袋的价值时，大家不再把它视为一种携带物品的袋子。像之前的鞋子一样，手袋也正式进入一切商家渴求的那种令消费者晕乎乎的境界：成为大家疯狂迷恋的对象。
这些年来，手袋的设计从反映其实用性能发展到追求新颖款式，不断演变，到现在似乎已经变成设计师们的竞技游戏，看谁能想出最前卫骇人的点子。而步步紧贴、尾随追捧这些设计师的是一群不论好丑照单全买的人，她们只为占有而购买，更重要的是为了让别人知道她们拥有名牌。很不幸，莎拉•帕帕朵帕勒斯的故事（编者注：这位女士疯狂购买名牌包的举动曾作为新闻被媒体报道）反映的并非个别现象。她承认自己的名牌手袋多到连自己的房子都装不下了，很多都得存放到父母家里去。
像莎拉这样的女士，她们买的手袋显然不是要来用的，而是用来显摆的。买到连自己家里都放不下的地步这个事实，证明了马克思当年预见这个社会将集体盲目迷恋无生命的事物也非一时绝望偏激的言论。说到以积聚物品的方式来获取地位声望带来的虚妄感，时尚界不过是目之所及最明显的例子而已。