Dress serves as a discursive daily practice of gender, and this article explains the dress practices of Bosnian Muslim refugee women living in Vermont. These dress practices tend toward elaborate, carefully cultivated styles for hair, makeup, and dress. Based on participant observation, in-depth interviews, and secondary historical sources, the authors seek to explain the meanings and practice of these dress practices. They argue that gendered dress practices reflect agentic processes that are situated within the flow of time and are rooted in relational processes that occur at the macrostructural level of history and nation and at the micro world of social interaction and lived experience.
Al-Ali, Nadje. 2002. Loss of status or new opportunities? Gender relations and transnational ties among Bosnian refugees. In The transnational family: New frontiers and global networks, edited by D. Bryceson and U. Vuorela. New York: Berg.
2.
Arthur, Linda B.1999. Introduction: Dress and the social control of the body. In Religion, dress and the body, edited by L. B. Arthur. New York: Berg.
3.
Banac, Ivo. 1994. Bosnian Muslims: From religious community to socialist nationhood and postcommunist statehood, 1918-1992. In The Muslims of Bosnia-Hercegovina, edited by Mark Pinson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
Banet-Weiser, Sarah. 1999. The most beautiful girl in the world: Beauty pageants and national identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
Bougarel, Xavier. 2000. Bosnian Muslims and the Yugoslav idea. In Yugoslavia as history: Twice there was a country, edited by John R. Lampe. London: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Bridgwood, Ann. 1995. Dancing the jar: Girls’ dress at Turkish Cypriot weddings. In Dress and ethnicity, edited by Joanne B. Eicher. Oxford, UK: Berg.
7.
Bringa, Tone. 1995. Being Muslim the Bosnian way. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
Chapkis, Wendy. 1988. Beauty secrets: Women and the politics of appearance. London: Women’s Press.
9.
Connell, Robert W.1987. Gender & power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
10.
Cunningham, Patricia A.1993. Simplicity of dress: A symbol of American ideals. In Dress in American culture, edited by Patricia A. Cunningham and Susan Voso Lab. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.
11.
Danaher, Geoff, Tony Schirato, and Jen Webb. 2000. Understanding Foucault. London: Sage.
12.
Delaney, Carol. 1994. Untangling the meanings of hair in Turkish society. Anthropology Quarterly67 (4): 159-172.
13.
Dellinger, Kirsten, and Christine L. Williams. 1997. Makeup at work: Negotiating appearances in the workplace. Gender & Society11 (2): 151-177.
14.
Dragnich, Alex B.1954. Tito’s promised land: Yugoslavia. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
15.
Eicher, Joanne B., and Mary Ellen Roach-Higgins. 1992. Definition and classification of dress: Implications for analysis of gender roles. In Dress and gender: Making and meaning, edited by R. Barnes and J. B. Eicher. New York: Berg.
16.
Emirbayer, Mustafa, and Ann Mische. 1998. What is agency?American Journal of Sociology103 (4): 962-1023.
17.
Espin, Oliva. 1999. Women crossing boundaries: A psychology of immigration and transformations of sexuality. New York: Routledge.
18.
Espiritu, Yen Le. 2001. “We don’t sleep around like white girls do”: Family, culture and gender in Filipina American lives. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society26 (2): 415-440.
19.
Felski, Rita. 1995. The gender of modernity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.
21.
Franz, Barbara. 2003. Bosnian refugee women in (re)settlement: Gender relations and social mobility. Feminist Review73:86-103.
22.
Freitas, Anthony, Susan Kaiser, and Tania Hammidi. 1996. Communities, commodities, space, and style. Journal of Homosexuality31 (1/2): 83-107.
23.
Gagné, Patricia, and Deanna McGaughey. 2002. Designingwomen: Cultural hegemony and the exercise of power amongwomenwho have undergone electivemammoplasty. Gender& Society16 (6): 814-838.
24.
Greer, Germaine. 1999. The whole woman. London: Paladin.
25.
Hau-Nung Chan, Annie. 2000. Fashioning change: Nationalism, colonialism, and modernity in Hong Kong. Postcolonial Studies3 (3): 293-309.
26.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. 1994. Gendered transitions: Mexican experiences of immigration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
Kaiser, Susan. 2001. Minding appearances: Style, truth and subjectivity. In Body dressing, edited by J. Entwistle and E. Wilson. New York: Berg.
28.
Kandiyoti, Deniz. 1988. Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society2:274-290.
29.
Keenan, William J. F.2001. Introduction: “Sartor Resartus” restored: Dress studies in Carlylean perspective. In Dressed to impress: Looking the part, edited by W. J. F. Keenan. New York: Berg.
30.
Lewis, Bernard. 2002. The emergence of modern Turkey. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
Magnusson, Kjell. 1999. Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Islam outside the Arab world, edited by David Westerlund and Ingvar Svanberg. New York: St. Martin’s.
32.
Moors, Annelies. 2000. Embodying the nation: Maha Saca’s post-intifada postcards. Ethnic and Racial Studies23 (5): 871-887.
33.
Neuburger, Mary. 1997. Difference unveiled: Bulgarian national imperatives and the re-dressing of Muslim women, 1878-1989. Nationalities Papers25 (1): 169-183.
34.
O’Neal, Gwendolyn S.1999. The power of style: Onrejection of the accepted. InAppearance and power, edited by K. K. P. Johnson and S. J. Lennon. New York: Berg.
35.
Ruiz, Vicki. 1993. “Star struck”: Acculturation, adolescence, and the Mexican Americanwomen, 19201950. In Building with our hands: Newdirections in Chicana studies, edited by Adela de la Torre and Beatriz M. Pesquera. Berkeley: University of California Press.
36.
Russell Hochschild, Arlie. 1989. The second shift. New York: Avon.
37.
Saiffulah Khan, V.1976. Purdah in the British situation. In Dependence and exploitation in work and marriage, edited by D. L. Barker and S. Allen. London: Longman.
38.
Simić, Andrei. 1983. Machismo and cryptomatriarchy: Power, affect, and authority in the contemporary Yugoslav family. Ethos11 (1/2): 66-86.
39.
Thatcher Ulrich, Laurel. 2001. The age of homespun: Objects and stories in the creating of an American myth. New York: Knopf.
40.
Warwick, Edward, Henry C. Pitz, and Alexander Wyckoff. 1965. Early American dress: The Colonial and Revolutionary periods. New York: Benjamin Blom.
41.
Weitz, Rose. 2001. Women and their hair: Seeking power through resistance and accommodation. Gender & Society15 (5): 667-686.
42.
Wilson, Elizabeth. 1985. Adorned in dreams: Fashion and modernity. London: Virago Press.
