Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study sheds light on dress as it is involved in the social construction of femininity, and in particular how sororities are engaged in this process. As institutions, the sororities in this study trained their members toward a traditional notion of femininity that was visually expressed in appearance. New sorority members (pledges) were actively involved in the social construction of gender as they adopted the sororities' idealized images and roles pertaining to femininity.

Enculturation into a sorority began with adoption of the idealized images such as a sorority look. Pledges wanted to at least look like full-fledged members and alleviated status insecurity by adopting the idealized image as they embraced their roles. As competing roles emerged over time, full-fledged members substituted the sorority's idealized images for personal images.

Adherence to the sororities' idealized images became a gender role obligation. Benefits of this study to textiles and clothing scholarship include a deeper understanding of the role of appearance in non-verbal communication and in informal social control.

Keywords

Key Words: sorority femininity idealized images roles.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arthur, L.L.B. (1997). Role salience, role embracement and symbolic self- completion of sorority pledges. Sociological Inquiry, 67(3), 364-379.

Arthur, L.B. (1992). Idealized images: Appearances and the construction of femininities in two exclusive organizations. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 9302588.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .

Boynton-Arthur, L.L.B. (1993). Ethnography grounded theory in clothing and textiles research. In S. Lennon & L. Bums , (Eds.), Social science aspects of dress: New directions, (pp. 137-145). Special Publication #5 of the International Textiles and Apparel Association.

Cooley, C. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribners.

Constantinople, A. (1979). Sex-role acquisition: In search of the elephant . Sex Roles, 5,121-133.

Coser, L. (1974). Greedy institutions: Patterns of undivided commitment . NY: Free Press.

de Beauvoir, S. (1972). The second sex. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Freedman, R. (1986). Beauty bound. Lexington: Heath/ Lexington Books.

10.

Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1-33.

11.

Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. (1967). Awareness of dying: A study of social interaction . Chicago: Aldine Press.

12.

Goffman, E. (1978). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.

13.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.

14.

Goffman, E. (1961). Role distance. Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction (pp. 85-152). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

15.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday.

16.

Gross, L. (1991, May). Back to the future: Sororities are reaffirming old values and embracing new ones. In View. May/June, 10-14.

17.

Kaiser, S. (1989). Clothing and the social organization of gender perception: A developmental approach. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 7(2), 46-56.

18.

Kaiser, S. (1990). The social psychology of clothing: Symbolic appearances in context. NY: Macmillan.

19.

Lafferty, H.K. , & Dickey, L. (1980). Clothing symbolism and the changing role of nurses . Home Economics Research Journal, 8, 294-301.

20.

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

21.

Paoletti, J.B. , & Kregloh, C.L. Clothing and gender in America: Children's fashions, 1890-1920. In C . B. Kidwell & V. Steele (Eds.), Men and women: Dressing the part (pp. 22-41). Washington: Smithsonian University Press.

22.

Risman, B. (1982). College women and sororities. Urban Life, 11(2), 231-252.

23.

Rose, M.A. (1985). Rush: A girl's guide to sorority success. NY: Villard Books.

24.

Smith, D. (1988). Femininity as discourse. in L. G. Roman & L. K. Christian-Smith (Eds.), Becoming feminine: The politics of popular culture . (p. 1-11). London: Falmer.

25.

Stone, G. (1965). Appearance and the self. In M. E. Roach & J. B. Eicher (Eds.), Dress, adornment and the social order (pp. 216-245). NY: John Wiley.

26.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 558-564.

28.

Vanderpool, N. (1990). Relationship between Oregon State University and OSU fraternities and sororities. (Unpublished report, available from Dean of Students, Oregon State University).

29.

West, C. , & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society , 1, 125-251.

30.

Wicklund, R.A. , & P.M. Gollwitzer (1982). Symbolic self-completion . Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

31.

Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. NY: William Morrow .

Dress and the Social Construction of Gender in Two Sororities

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References