Clothing and Textiles

Universally used body coverings made from natural agricultural products (e.g., cotton, linen, ramie, silk and wool fibers) or manufactured fibers (e.g., wood pulp or petroleum derivatives). Fibers are formed into fabric for clothing in countless ways. Clothing is essential for physical and social survival because people use clothes to express their identity and feelings, communicate their roles and lifestyle, and protect themselves from the environment. For most people, clothing consumption goes beyond strict necessity (Fine and Leopold, 1993). New fashions are always welcome because clothes often become psychologically tiresome long before they are worn out. A person may find “nothing to wear” in a whole closetful of clothes!

Apparel Production

During the 1700s, men’s tailoring was a skilled craft requiring a long apprenticeship. Women’s clothing production was a part of “housewifery.” The sewing machine’s invention in 1846 hastened the development of the apparel manufacturing industry. Some home sewing persists, but since the money-saving advantages have disappeared, people sew primarily for custom design, a better fit, or to express creativity with crafts.

Many textile, apparel or sewn product firms are located in rural communities. The wide distribution of apparel manufacturers across rural America is not well known. For example, Alabama has over 700 and Iowa has over 400 textile- and apparel-related producers. Innovative firms use teams of workers in modular production or flexible manufacturing systems. Computerassisted design and a high degree of automation allow production of quality apparel at a price competitive with imports that may require longer production times.

Rural people, women especially, provide an able work force with a strong work ethic, a need for employment, and willingness to work whether in a team environment or for piece-rate wages related to production speed. Fabric manipulation skills developed through home sewing are an asset to manufacturers who provide on-the-job training with specialized equipment. Efficient use of personnel and equipment allows madeto- order manufacturing so that totally new items can be produced and shipped within 10 working days. In 1993, 1.9 million people were employed growing cotton and wool or producing fibers, textiles and apparel in the U.S. (Office of the Chief Economist, 1994).

Apparel Consumption

Many consumers believe clothing prices are high. But, the Consumer Price Index shows that in recent years clothing prices rose less than other consumer items. In 1993, the CPI for clothing was 130.5 compared with 149.7 for all consumer items, with 1982-1984 as base years (U.S. Department of Labor, 1994). Consumer spending does add up, however, so total U.S. consumer expenditures for apparel, not including shoes, was $204.4 billion in 1993 (Office of the Chief Economist, 1994).

Clothing expenditures as a proportion of total family expenditures have not changed dramatically in recent years. Apparel expenditures of the Baby Boom generation households in 1990 were between 5 and 6 percent of all their expenditures regardless of income, the higher number associated with larger family size (Dinkins, 1993).

Rural households spend less on apparel and related services than urban households. But, the common perception that all rural residents are poor is not accurate. The rural wealthy take extraordinary measures to obtain high-quality merchandise.

Some scholars and retail buyers, based on experience in selling apparel, believe that rural residents of the Midwest are more reluctant to risk buying new fashions than are urban coastal dwellers. Midwestern store buyers tend to invest less in the trendiest styles. Studies of fashion adoption show young age and high media use as indicators of early adoption, but rural residence was not studied (Behling, 1992).

Although rural residence once was synonymous with isolation and lack of access to fashion apparel, modern communication and delivery systems rendered that notion almost obsolete. Changes in retailing, direct mail catalog service, and in-home video shopping now bring the world’s merchandise to one’s community, if not one’s own living room. With a satellite dish, rural people can get fashion news from Milan, Paris and New York as it is introduced. However, family income, transportation and mobility, lack of knowledge about sources, or just satisfaction with the status quo may limit consumer choice.

Wal-Mart brought a broader assortment of merchandise to small towns, and its success in promoting low prices is evidence that consumer incomes are important in limiting choice. Other chains expecting lower operating costs, high return on investment, and less demanding, loyal customers also are present in rural communities. Discount and outlet malls beside interstate highways and recreation areas provide access for rural consumers as well as transient trade.

Catalog companies geared for quick response to telephone, fax or mail orders deliver via UPS, Federal Express, or the U.S. Postal Service to remote locations. Database records target customers, and use of samples, fast delivery, and easy return policies facilitate distance shopping. Consumers with access to TV shopping networks, such as QVC and Home Shopping Network, already spend over $2 billion annually for merchandise that includes jewelry and clothes (see “Shopping by Television.” Consumer Reports, January 1995, pp. 8-12); however, the proportion spent by rural compared to urban consumers is unclear.

Identification and Communication

The relationships between clothing and appearance, self-expression, and communication have been studied by many researchers (see Roach-Higgins and Eicher, 1992). Clothing delivers first impressions to observers. People are more likely to help well-dressed strangers that are stranded along roadsides than poorly dressed ones and are more likely to do so in a rural setting than in urban locations (Mallozzi et al., 1990). T-shirts can spell out political beliefs. Diversity of aesthetic expression shown through appearance and dress may be related to differences in cultural or national origin of either the clothing itself or the wearer.

Clothing is a powerful means of expression and non-verbal communication that helps to establish and maintain the self, negotiate identities, define situations, and set the stage for verbal communication. Gender identity through clothing starts in childhood, with baby boys in blue and girls in pink, a differentiation that did not become popular until the 1920s. Whether functional, such as a clean room suit, or special occasion, such as a bridal gown, clothes express a set of expectations that govern social interactions between wearers and viewers. The variety of clothing available in the 1990s allowed people to express individuality and communicate in interesting ways.

People with freedom to control what they wear and to choose among satisfying alternatives may or may not conform with group norms. The tension between individual expression or freedom in dress and commonly held notions of appropriate dress can lead to conflict between groups, organizations or generations. Questions about whose rights are more important arise when a teen whose religious beliefs require a turban is denied admission to a dance club with a dress code that bans hats to foster appropriate behavior. Diversity in cultural values and patterns of dress can easily be misunderstood when parochial views are not extended through education.

Youths often adopt clothing different from their parents to express their independence. Despite the lack of research-based evidence that dress codes impact behavior to reduce violence among teens, school boards impose dress codes, limiting symbols, to discourage gang activity (Holloman, 1995). By the time adults understand the meaning of the symbols used by youth, the symbols often have changed. Innocent or accidental use of clothing-related gang symbols can put non-gang youth at risk of misidentification and perhaps real danger, so adult concern is not without foundation. There is growing evidence of gang activity in rural communities. Red and blue bandannas, long associated with cowboys and farmers, more recently were used as gang markers among urban youth.

Many organizations require work uniforms, and over 23 million Americans wear them (Soloman, 1987). Uniforms help establish identity, show authority, create order, and help to equalize social class and income differences among people. They can improve working relationships, and foster the image of standardized service. But they may make individual achievement harder to identify. Military uniform insignia show rank to the troops, but may not have meaning for outsiders. Uniform requirements begin in childhood with Little League, band and scouts.

When uniforms are not required, the tendency to conform with peers often leads to a quasi-uniform that may be traditional or transitory as fashions change. Rural football fans wear the traditional school colors even when their team is losing. Midwestern farmers wear promotional baseball-style caps from farm service dealers; cowboy hats are the mark of Western ranchers and line dancers.

Professional dress (suit, shirt or blouse, and tie) is expected for most job interviews and many offices, whether urban or rural, but some firms are relaxing this standard and encouraging casual dress on designated days. A dress code may define casual, lest the freedom be abused.

Protection

Temperature, fire, water, chemicals and biological organisms create environmental conditions that may be mediated by clothing and textiles (Raheel, 1994). Clothing and protective gear also can mediate the impacts of brute force, small particles or radiation. Protective clothing is easily accepted when the hazard is obvious and widely understood. Winter coats, hard hats, football helmets, firefighters’ protective suits and medical workers’ rubber gloves are examples.

When the hazard is less easily understood and the exposure random or cumulative, protective gear is less readily accepted. Denial of need for protective clothing is widespread. Accidents are chance events and may not happen. Some states have no laws requiring motorcycle helmets, though these could prevent many head injuries. Cumulative effects are not immediately threatening. Long-term sun exposure can lead to skin cancer on the ears and nose that might be prevented by wearing wide-brimmed hats, yet they are seldom worn.

Farm pesticide applicators often work alone and are uncertain of the benefit of protective gear, so its use is not guaranteed. The Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides regulates pesticide use and requires personal protective equipment in accordance with pesticide labels (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993). Surveys show that most agricultural pesticide applicators indicate compliance with pesticide label requirements for chemical-resistant glove use, but many express frustrations with glove fit and comfort.

Fabrics with barrier properties designed to resist penetration and permeation of hazardous substances and functional garments requiring specially engineered polymer films, fiber-webs, foams and impact-resistant plastics (perhaps fiber-reinforced) are of increasing importance as environmental conditions dictate protection. Choosing protective gear is a challenge because no chemically resistant glove material, for example, resists all chemicals.

Protective clothing requires special care to maintain its functional properties. Clothes worn for pesticide application can retain pesticides in more than trace amounts after repeated laundering (Stone et al., 1992). Careful attention to laundering can reduce residue to minimum levels. Disposable or limited-use protective coveralls, aprons and gloves eliminate laundering, but create contaminated waste for which disposal options are limited.

Rural people choose clothing and textiles not only for aesthetics and design appeal, but also for self-identification, communication and protection. Rural people may wear polyester fleece made from recycled soft drink bottles, naturally grown colored cotton from Arizona, hand-dyed batiks from Indonesia, and strip cloth from Africa. Garments may be sewn in Wisconsin, Singapore or Mexico. Clothing and textiles contribute to economic, physical, social and emotional well-being and rank with food and shelter as necessities of life.

— Janis Stone

See also Culture; Home Economics; Pest Management; Retail Industry; Textile Industry; Wool Industry

References

• Behling, D.U. “Three and a Half Decades of Fashion Adoption Research: What Have We Learned?” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 10 (1992): 34-41. 
• Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. Available online at http://ctr.sagepub.com. 
• Dinkins, J.M. “Expenditures of Younger and Older Baby Boomers.” Family Economics Review 6 (1993) 2: 2-7. 
• Fine, B. and E. Leopold. The World of Consumption. London: Routledge, 1993. 
• Holloman, L.O. “Violence and Other Antisocial Behaviors in Public Schools: Can Dress Codes Help Solve the Problem?” Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences (Winter 1995): 33-38. 
• Mallozzi, J., V. McDermott, and W.A. Kayson. “Effects of Sex, Type of Dress, and Location on Altruistic Behavior.” Psychological Reports 67 (1990): 1,103-1,106. 
• Office of the Chief Economist, American Textile Manufacturers Institute. Textile Highlights (December 1994): 22-23, 33. 
• Raheel, M. Protective Clothing Systems and Materials. New York, NY: Marcel Decker, Inc., 1994. 
• Roach-Higgins, M.E., and J.B. Eicher. “Dress and Identity.” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 10 (1992): 1-8. 
• Soloman, M. R. “Standard Issue.” Psychology Today (December 1987): 30-31. 
• Stone, J., P. Higby, and H.M. Stahr. “Pesticide Residues in Clothing: Case Study of Clothing Worn Under Protective Cotton Coveralls.” Journal of Environmental Health 55 (1992):10-13. 
• U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index (November 1994). 
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides: How to Comply. EPA 7354-B-93-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993.