ABSTRACT
When we talk about deviance, we frequently and, perhaps, unconsciously use language that recalls clothing and body modification. For instance, the word ‘loose’, used to describe prostitutes and the sexually promiscuous, refers to the loosened stays that produced the uncorseted silhouette which differentiated disreputable from respectable women in the nineteenth century. More recently, social groups considered to be dangerous have acquired names that refer explicitly to dress or hairstyles, like ‘skinheads’, ‘casuals’ and ‘hoodies’. Current debates about youth crime and delinquency are peppered with references to ‘prison white’ trainers, ‘tramp stamps’ and ‘stripper shoes’, all of which are used to denote a harmful, not to mention distasteful, deviation from the norm in terms of appearance and socially acceptable behaviour. Understanding deviance on the basis of attire cannot be regarded as dispassionate, however. For nearly forty years, sociologists have argued that ascribing deviance through fashion is tied up with subjective and misleading judgements linked to broader power relations between social classes, age groups, genders and ethnicities.
