Muslim Fashion by Reina Lewis

8/20/2019 Muslim Fashion by Reina Lewis

1/44

C O N T E M P O R A R Y S T Y L E C U LT U R E S

R E I N A L E W I S

FASHION

MUSL IM


2/44

FASHION MUSL IM

Contemporary Style Cultures

R E I N A L E W I S

Duke University Press | Durham and London | 2015


3/44

© 2015 Duke Universiy Press

All righs reservedPrined in he Unied Saes of America on acid-free paper ♾

Designed by Heaher Hensley

ypese in Chaparral Pro by seng Informaion Sysems, Inc.

Library of Congress Caaloging-in-Publicaion Daa

Lewis, Reina, [dae]– auhor.

Muslim fashion : conemporary syle culures / Reina Lewis.

pages cm

Includes bibliographical references and index.

978-0-8223-5914-2 (hardcover : alk. paper) 978-0-8223-5934-0 (pbk. : alk. paper)

978-0-8223-7534-0 (e-book)

1. Muslim women—Clohing—urkey. 2. Muslim women—

Clohing—Grea Briain. 3. Muslim women—Clohing—Norh

America. 4. Fashion—urkey. 5. Fashion—Grea Briain.

6. Fashion—Norh America. . ile.

190.5.649 2015

391′.2088297—dc23

2015012564

Cover ar: © Alessia Gammaroa / Crossing he sree o mee

Dina oki-O, Oxford Sree, London, 2012.


4/44

WITH LOVE

FOR

Áine Duffy


5/44

IN MEMORY OF MY MOTHER

Estelle Lewis

1930–2014

Loving and Beloved


6/44

CONTENTS

xi Acknowledgments

1 INTRODUCTION Veils and Sales

35 CHAPTER 1

From Multiculture to Multifaith: Consumer Culture

and the Organization of Rights and Resources

69 CHAPTER 2

e Commercialization of Islamic Dress:

Selling and Marketing Teseür in Turkey and Beyond

109 CHAPTER 3

Muslim Lifestyle Magazines: A New Mediascape

163 CHAPTER 4

Taste and Distinction: e Politics of Style

199 CHAPTER 5

Hijabi Shop Workers in Britain: Muslim Style

Knowledge as Fashion Capital?

237 CHAPTER 6

Modesty Online: Commerce and Commentary on the Net

287 CHAPTER 7

Commodification and Community

317 CONCLUSION

323 Notes

331 References

365 Index


7/44

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Before I started this project on contemporary Muslim fashion I

mostly wrote about dead people and their paintings and about dead

people and their books. It has been an entirely different experience

to be writing about live human subjects and what they wear, what they

design, how they shop, and what they discuss as readers and writers of

magazines, blogs, and social media. Because many preferred to keep their

participation confidential I can’t thank by name all the women and men,

Muslim and non-Muslim, who so generously shared their personal and

professional experiences with me, but I hope they will be able to see in the

pages that follow just how much I learned from our discussions, thoughthey may not always agree with my conclusions.

I am grateful to have received funding from the British Academy Small

Research Grants scheme for the initial stages of this research from 2007

to 2009 and subsequently from the Arts and Humanities Research Coun-

cil/Economic and Social Science Research Council as part of their Reli-

gion and Society Programme in 2010–11. I benefited from the range of

colleagues and approaches that I encountered as part of the program in a

lively community fostered by Rebecca Cao and Peta Ainsworth, and fromworking with my coinvestigator Emma Tarlo and the project research as-

sistant Jane Cameron. Program director Linda Woodhead continues to

expand my intellectual horizons with her sense of how fashion and reli-

gion fit together.

e London College of Fashion, University of the Arts London, has

provided a uniquely creative and intellectual home for me and this proj-

ect: I am grateful for the material support provided by the Project

Fund and by sabbatical leave from the college and university, and I thankvice chancellor Nigel Carrington for his interest in the research. Most

especially I wish to acknowledge my head of college, pro-vice chancellor


8/44

xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Frances Corner, who has coninued o encourage me o find new ways obring research abou religious and religio-ehnic fashion pracices inohe frame of ars educaion. My colleagues and sudens a and a have been exraordinarily open o my mix of maerials and approaches,pushing me o hink furher and harder. I wish also o hank CharloteHodes and Helen Tomas for heir susained encouragemen during hecourse of his projec.

Tis book seems have o been more complicaed o research and pro-duce han any of my previous projecs, bu I have been beter resourcedwih exper help han ever before, and I wish o hank a Ria Cle-mene, Rachel Jillions, Peer aylor, and, in paricular, Luella Allen forresearch adminisraion suppor; David Hardy for picure advice; Alasair

Mucklow and David Revalgiate for digial communicaions; and Ros Bar-bour and Linda Bevan on evens. Gran adminisraion has been aidedby Sean onkin, Prema Mundiany, and Bety Woessner; my media iner-acions were guided by Hannah Clayon, Rebecca Munro, Agaha Connolly,

Charlote Gush, and Lynsey Fox, and uored by Wendy Smih. In addiion,

Simin Eldem racked legal maerials; and Susan Nicholls has provided un-paralleled rapid response ranscripion services. I hank also Vanessa Pope

for invaluable research assisance in he final sages of manuscrip com-

pleion. Mos of all I am graeful o Jane Cameron, whose research assis-ance has been insrumenal in he developmen of his projec.

A Duke Universiy Press, Ken Wissoker has been he kindes of ediors,

and Elizabeh Aul has been an exper and encouraging problem-solver;he proposal was improved by he insighful commens of wo anony-mous referees; and he book now before you would have been far hardero navigae wihou he excellen advice of he anonymous manuscripreaders, whose incisiveness was mached only by he collegial warmh of

heir approach. I am graeful beyond words.Mos academic books ge rehearsed a conferences, and I would like o

hank all hose who have kindly invied me o join heir conversaions. Ihave been forunae o convene wo ses of public alks ha have broughnew perspecives ino my hinking: from 2007 o 2009 I collaboraedwih Jo Banham on he Fashion Maters series a he Vicoria and AlberMuseum, and since 2013 a I have run alks under he banner Faihand Fashion; ineracions wih speakers and audience members a hese

evens have been exciing and challenging, enriching my capaciy o hinkand, I hope, o communicae. Also insrumenal o he developmen of he ideas in his book have


9/44

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii

been he opporuniies o publish earlier versions of he maerial as jour-nal aricles and book chapers: pars of he inroducion and chaper 1appeared in 2007 in Fashion Teory 114, Berg Publishers, used by per-mission of Bloomsbury Publishing; and chaper 3 in 2011 in Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies 6, no. 3, used by permission of Duke Univer-siy Press; secions of chaper 4 firs appeared in Sella Bruzzi and PamelaChurch Gibson’s Fashion Cultures Revisited (2013: 305–21), used by per-mission of Rouledge, aylor and Francis Group; chaper 5 in Emma arloand Annelies Moors’s Islamic Fashion and Anti-Fashion: New Perspectivesfrom Europe and America (2013), used by permission of Bloomsbury Aca-demic, an imprin of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc; and chaper 6 in Djur-dja Barlet, Shaun Cole, and Agnès Rocamora’s Fashion Media: Past and

Present (2013), used by permission of Bloomsbury Academic, an imprinof Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. I am graeful for permission o reproduceand for he feedback of book and journal ediors and anonymous peer re-viewers ha so improved hese iniial ieraions.

Tis research has benefied from he generous paricipaion of ediorsand saff a Emel, Muslim Girl, Sisters, Azizah, Alef , and Âlâ magazines, noall of whom are quoed here by name, bu wihou whom his researchwould no have been possible. I am indebed also o he several human re-

laions professionals who agreed o speak o me, and whose names remainabsen from he record. I received remendous assisance from many shop

saff in Isanbul, in he modes esetür secor and he secular sores, none

appearing under heir names, o whom I am beholden. I was welcomedwih he umos kindness a several urkish modes fashion brands: aekbir, Musafa Karaduman and Necip Karaduman were supremely gen-erous wih heir ime; a Armine, I benefied from insighs from ŞevkeDursun, Mehme Dursun, and Nilgün uncer; and a Aker, ürker Nar

responded wih grea kindness o my enquiries; all shared markeing ma-erials unsiningly. In Briain and Norh America designers and bloggersshowed ousanding kindness, ofen graning a sequence of inerviewsfrom which I was able o gain insighs ino he developing life (and some-imes cessaion) of wha was sill a very new media form. I am indebedo all hose companies, magazines, bloggers, vloggers, and phoographerswho kindly graned permission o reproduce heir maerial. Every efforhas been made o race he copyrigh holders of illusraions and ex re-

prined in his book. Te publishers would be glad o hear from any copy-righ holders ha hey have no been able o conac and o prin due ac-knowledgmen in he nex ediion.


10/44

xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Te compleion of his book was assised by he counsel of Agnès Roca-mora, Peer Morey, Amina Yaqin, Özlem Sandıkçı, Aliakbar Jafari, Caro-line Evans, Joanne Enwisle, and Clive Bane, and by heir willingness ocommen on chaper drafs, hough hey are no responsible for wha re-suls. Neiher are he many wise heads who have advised me on aspecsof his projec over is several years of gesaion, hough I remain obligedo David Purchase for guiding me hrough Briish equaliy legislaion;Louise Carolin, Penny Marin, and Nilgin Yusuf for sharing insighs onmagazine producion; Liz Hoggard for relaying he fashion media ati-ude o modesy; M. Y. Alam for insighs on Bradford; and Chris Jonesfor he inside scoop on corporaions and social media. On modes Mus-lim fashion I have been forunae o share ideas and debae deail over

several years wih Zehra Ara, Banu Gökarıksel, Roshan Jahangeer, CarlaJones, Annelies Moors, Jonahan Wilson, and Jasmin Zine. I shall be for-ever indebed o Leylâ Perviza for her ranslaion help in Isanbul andher many years as guide o he culural poliics and shops of my favorieciy. In Isanbul and around he world I am lucky o have been in dialoguewih Allison Bennet, Miriam Cook, Davina Cooper, Claire Dwyer, EdhemEldem, Carolyn Goffman, Jackie Goymour, Inderpal Grewal, RosemaryHennessy, Didi Herman, Zeynep İnankur, Sumayya Kassamali, Donna

Landry, Rachel Lifer, Gerald MacLean, Dina Maar, Nasar Meer, ariqModood, Richard Phillips, Sherene Razak, Mary Robers, Don Slaer,Meyda Yeğenoğlu, Elizabeh Wilson, and Sally Wyat. In London, conver-saions abou urkey, Islamism, and fashion wih my research sudensSerkan Delice and Senem Yazam have nuanced my undersandings, whileNazlı Alimen, herself researching pious consumpion in urkey, has mu-nificenly shared maerials and reflecions. In Puiver, where some of hisbook was writen, I have been encouraged, fed, and enerained by Ang

Dooley, Paul Bennet, Kris Wischenkamper, Terese Köhli, and he Saba-ier and Rique families, all of whom I hank. In each of hese locaions,eresa Heffernan has been, as ever, my beloved research buddy, inspiringand invigoraing.

My friends have been paien, kind, and paien again as I sruggledhrough o compleion: I can’ hank everyone by name, bu I promise obe beter nex ime . . . as, indeed, I should pledge o my loving and end-lessly supporive family: Hilly, Laura, Helena, Pee; and Reuben, Alexan-

der, and Iona. Áine may never le me wrie anoher book, bu I hope shelikes his one.


11/44

INTRODUCTION

Veils and Sales

, 6, 2005.

O

ne month after the bombs in London on July 7, and Oxford Street

is buzzing with shoppers. Retail figures are down, and travel on thetube has diminished by a third, but the sales are in full swing, and

bargain hunters are not to be deterred. Walking from Oxford Circus to Marble

Arch reveals a significant number of visibly “Muslim” women: girls in tight

jeans with patterned scarves over their hair cluster around the makeup counter

in Top Shop; older women in embroidered salwar kameez with filmy dupaa

thrown loosely over their heads mooch around Debenhams; hip twentysome-

things in black boot-cut trousers and skimpy T-shirts wear their black head

wraps tight with a fashionable ghetto-fabulous tail cascading down their backsfrom their high topknots as they check out bargains in Mango; clusters of young


12/44

2 INTRODUCTION

women in black jilbabs move around the accessories department of Selfridgeslooking at handbags, perhaps to augment the selection of bags worn on wristsand over shoulders; in Marks and Spencer at Marble Arch, mothers in black

abayas with niqabs over their faces select children’s clothes. On the street, atthe cafés that now increasingly line the pavements of this and other British

high streets, women in various forms of veiling are highly visible, bearing these(generally presumed to be) most easily recognizable and decodable signs of religious and cultural identity. And in their activities as consumers the women inhijab, and not in hijab, are likely to be served by shop assistants who also veil. A trawl down the street reveals women in British Home Stores in cream jilbabsworking alongside female colleagues in uniform blouses; in Marks and Spencer,

young women wear the uniform-issue long-sleeved shirt with a store- issued

(nonbranded) black scarf pinned close about their heads; in New Look, youngwomen keep the changing rooms under control in colored headscarves worn

over the items from this season’s selection that constitute the store’s “feelgoodfashion” uniform choices. All this in a month when assaults on Muslims, or

those perceived as Muslim, have increased dramatically from the police figuresof this time last year, and in a week when some Muslim “leaders” have been

quoted in the press advising women that they should relinquish their veils if

their public prominence makes them likely targets for abuse or attacks.

en years on, and he vibrancy of Muslim wardrobe display has noabaed. Te srees, workplaces, and leisure spaces of Briain have forsome ime been animaed by ever proliferaing versions of modes fash-ionable dress. Bu he media and mainsream poliical response o hesemanifesaions of religiously relaed fashion coninue o regard he veil,in all is forms, as conroversial poliical symbol, no as fashion. Wihinnovaions in hijabi fashion excluded from celebraions of Briish sreesyle, for he mainsream observer i remains remarkable o pu faih and

fashion in he same frame. Ye he fashion choices of he Muslim womenin he Oxford Sree consumpionscape, including hose whose dress didno announce heir faih, are increasingly likely o be served by a growingniche marke in Muslim modes fashion and advised by a rapidly expand-ing Muslim syle media in prin magazines and on social media. In pub-lisher speak, he srapline for his book could have been “Muslim fashion:underrepresened in he syle media, overrepresened in he news media”because, seemingly unaware of hese developmens in Muslim fashion

commerce and commenary and ignoring women’s everyday wardrobechoices as hey syle public modesy, he mainsream media persiss in


13/44

INTRODUCTION 3

uilizing images of veiled women o illusrae and symbolize he presumed

aleriy of Muslims, coninuing hisorical Orienalis sereoypes wihinconemporary debaes abou social cohesion, and he perceived rifs be-ween Islam and he Wes.

Simply o pich shopping, fashion, and veils ogeher generaes im-mediae ineres because veils are seen by hose ouside veiling commu-niies, and someimes by hose inside, as inimical o fashion and ousidehe commercial circuis of he fashion indusry. Wih shops, and fashionshopping, operaing as an indicaor of moderniy, and wih Islam ofenpresened as resisan o moderniy, he presence of veiled shoppers andshop assisans becomes a poen mix of wo conrasing spaial and so-cial codes, ofen inerpreed as a emporal clash. Tis is why he Oxford

Sree shopping scene is so ineresing: i highlighs how religious andreligio-ehnic diversiy is enmeshed wihin he experience of selling andconsuming fashion in he globally recognized fashion ciy of London, even

as responses o he bombs four weeks earlier in 2005 were reacivainghe perceived opposiion beween Islam and moderniy ha had flaredacross he non-Muslim world afer he atacks on America on Sepember11, 2001. In he Briish conex his lack of coevalness (Fabian 1983) be-ween Muslims and moderniy had come o he fore during he Rushdie

affair of he lae 1980s and in 2001 had been inflamed by he urban riosinvolving young working-class Muslim men in norhern England ha pre-

ceded Sepember’s evens in he Unied Saes. Afer he London bombspoliicians and commenaors again focused debae on he apparen non-inegraion of Muslim populaions. Wih he bombers (as wih previousrioers) seen as represenaive of a globally youhful Muslim populaion(Pew 2010), anxious discussions abou alienaed Muslim youh homed inon he perceived hrea posed by he “new folk devils” (Archer 2007: 74) of

Muslim young men, ye he image of he veiled Muslim woman coninuedo be ubiquious.

Arguing ha Muslim fashion needs o be aken seriously as fashion,his book swiches atenion away from quesions of alienaion and ex-remism among young men o explore how and why young Muslim women

are using heir engagemen wih mainsream fashion o communicaeheir ideas and aspiraions abou modern Muslim ideniies o coreligion-iss and o majoriy non-Muslim observers alike. Te rends in Muslim

syle ha I cover in his book have originaed as a youhful phenomenon:he inauguraing cohor of designers, bloggers, and social media hoss—


14/44

4 INTRODUCTION

many of whom I inerview here—were predominanly young women agedbeween eigheen and weny-four, as were mos of he oher women whoshared heir sories of syling hijab a home, college, and work. Tese sylepracices and modes of disseminaion and mediaion, wih microgenera-ional disincions among younger dressers developing rapidly during hecourse of my research, can be regarded, as I argue in chaper 5, as a formof youh subculure. Tis is a subculure in which religiosiy figures asone among oher muually consiuive erms of social differeniaionalongside class, ehniciy, and gender; a subculure ha defines iself inrelaion o and disincion from he social and culural norms of boh adominan or mainsream (and ofen hosile) non-Muslim majoriy andparenal culures of religion and ehniciy ha are hemselves socially and

poliically minoriized; a subculure in which creaive pracices of brico-lage appropriae and ransform commodiies from muliple inersecingfashion sysems including mainsream, “ehnic,” and new niche modescommercial culures; and a subculure in which syle and values ransmi“up” from daughers o mohers as well as across spaial divisions beween

neighborhoods and naions.o explore hese generaional and geographical ransmissions of syle

his book siuaes Muslim syle in Briain in relaion o oher seleced

Muslim modes commercial culures. Tis includes designers, journaliss,and bloggers in Norh America, whose Anglophone culure in a Muslimminoriy conex links Muslims o coparicipans in modes fashion cul-ures from oher religions (on Ausralia, see G. Jones 2012). I focus also onurkey because, while Briain is oday recognized as a syle seter in Mus-lim fashion (Moors and arlo 2013), i was urkey ha led in he iniialcommercial developmen of Islamic fashion from he 1980s, is coveredor tesettür indusry an imporan aneceden o he modes fashion in-

dusries developing now around he world. Locaed in a Muslim majoriysecular sae in which “religious” dress has been regulaed by he sae and

regarded wih hosiliy by seculariss, he longer esablished urkish com-panies were par of he rise of Islamic or green (as in he color of Islamraher han eco-) capialism ha emerged during he liberalizaion of hesae economy in he 1980s and he subsequen incorporaion, as I discuss

in chaper 2, of large pars of he populaion ino diverse consumer cul-ures (Gökarıksel and Secor 2010b; Kılıçbay and Binark 2002). Now dem-

onsraing generaional change in syle and modes of consumpion, hedisincive aesheic of urkish Muslim fashion coninues o be a refer-ence poin in Briain and elsewhere, hough likely, as I go o press, o face


15/44

INTRODUCTION 5

challenges from Indonesia, anoher Muslim majoriy naion, where hesecular sae has shifed from oulawing o sponsoring Muslim fashionas par of is economic developmen plan and naional branding sraegy(Arhur 2000b; C. Jones 2010). Tese shifing power relaions beweenglobalized corporae capial, naion saes, and supranaional (capial, po-liical, hird secor, and religious) forces reconfigure people’s experience of

he inersecionaliies of gender, ehniciy, class, sexualiy, age, and reli-gion (Ong 1999) ha frame processes of ideniy formaion, he conexin which o undersand he hisorical and conemporary ransnaionalransmission of syles beween Muslim populaions around he world(on Europe, see arlo and Moors 2013; on Egyp, see Abaza 2007; and on

Yemen, see Moors 2007).

o examine he changing relaionships beween religion, gender, andsociey his book follows Appadurai’s call o recognize he “relaions ofdisjuncure” inheren in experiences of globalized capial “characerizedby objecs in moion,” in which he “various flows we see—of objecs, per-sons, images, and discourse—are no coeval, convergen, isomorphic, orspaially consisen” (Appadurai 2001: 5). Invesigaing he ransnaionalmovemen of Muslim fashion objecs—garmens, images, discourses,people—I propose ha commercial syle culures be seen as significan

facors in he regulaory and liberaory “role of he imaginaion in sociallife,” hrough which emerge “new paterns of dissen and new designs forcollecive life” (Appadurai 2001: 6).

I argue (following McRobbie 1998) ha he significance of modes Mus-

lim designs lies no only in sales bu in heir influence as image wihindiscourses of female religious and religio-ehnic ideniy ha achieve en-hanced valency in he visually led digial and social media of which hisyouh populaion are noable early adopers. o explore he inerconnec-

ions of producion, disribuion, and consumpion, his book works he-maically wih seleced examples from is consiuen erriories, provid-ing hisoricized accouns of momens in he design, markeing, reailing,mediaion, and consumpion of self-consciously Muslim fashion and isrecepion. Here, I draw on he circui of culure model (du Gay, Hall, Janes,

Madsen, Mackay, and Negus 2013) ha challenges he precedence conven-

ionally given o producion over consumpion by linking boh o repre-senaion, ideniy, and regulaion as par of a muually consiuive and

inerdependen se of relaions hrough which commodiies are broughino being and given meaning in he lives of human subjecs. While hiscorrecive concepualizes he consumer as acive raher han passive and


16/44

6 INTRODUCTION

emphasizes he significan role of businesses’ own culures, is empha-sis on “meaning-making as an ongoing process” forged “hrough usage”(du Gay, Hall, Janes, Madsen, Mackay, and Negus 2013: 79–81) in par-icular imes and places also foregrounds how regulaion consrains whais produced and how i can be consumed. Regulaing facors in produc-ion, from safey rules o componen prices, are mached by economicconsrains on consumer spending ha are hemselves culurally framedby hisorically specific variables of class, gender, locaion, and (I add) reli-gion. Curbs on consumpion may be overly “moral,” such as prohibiionson drugs or alcohol (for hose “under” age). Wih religiously relaed prac-ices in Muslim women’s dress ofen designed, and serving, o regulaefemale and male sexualiy, he field of conemporary Muslim modern

fashion is immersed in a longer hisory of religiously regulaed embodi-men marked by forms of inerpreaion, conesaion, accommodaion,and imposiion ha vary across ime and space. Tese inra-Muslim con-srains inersec wih exernal consrains such as school or workplaceuniform codes or sae bans on veiling ha also impac unevenly andofen unpredicably on he dressed experiences of Muslim women.

Susan Kaiser has adaped he circui model for fashion, replacing rep-resenaion wih “disribuion,” a erm preferred for is “connoaions of

boh maerial and represenaional elemens” (2012: 19). For my projechis foregrounds he role of reail, bringing ino criical view he physicalspaces of he sore and he bodies of hose who labor and shop here as Idiscuss in chapers 2 and 5. Disribuion also highlighs fashion media and

markeing as image and pracice, as I discuss in chapers 4, 7, and 8. Temuually consiuive relaionship beween producion and represena-ion/disribuion becomes even more embedded in he era of social media

as he affordances of new hardware and sofware exend o he general

populaion he experience of “prosuming” or “produsing” conen iniiallyhe errain of early adoper geeks (Jenkins 2006, noed in du Gay, Hall,Janes, Madsen, Mackay, and Negus 2013), iself resriced by he unevenglobal access o Inerne infrasrucure of he digial divide (Bun 2009).Condiions for and consrains on he highly regulaed pracices of Mus-lim fashion hus can be undersood as he “ariculaion” of “disinc pro-cesses . . . locaed in he coningencies of circumsance” (du Gay, Hall,Janes, Madsen, Mackay, and Negus 2013: xxx).

Atending o he enabling and resricing effecs of spaio-emporallocaion (Hopkins and Gale 2009), my accoun locaes Muslim fashionas conribuory o a nework of overlapping local, regional, naional,


17/44

INTRODUCTION 7

ransnaional, religious, and diasporic fashion sysems whose impac onMuslim design and dressing is always conex specific and changeable.

As Osella and Osella (2007) demonsrae in he conex of rising Hindunaionalism in India, paricular experiences of Muslim minoriy livingproduce Muslims as minoriized (raher han argeed/normaive) con-sumers in paricular ways: in Muslim-majoriy urkey, he hosile recep-ion of Islamic religiosiy produces changes in women’s syle of covereddress and deermines he modes of reailing and markeing available omodes fashion firms (chapers 3 and 4); jus as in Briain, wih a majoriySouh Asian Muslim populaion, he diaspora fashion indusry ha I dis-cuss in chaper 5 frames opporuniies and limiaions for hijabi designers

and dressers regardless of heir own family heriage.In he locaions covered in his book maters of Muslim self-presenaion

have come o operae as he limi case in debaes abou ciizenship andbelonging, seculariy and moderniy, for boh he majoriy non- Muslim(or, in urkey, nonreligious) public and ofen for Muslim (religious) com-muniies hemselves. In Briain he dress and demeanor of Muslims inpublic has aken on new significance, increasingly required pos-9/11 andpos-7/7 o declare hemselves wihin a poliically creaed dichoomy ofgood, moderae Muslims versus bad, exremis Muslims. Wih a hisori-

cally immigran Muslim populaion, he generaional cycle of change andincreasing acculuraion and selecive readopion of “radiional” prac-ices common o mos migran communiies has acceleraed in a glare ofofen hosile publiciy ha pus a unique emphasis on he dressed behav-ior of Muslim bodies, ofen operaionalizing a ransnaional civilizaionaldiscourse for localized poliical purposes. Elsewhere in Europe, legislaion

atemps o conrol Muslim women’s dress wih bans on face veils (niqabs,

burqas) disproporionae o he small numbers of women acually wear-

ing hem in France, he Neherlands, and Belgium, upheld in July 2014 byhe European Cour of Human Righs. In Quebec, bans on he hijab andniqab (Zine 2006c, 2012) are mached wih preempive legislaion o pro-hibi “Islamic” soning (in a own wih zero Muslim inhabians), followed

in 2013 by proposal for a province-wide French-syle ban (see chaper 1)on all forms of religiously disincive dress and adornmen. In fac, com-pleing his paragraph was becoming near impossible by auumn 2014, soconsan was he sream of measures proposed o conrol Muslim female

dress in Briain, Europe, and Norh America. Wheher moral panics acu-ally lead o legislaion (always variably enforced and resised), in all heseinsances he acual or presumed dress pracices of some Muslim women


18/44

8 INTRODUCTION

impac discursively on heir coreligioniss who find heir communiies pu

in he spoligh over and again.

Secularities and Modernities: The ContestedEmblem of the Veiled Body

In much of he non- Muslim-majoriy world Muslim women’s dress, aswih furors over he consrucion of new mosques, has become a flash-poin for conroversy, undersood by opponens and proponens o bean asserion of religion ino he presumed seculariy of modern publiclife. Challenging popular undersandings of secular sociey as a religion-free zone, alal Asad links he developmen of secularism o “he rise of

a sysem of capialis [and colonialis] naion-saes,” whose characer heargues is ineviably mediaed by he religious culures (and conflics) from

which hey emerged:

Tus alhough in France boh he highly cenralized sae and is cii-zens are secular, in Briain he sae is linked o he Esablished Churchand is inhabians are largely nonreligous, and in America he popu-laion is largely religious bu he federal sae is secular. “Religion”

has always been publicly presen in boh Briain and America. Conse-quenly, alhough he secularism of hese hree counries has much incommon, he mediaing characer of he modern imaginary in each ofhem differs significanly. Te noion of oleraion beween religiouslydefined groups is differenly infleced in each. Tere is a differen senseof paricipaion in he naion and access o he sae among religiousminoriies in he hree counries. (Asad 2003: 5–6)

Wih religion relegaed o he domain of he privae, in wesern Euro-

pean and Norh American () counries a he urn of he weny-firs cenury i has been demands in he name of Islam, a minoriy faih,ha reveal and bring ino crisis he normaive Chrisian religious under-pinnings of he secular naion-sae. For France he prioriy of he secu-lar sae o proec ciizens from religious inrusion has hisorically beenmelded ono a civilizing imperial mission ha aims o assimilae migrans

ino a homogeneously unmarked secular naional ideniy, laïcité has noscope for he sors of hyphenaed ehnic and religious ideniies ha

underwrie America’s inegraionis ideal of he muliculural meling po(Scot 2007). In France, secular freedom from religious conrol has hisori-cally been equaed wih masculinis ideals of sexual freedom ha, as Scot


19/44

INTRODUCTION 9

explains (following Foucaul), posiions veiling as a refusal of he male ap-

praising gaze ha defines modern (heero)sexual libery. Daing o 1989,French atemps o conrol Muslim women’s dress hrough legal iniia-ives have impaced around he world, covered in Muslim lifesyle maga-zines and hijab fashion blogs as well as communiy news media. Cenering

on removing headscarves from he sae secular school sysem, legislaion

expanded o include any religious symbol coded as “osenaious” in 1994and as “conspicuous” in 2004. Despie he civilizaional rheoric of pro-ecing young Muslims from oppressive parens and communiies (some-imes suppored by French feminiss and seculariss), hese developmens

were moivaed, as Scot argues, by cener Righ poliicians counering he

rising power of he French Far Righ pos-9/11. Exending beyond schools,

he ban on wearing he face veil (he pracice of only a iny minoriy ofMuslims in France) in public in April 2011 promped rios in summer 2013,

while in he same period Belgium’s niqab ban was challenged in he Con-siuional Cour (Donald 2012), and Germany devolved o federal coursdecisions abou conrolling Muslim women’s dress in municipal employ-men. Wih many French Muslims in favor of secular educaion (somehaving opposed religious Muslim rule abroad) and wih urkish secular-iss welcoming he early bans, and despie ha in Europe as elsewhere

he Muslim religious Righ is joined by he Chrisian and Jewish religiousRighs as cocombaans agains laïcié (Helie-Lucas 2012; see also Killian2003), i remains he case sill ha “Muslim fundamenalism appears inhe media oday as he primary progenior of oppressive condiions forwomen when Chrisian, Jewish, Hindu, Confucian, and oher forms ofexreme fundamenalisms exer profound conrols over women’s lives”(Grewal and Kaplan 1994: 19).

In he conex of he naion-sae as an imagined communiy (Ander-

son 1983) formulaed hrough and endorsed by self-represenaion in afree press, Asad (2003: 8) noes ha “a secular sae does no guaraneeoleraion”; raher, i creaes a changing array of hreas and guaranees.While much of his book is concerned wih how Muslims as minoriies areperceived as a hrea wihin and o counries, he minoriizaionof religion is no simply abou numbers. In Muslim majoriy urkey, heconsiuional seculariy of he modern sae has been similarly, bu dif-ferenly, perceived o be under hrea by manifesaions of (Islamic) reli-

giosiy in he public domain. Esablished in 1923 as one of he successorsaes of he Otoman Empire, he urkish republic adaped from he mul-iple models of moderniy already available in he Wes (Eisensad 2000)


20/44

10 INTRODUCTION

a version of secular and Wesernizing moderniy ha was enshrined inhe narraive of he new naion as a liberaion from he despoism andreligious obscuranism of he sulanic ancien régime. As Göle poins ou,in adoping from “French Jacobinism, a cenralis [auhoriarian] modelof change, raher han Anglo-Saxon liberalism” as he rubric for he secu-lar sae, urkey creaed a version of laïcié (laiklik) ha “gives prioriy o‘freedom from religion’ [raher han] prioriy o ‘religious freedom’” (Göle[2005] 2011: 105). Abolishing he caliphae in 1928, urkish seculariy dif-fered o he French separaion of church and sae by reaining conrol ofhe religious domain hrough he Minisry of Religious Affairs ha regu-laed he official version of Sunni Islam a home and among migran urk-ish populaions abroad.

From he early nineeenh cenury in he developmen and represen-aion of moderniies in wha migh broadly be called he Muslim world,he veil in paricular and female dress in general were a source of coninual

ension in debaes abou moderniy and is compaibiliy wih Islam. Asin subsequen and conemporary discussions, he figure of woman soodfor boh defense of radiion and he march of moderniy. In urkey, heunveiled, shingle-cu heads of he sylishly dressed “daughers of he re-public” in he lae 1920s and 1930s (Durakbaşa 1993) adverised secular

moderniy o he urkish populaion and he world. Specifically posiion-ing he veiled body as he opposie of moderniy and, by inference, ofcivilizaion (Göle 1996), he veil was evenually banned in 1928. Like heemporal aleriy ascribed by colonialism o “primiive” subjec peoples,he veiled female body and he communiies i represened were no seenas inhabiing he ime of moderniy, a lack of coevalness ha was bohspaial and emporal. As Gökarıksel and Michell propose, for boh French

and urkish secular republics commited (differenly, I would add) o neo-

liberal governmenaliy, he Islamicized female body is unassimilablebecause i challenges he norms ha he “neoliberal individual mus befree of any paricularis spaial ies ha preven him or her from compe-ing effecively in he global markeplace” (Gökarıksel and Michell 2005:150). For France, he veiled woman is ypified as a Norh African migranfrom “ouside he sae’s erriorially defined borders,” while for urkeyhe presence of he veiled rural migran in he modern ciy emblemaizeshe Islamic hrea ha derives from wihin he sae’s own borders, an

aleriy ha is emporally as well as spaially inimae: “he ‘dark and dis-an (Otoman) pas’ when Muslim women’s veiling was he norm” (Gö-karıksel and Michell 2005: 148).


21/44

INTRODUCTION 11

While par of he purpose of his book is o challenge he erms of hecurren hypervisibiliy accorded he veil wihin a pos-9/11 securiizing dis-

course in he Wes, i would be incorrec o imagine ha he veil’s symbolic

prominence is generaed only exernally o Muslim sociey. Te heigh-ened visibiliy of covered dressing as a Muslim phenomenon was also a de-sired aim of he global Islamic revival ha from he 1950s and especiallysince he 1970s promoed veiling as boh a form of religious observanceand of religious disincion. Te hisory of head covering as a mark of social

disincion among women of diverse ehnic and religious communiies inhe Middle Eas and Souh Asia was reframed by Islamic revivaliss as anexclusively Muslim marker, in a reposiioning of Muslim daily pracice in-ended as much as a couner o oher forms of Muslim pracice as i was as

a ripose o he non-Muslim Wes (L. Ahmed 2011; Mahmood 2005; Moors2009). For Göle, in 1996, he urban Islamis woman sood as emblem of asupranaional Islamis colleciviy and as evidence of he “laen individu-alism” emerging among he increasingly auonomous female elie cadresof he revivalis movemens (Göle 1996: 22). Since hen, vibran Islamicconsumer culures have grown and diversified alongside he rising poliical

power of Islamic poliics and he growing alarm of seculariss.Te Muslim characer of he urkish republic has been cenral o de-

baes abou religion in he presen and fuure characer of Europe a heurn of he weny-firs cenury. Te perceived hrea of urkey’s ac-cession bid has, as Göle poins ou, “become a mater of ideniy for heEuropeans (raher han, as was expeced, for urks)” (Göle 2011: 5). Re-sponses o urkey’s bid reacivae he memory of he Otoman assaulon Vienna, a foundaional momen in he consrucion of Europe as asupranaional imaginary: i “was no Europe ha he urks hreaenedbu Chrisendom, since Europe was no hen disinc from Chrisendom”

(Asad 2003: 162). For Muslims already in Europe, he framework for gain-ing minoriy proecion demands assimilaion o a nauralized Chrisiannarraive: “Europe (and he naion-saes of which i is consiued) isideologically consruced in such a way ha Muslim immigrans canno be

saisfacorily represened in i. [Tis has] less o do wih ‘absolue Faih’ of

Muslims living in a secular environmen and more wih European noionsof ‘culure’ and ‘civil’ and ‘he secular sae,’ and ‘majoriy’ and ‘minoriy’ ”(Asad 2003: 159). In a world of global communicaion echnologies news

spreads quickly, and individual undersandings of ehno-religious culuralideniies as well as local communiy relaions are conduced in a rans-naional frame, in which naional, communiy, and religious poliics com-


22/44

12 INTRODUCTION

bine wih changing pracices in Muslim dress increasingly encouneredwihin and framed by consumer culure.

Multiple Modernities, Multiple Fashion Systems

Relaed o he recogniion of and debae abou muliple moderniies ishe ransiion from seeing fashion exclusively as a componen of Weserncapialis moderniy o an approach ha considers muliple fashion sys-ems and syle culures. I sared his inroducion by saying ha Muslimfashion was underrepresened in he syle media no simply because newhijabi syles have been under he fashion radar: he enire concep of Mus-

lim fashion has convenionally in he Wes been regarded as ouside he

worldview of he fashion indusry and o sudies of i. Tis derives fromwo relaed presumpions: ha fashion is a Wesern experience and haMuslims are no par of he Wes. From his i follows ha Muslims, evenif “in” he Wes, will be wearing clohing ha is “ehnic” or is “religious,”caegories ouside he parameers of Wesern fashion. Unil recenly infashion hisories and popular parlance non-Wesern clohing was ofenrelegaed o he domain of cosume ha, as wih he reamen of “folk’”cosume a home, was regarded as he unchanging expression of essenial-

ized collecive culural ideniies aniheical o he rapidly shifing self-creaion of Wesern fashion; a emporal aavism mached by he spaialresricion of folk or ehnic clohing o “very precise places” in conras ohe “vas” “geographic remi” available o Wesern fashion syles and com-

modiies (Riello and McNeil 2010: 358).While all human socieies mediae he naked body hrough body

adornmen and modificaion (from garmens o atoos) and are charac-erized by change over ime, he pace and purpose of change ha evolved

in he conex of Wesern moderniy from he foureenh cenury can beregarded, Joanne Enwisle argues, as a disincive feaure of oday’s nowglobalized fashion sysem, wih fashion arising in siuaions of poenialsocial mobiliy o offer he subjec a echnique of dressing wih which “selfconsciously o consruc an ideniy suiable for he modern sage” (En-wisle 2000: 75). Debae abou he origins of fashion ouside he Weshave cenered on when originaliy came o be valued in non-Wesern con-exs, and he pace of and exen o which ehnic dress while serving o

demarcae group boundaries also inerrelaed wih (Eicher and Sumberg1995) and conribued o (Lemire and Riello 2006) “world” fashion.Jennifer Craik argues ha here are several coexising and compeing


23/44

INTRODUCTION 13

fashion sysems of which “European high (elie designer) fashion [is] onespecific varian,” decenering he elie in favor of mos people’s experi-ence of “everyday fashion” ha has more in common wih “oher fashionsysems, including hose in non- European and non-capialis culures”(Craik 1993: x–xi). Alhough as Enwisle poins ou, i has long been hecase ha syle derivaion goes boh ways, wih rends rickling up fromhe sree o couure, his characerizaion of syncreic everyday fash-ion pracices has much in common wih he blending of everyday reli-gion ha I discuss in chaper 1. Associaed wih a religious culure seenas non-Wesern and framed for some as he submission o ranscendenreligious ruhs, Muslim fashion is easily rendered ouside he place andime of fashion; fabricaed wih garmens from “oher” clohing sysems,

or, even weirder o some, hrough he appropriaion of iems ha wouldoherwise read as fashion ino religiously demarcaed ensembles. Teseariculaions of syle (ulloch 2010) hrough he melding of diverse main-sream, non-Wesern, diaspora, and ehnic iems are indicaive of formsof (ineviably limied) human agency from designers and dressers haranscend binarisms of Wesern or non-Wesern, mainsream or ehnic,modern or radiional, auhenic or inauhenic. As Kaiser argues, heconradicory and fluid experiences of paricipaing in fashion need no

be undersood in erms of eiher/or when i is more realisic o concepu-alize experiences as encompassing boh/and, such as “dressing o belongand dressing o differeniae” (Kaiser 2012: 3).

For hese reasons, my undersanding of Muslim fashion pracices siu-aes hem in relaion o a web of muliple fashion sysems seen wihinhe frame of muliple moderniies. Tis allows me o hisoricize and rackhe ransmission over space and ime of conemporary rends and modesof producion and disribuion in relaion o heir paricular regional, na-

ional, and ransnaional geopoliical conexs and hisories. For fashion,as wih sudies of oher culural forms and pracices, reposiioning Wes-ern moderniy as one among a series of muually consiuing muliplemoderniies revises progressivis narraives of an “inexorable march for-ward,” recognizing ha “pas-oriened radiionalism is as much a fea-ure of moderniy as modernisaion” (S. Friedman 2007; see also L. ay-lor 2002). Tis creaes an opporuniy o incorporae Wesern and oherimperialisms ino accouns of fashion hisory, recognizing ha he gen-

eralized shif from “he reign of sumpuary law o he reign of fashion”relied on large-scale change and “socially organized forms of consump-ion” (Appadurai 1996: 72). As wih imperial missionaries posiioning “un-


24/44

14 INTRODUCTION

dressed” naives as nonfashionable recipiens for oumoded Wesernfashion goods (Comaroff 1996), so oo were Wesern observers (as I dis-cuss in chaper 1) unable o recognize as fashion he diverse modes andemporaliies hrough which Wesern garmens or syles were indigenized

in he nineeenh and wenieh cenuries in he Otoman Empire. Hiso-ries of fashion could similarly be cognizan of how in he urkish republicin he 1920s and 1930s he imposiion of Wesern clohing and headwearby he secular elie repurposed Otoman Orienalism o picure as primi-ive and nonmodern he nonelie and rural urkish populaion in ermspreviously applied o he Arab and provincial minoriy populaions of heOtoman Empire (Eldem 2007; Makdisi 2002).

Elizabeh Wilson’s argumen ha “in modern wesern sociey no

clohes are ouside fashion; fashion ses he erms of all sarorial behav-iour” (E. Wilson [1985] 2003: 3) can bring minoriized, disparaged fashionpracices like Muslim fashion ino view by emphasizing he relaionaliyof dressed bodies. Even hose who aim o be anifashion canno enirelyescape fashion, bu neiher do fashion paricipans escape anifashion.Te mainsream and he alernaive are muually consiuive in ways ha

are socially, culurally, and hisorically specific: as I discuss in chaper 5,he apparenly radiional syles of so-called ehnic dress are reposiioned

by heir occasional adopion as mainsream fashion jus as mainsreamsyles, like he layering of -shirs under sleeveless dresses popular in he2000s, can be kep in fashion for longer when adoped as par of hijabicool. Similarly, Muslim fashion culures are framed by heir “muual en-anglemen” wih persisen Islamic anifashion discourse and pracices(Moors and arlo 2013: 13).

Experiencing and conribuing o dress pracices a he inersecion ofdiverse and differenly valued fashion sysems, Muslim modes dressers

in Muslim minoriy conexs and (differenly) in conexs of Muslim majoriy may boh be frusraed ha fashion rends do no allow for modes

self-presenaion and find ways o adap hem for hijabi fashion; hey may

deploy a neoliberal discourse of choice o couner sereoypes ha Muslim

women are forced o wear a headscarf and argue ha hijab is a religiousrequiremen; hey may say ha how women cover is up o hem and feelinensely uncomforable when women dress he “wrong” way; hey maybecome famous as asemakers giving guidance on how o achieve reli-

giously appropriae modes syling and prefer no o regard his as a formof religious inerpreaion. And, above all, hey are likely o be engagingwih muliple fashion sysems and clohing values, each sysem hisori-


25/44

INTRODUCTION 15

cally, socially, and spaially locaed and each variably boh enabling andresricing individual women’s wardrobe opions and forms of expression.While he debae abou Wesern and non-Wesern fashion and fashionnorms coninues, I noe ha for fashion and culural sudies he modesfashion pracices of Muslim women and he growing marke ha sup-pors hem may be emerging as a paradigmaic diversiy case sudy inbooks aimed a he classroom (Craik 2009; Kaiser 2012), incorporaingreligion wihin discussions of syle, subjec formaion, and culural regu-laion. Welcoming his, my sudy siuaes Muslim fashion wihin a widerframe of relaed circuis of faih-based and secular modes fashion andheir consiuen geographies.

Temporalities: Historicizing and Terminology

As wih any book-lengh projec on conemporary fashion and syle, hisbook should be regarded no as a saemen of he now bu as a hisory ofhe presen, writen while i was happening. Wriing abou fashion is in-eviably subjec o problems of ime; his year’s rend is las year’s rero,nex decade’s old news. Te macropoliical evens ha frame, shape, andsomeimes deermine changes in, responses o, and recogniion of Mus-

lim women’s self-presenaion have also changed specacularly and some-imes violenly during he period covered. Tis book becomes hereforeless a singular hisory of he presen han a hisory of several presens:magazine ediors speak of fuure plans in he now of heir presen, un-aware ha he ile will have closed before his book is prined; designersmay be full of creaive plans ha don’ come o fruiion, or unknowingha hey will subsequenly become he poser girls for new Islamic brand-

ing iniiaives only recenly waking up o he poenial profis of fash-

ion commodiies; urkish shopkeepers and modes fashion brands speakabou he promoional advanages of associaion wih he Firs Ladies ofhe Islamis Jusice and Developmen () governmen before PrimeMiniser Erdoğan’s anidemocraic responses o evens in Gezi Park in2013 discredi he pary’s claim of moderae Islam and highligh spliswihin he pary and is inernaional supporers, reframing previouslyesablished academic approaches o he sociopoliical significance of veil-ing fashion in he republic.

Muslim poliics and culural rends in he lae wenieh and earlyweny-firs cenuries have demonsraed asoundingly rapid develop-men and ever wider ransmission, rendering hem a ho opic for aca-


26/44

16 INTRODUCTION

demic enquiry, ye also daing rapidly. Less a problem han an opporuniy,

I seek o capure images, opinions, and dress pracices in heir momen, o

siuae hem hisorically in relaion o he ransnaional pas of religiousand culural relaions and clohing and maerial culures, and o siuaehem conemporaneously as par of ongoing local and ransnaional dia-logues whose forms and inerlocuors are changing and growing as I wrie.

Te commercial developmen of Muslim and modes fashion ha Ianalyze in his book increases he variey of garmens available o Mus-lim women and he pace of change in modes fashion. Like all fashion sys-ems, he replacemen and recycling of rends makes i impossible o iedown “he” look for Muslim cool. Bu batles over wardrobe definiions inhe case of Muslim fashion are highly ideological, as differen individuals,

groups, and sae agencies compee o parol and conrol women’s mod-esy. In all he erriories covered by his book, he women I spoke o orwhose blogs and journalism I followed are characerized by heir empha-sis on choice and variey in wheher and how o cover, bu hey are sur-rounded by (and someimes despie hemselves paricipae in) forms of

judgmen abou Muslim women’s dress ha mos ofen cener on he ideaof “he” veil.

In my eaching and wriing o dae I had ofen used he erm veil orveil-

ing as he saring poin for discussion, explaining ha alhough he veilis oday predominanly associaed wih (or claimed by or for) Islam, i is apracice ha is pre-Islamic in origin and ha has been adoped by diversereligious and ehnic communiies, especially in he Middle Eas. I wouldalso explain ha in he Middle Eas, he veil ofen signified saus raherhan piey or ehnic allegiance and was more common among urban hanrural women. For hose women who did or do “cover,” I would elaborae,here is no single garmen ha equaes o he veil: differen versions of

clohing ha are held suiably o preserve modesy in mixed-gender en-vironmens have been adoped by differen communiies (ofen wihdifferen names for he same garmen). In recen years in non-Muslim-majoriy counries, conroversies over he niqab or burqa have becomemore prevalen, shifing legal and popular definiions of veiling from head

o face covering. Tis book does no focus on face veils, albei here isnow a developing fashion marke. I does no focus on jilbabs and abayaseiher, because hese robes are no he predominan garmens used by he

generaion of young Muslim women sudied here. While some young revi-valiss (male and female) living in Muslim minoriy conexs preferhe long robes hey regard as closer o he dress of he “ideal” sociey of he


27/44

INTRODUCTION 17

firs Muslims of he Arabian Peninsula (arlo 2013a), hese garmens arerarely adoped by he young women who make up my sudy. In conras,heir self-conscious creaion of modes fashion, mosly bu no always ina headscarf or hijab, is deliberaely saged hrough paricipaion in main-sream fashion. Combined wih judicious use of offerings from he ehnicand modes secors, he ase communiies hey develop wih he blog-gers, journaliss, and designers feaured in his book canno be ied downo singular definiions. As for previous generaions of women, he formand combinaion of garmens ha produce veiling changes over ime,quie ofen wihin he lifespan of a single woman, rendering atemps olegislae which ype of body covering is properly Islamic as only ever par-ial and locaed.

Hisorically, he veil has been inended primarily as ouerwear, some-hing ha preserves modesy beween he sexes when ouside he gender-

secluded space of he Islamically srucured home (or when nonfamilialmen are presen in he domesic space, as may be he case more ofen inMuslim minoriy conexs). While he women in his book do cover in re-laion o who hey are wih or will be seen by, hey have developed fash-ions in hijab ha do no differeniae beween spaces in he same way:assembled as par of heir oufi for he day, more like a hairsyle han a

ha, he hijab is no always so easily hrown on and off. Tese ofen quiecomplicaed wraps are of a differen order o he abaya, çarşaf , or chador ha is lef by he fron door. Changes in he abaya fashion marke haveled o designer abayas (Al-Qasimi 2010; Belk and Sobh 2011) someimesworn more as a dress raher han as ouerwear, like hose sold in he Gulfby Barjis Chohan (chaper 7). Bu his is no he predominan syle ofhe women feaured here, whose someimes elaborae syles of hijab pro-duce aleraions in he convenional spaial relaions of modes dressing;

when hijab syles involve more han one piece of cloh, accessories, anddifficul wrapping procedures (such as are demonsraed in he Youubehijab uorials of chaper 7), young women are more likely o keep hemon when visiing environmens in which hijab is no necessary (chatingin a friend’s home when no men are presen), raher han remove hem ahe door and don hem again on leaving.

I sill use he erm veil or veiling , and when I refer o face covering Ispecify niqab or burqa. In he urkish conex, I refer o headscarves or

tesettür , he commercially manufacured form of modes dressing asso-ciaed wih revivalis fashions (hough his erm is iself now repudiaedas oo limiing by some of he commercial brands discussed in chaper 2).


28/44

18 INTRODUCTION

Oher forms of urkish covering are named and defined in conex. Inhe oher wesern European and Norh American erriories of his bookhijab remains he predominan erm for head covering: here are fash-ions in hijab (differen ypes of head covering arrangemens) and here ishijabi fashion (he complee ensemble of which he head covering is par).Women migh discuss how o “hijabify” an iem of clohing o render isuiable for heir modesy requiremens. Women who wear a head cover-ing in whaever syle are ofen referred o as hijabis, no o be confusedwih niqabis, who cover also heir faces, or “dejabis,” whose decision osop covering heir hair, as I discuss in chaper 8, ofen marks a differensage in, raher han rejecion of, heir paricipaion in modes fashion.

Many Muslim women righly argue ha he focus on wha Muslim

women are wearing akes away from hinking abou wha hey mighacually be doing (al Yafai 2010). Tis can be rue of all women, and men, in

a period when neoliberal enerprise culure presens “freedom and inde-pendence [as emanaing] no from civil righs bu from individual choicesexercised in he marke” (du Gay 1996: 77). Bu while he proliferaion ofneoliberal consumer culure ino personal and communiy life creaes andexplois ever more finely defined consumer segmens, requiring a “choos-ing subjec” (N. Rose 1999) for whom ideniy and self-worh is esab-

lished and communicaed hrough consumpion, i also creaes opporu-niies for he emergence of new social subjecs and differen ariculaionsof exising power relaionships. Akin o he condiions for he emergenceof modern homosexual subjecs creaed by he shif ino capialis wagelabor from family household producion unis (D’Emilio 1993; Hennessy2000), so oo for Muslim women has he combinaion of neoliberalismand advances in informaion and communicaion echnologies creaedopporuniies for he developmen of a woman-led secor wihin Islamic

culures. In conras o he masculinis jihadis modes mos ofen seen oarise from his conjuncure (Bun 2009), his book argues ha he possi-biliies of Inerne commerce and commenary combine wih offline prac-ices in modes fashion o foser women’s agency in he making of newforms of Muslim habius, hose shared embodied values and disposiionsof everyday life ha cohere classes or communiies (Goffman [1956] 1990;Mauss 1973; Bourdieu 1994). While for Bourdieu he values and ases hamake up subjecive disposiions are unconsciously acquired and held—so

embedded ino class ideniy as o need no explanaion—he consciousdevelopmen of new Islamic revivalis habiuses and especially he empha-

sis on women’s embodied dress pracices suggess (qua Mahmood 2005)


29/44

INTRODUCTION 19

a degree of agency in he culivaion of he pious self. I is a his nexusha I argue for he influence and significance of he range of women-ledaciviies and pracices cohered in his book: jus as early feminis work inculural sudies had o argue ha girls’ “privae” unspecacular “bedroomculures” (McRobbie and Garber [1975] 2006) were as significan as whaboys did on he public sree, so oo I propose ha hese design compa-nies, magazines, blogs, and social media no be dismissed as small-scale or

low-circulaion, bu be seen as a par of a shared (and inernally conesedand variable) new Muslim dress culure whose significance exends inooher conemporary forms of Muslim habius and beyond ino relaionswih oher faih and secular communiies and socieies.

Te srucural imperial racialized inequiies of class, gender, and sexu-

aliy ha underwrie he globalized relaions of consumer culure in laecapialism so ofen disavowed in he celebraion of consumer pleasure asagency (Comaroff 1996; Hennessy 2000; Ong 1995; Slaer 1997) also in-here in he modes of producion and disseminaion on which hese newMuslim syle culures depend. As I discuss in chaper 8’s consideraion ofhe developmen of Islamic branding, for a populaion ha unil recenlydid no enjoy he dubious privilege of being considered (consruced as)a markeable consumer segmen (Sandıkçı 2011) in a markeized conex

where “hose whose consumpion does no mater for he successful re-producion of capial are virually non-people” (du Gay 1996: 100), i nosurprising ha he developmen of Muslim consumer culures producesis own panoply of marginalized ohers as failed consumers. Despie con-cerns ha he predominance of “Islamic brand feishism” may define non-paricipans as less pious Muslims (Süerdem 2013: 7), I see no reason whyMuslim consumers or culural enrepreneurs should be poliically “pure,”hough I noe how concerns wih susainabiliy (a recen preoccupaion

of Euro- American consumer fashion discourse) meld wih discourses ofIslamic values of equiy and redisribuion. Wih he consrucion of mar-ginalized nonconsumers inheren in he dynamic of consumer culure, ashe Muslim lifesyle marke diversifies women may simulaneously findhemselves priced ou by he ever more rapid urnover of syles (Sandıkçıand Ger 2005) or excluded by he new subculural ase communiies ofIslamis “cool” (Boubekeur 2005), leading some modes fashion parici-pans, as I discuss in chaper 8, o bewail he pernicious high-gloss un-

atainabiliy of “halal celebriies” in a reacivaion of earlier anifashiondiscourses.Despie he significance of new hijabi fashions and discourse in he de-


30/44

20 INTRODUCTION

velopmen and conesaion of inra-Muslim disincions, exernally heveil in all is forms suffers from an almos generic illegibiliy in ha hedress acs of mos veiling women in he UK are observed by a majoriynonveiling and non-Islamic audience who canno adequaely deduce hesignificance of heir veiling choices. Women who veil are almos ineviablyread as Muslim by a majoriy audience—even hough, in Briain for ex-ample, here are subsanial communiies of Hindus and Sikhs, some ofwhose female members also someimes veil. In a siuaion where he ex-pression hrough dress of ehniciy and religion are ofen unied in heminds of heir praciioners, he likelihood of veiled women being pre-sumed Muslim by hose ouside heir communiies is high, wih noice-able increases in violence and abuse afer 9/11 and 7/7 ( 2006).

Islamophobic prejudice and violence or well-inenioned proecionismrain down on any woman who veils, regardless of her acual ehnic or reli-gious ideniy.

In highlighing he conemporaneiy of veiling fashions and disin-guishing generaional and microgeneraional cycles of change, his bookaims o challenge atiudes ha read Muslim dress as signs of colleciveahisorical communiy ideniies. Puting hijabi and modes dressing inhe conex of individuaing fashion conribues o he poliical projec of

deexcepionalizing Muslim youh, an anidoe o he aleriy made com-mon by securiizing discourses. Tis is also advanced by analyzing hijabifashion wihin a subculural frame ha locaes dress pracices (on hebody, in prin, online, and in commerce) wihin overlapping local, na-ional, and ransnaional conexs ha are consiuive of and consiued

by inerlocking social facors including ehniciy, class, gender, sexualiy,and faih. Given he essenializing effecs of he Orienalis gaze i re-mains necessary o emphasize ha Muslim women’s syles documened

here will change over heir lifeime. While Muslim women’s dress is polii-cally conspicuous and conenious a presen, and may remain so, wiha globally youhful Muslim populaion i is saluary o be reminded hai is impossible o predic wha hey will be wearing weny years’ ime.

How This Book Works

In compiling a culural hisory of presen pracices and discourses in Mus-

lim modes fashion I move back and forh beween a number of hemesand examples ha, along wih heir relaed hisories and mehods for ex-aminaion, I do no presume will be equally familiar o all my readers:


31/44

INTRODUCTION 21

expers on urkish Islamis poliics may no be insincively familiarwih he srucural logic of fashion magazines; fashion hisorians mayknow litle abou convenional modes of Islamic knowledge producionand ransmission. Wih elemens of case sudies—garmens, images,media, people, spaces, heoreical approaches—recurring o elaboraenew poins, I provide explanaions of specialis erms and heoreical ap-proaches where hey seem mos useful, aware ha hisorical and crii-cal fields are unevenly developed and rarely conneced in hese paricu-lar ways. Alhough each chaper conains a chronological approach andinroducion o is paricular sudy, I hope my examples no only advancemy case bu also indicae how he ideas developed here migh be appliedelsewhere.

Chaper 1, herefore, inroduces he key geographies of his book, wihatenion o he hisories of heir Muslim populaions and he debaesabou seculariy, ehniciy, religion, culure, poliics, and gender wihwhich hey have engaged and hrough which hey have been defined anddefine hemselves. Arguing ha curren preoccupaions reacivae andreframe previous Orienalis sereoypes and knowledges, his chaperraces he emergence of new discourses abou Islam pos-9/11 and pos- 7/7, in order o idenify he ways in which he figure of he Muslim woman

has become cenral in deliberaions abou ciizenship and belongingacross he poliical specrum and round he world, including in he Briish

conex, he shif in muliculuralism from ideas of difference based onrace and ehniciy o hose concepualized in erms of faih. Linked ohisories of Islamic revivalism since he 1970s, he presen revializaionof he umma, he supranaional communiy of Muslim believers, whichfor many young Muslims has modified previous parenal migran affilia-ions, is siuaed in relaion o he wider global increase in religious re-

vivalism among young people. Te ways in which dress, as par of Islamicconsumer culures, has become a key mode for he experience and expres-sion of revivalis ideniies is idenified as an example of everyday religion(Ammerman 2007; McGuire 2008), characerized by syncreism, by iner-acion wih he marke, and by a discourse of choice in he ariculaion ofachieved raher han, or in addiion o, ascribed inheried religious iden-iies. Te of-discussed globalized relaions of he fashion indusry arehus linked o he culural (and commercial) significance of he suprana-

ional umma. Proposing ha majoriarian anxieies abou encouneringhe covered female body ouside of specifically religious spaces are basedon he nauralizaion of secularized norms of body managemen, I ar-


32/44

22 INTRODUCTION

gue ha discussions abou which garmens consiue (accepable formsof) he veil need o be reframed by an undersanding of embodimen,challenging he endency o focus on he veiled woman as saic imageby reposiioning veiling as an embodied and locaed dress pracice (En-wisle 2000). In he conex of he developmen of he fashion indusryas a feaure of Wesern, and non-Wesern, moderniies, he chaper com-bines culural, fashion, and maerial culure sudies undersandings ofbody managemen (McRobbie 1998; Miller 1987; E. Wilson [1985] 2003)wih Mahmood’s argumen (2005) ha for adherens of modes dress heac of wearing he hijab is iself a process for creaing a pious disposiion.

Chaper 2 furher elaboraes how paricipaion in mainsream fashionculures can conribue o he creaion of a devoional self. Hisoriciz-

ing and heorizing he commercial conex in which he urkish esetürmarke emerged as marke leader, I provide an inernaional comparaiveaccoun of he developmen of modes or Islamic fashion as a niche mar-ke, analyzing he creaion of overlapping naional and inernaional cus-omer bases a a ime when many brands were swiching heir focus fromEuropean o Middle Eas and Cenral Asian erriories in keeping wihchanging regional and global prioriies of he governmen since 2002.

Te commercial geography se ou in his chaper is mapped poliically

in relaion o dispues abou religion, seculariy, and moderniy wihinand ouside he , wih Islamiss using a discourse of righs o asser asconsumer ciizens a place wihin sae and secular sysems (Gökarıkseland Secor 2009; Göle 1996; Navaro- Yashin 2002). Inerviews wih direc-ors a leading companies combine wih visual analyses of ads, caalogues,and visual merchandising o char he expansion and segmenaion ofhis burgeoning marke. I ouline is complex ineracions wih, and im-pac on, he commercial and media norms of he global fashion indusry,

examining he significance of increased ehnic diversiy among esetürmodels wihin local discourse of ehno-naional and religious ideniy. Ina precursor o he focus on Briish fashion reail in chaper 5, his chaperalso includes he agenive funcion (Sandıkçı and Ger 2010) of he esetür

shop in creaing work environmens for covered women (ha in he reli-gious disric of Faih exends o proximae non-esetür shops).

Chaper 3 documens he conen and producion processes of Muslimfashion and lifesyle prin media ha in he mid-2000s inauguraed a new

phase in he developmen of Islamic consumer culures (he subsequenexension ino digial and social media is covered in chaper 7), o examinehe exen o which neoliberalism can incorporae he ariculaion of reli-


33/44

INTRODUCTION 23

gious ideniies (Grewal 2005). Tis chaper’s analysis of fashion ediorialin Muslim lifesyle media is conduced hrough an examinaion of howconen is generaed, providing profiles of he working pracices of jour-naliss and aesheic service providers (bloggers, phoographers, syliss,and models) as hey deal wih he ofen conflicing demands of he main-sream and minoriy fashion indusries wihou losing sigh of he needo grow a new readership. Making links o he developmen of he les-bian/gay/queer niche media a decade earlier (R. Lewis 1996), his chap-er explores how Muslim lifesyle media in seeking o mee he needs ofan emergen inernaional Muslim bourgeoisie (Ömer, Acar, and oprak2004) elaboraes for Muslims a sense of ideniy hrough consumpionparallel o ha esablished for oher minoriy culures, such as gays and

lesbians (Mor 1996). Focusing on magazines in Briain (Emel andSisters),in he Unied Saes and Canada ( Azizah and Muslim Girl ), and in urkey( Âlâ) as an example of minoriy media aciviy in a Muslim majoriy con-ex, he chaper analyzes he profound conroversy provoked by fashionphoography in he Muslim syle media, exploring how media and com-mercial image makers are creaing new aesheic sraegies for he picur-ing of he presumed Muslim modes body.

Chaper 4 addresses he discourse of choice ha predominaes in dis-

cussions abou, and jusificaions for, veiling and veiling pracices. I ar-gues ha new ase communiies based on modes fashion are emergingha creae generaional and social disincions (Bourdieu [1984] 2010)for hose wih he culural capial o engage in new modes of ineracionwih mainsream fashion culures and religious pracice. Proposing hahese ase communiies can be seen as a subculural formaion, he chap-er siuaes he privileging of choice as one of he disinguishing facorsof hijabi and modes subculures, focusing on how he limiaions of he

neoliberal choice paradigm (N. Rose 1999) are recognized, managed, andnegoiaed hrough embodied dress pracices and heir represenaion.Wih ehnic and religious family and communiy norms abou dress andcompormen funcioning as he grounds agains which choice is ofendefined and/or conained, he chaper examines in he Briish conexhe changing relaionship of conemporary hijabi fashion o Souh Asiandress culures. Using inerviews wih designers, reailers, and consumers,I examine how Muslim, ehnic, and religious disincion is reframed by

younger generaions able o move beween minoriy and mainsreamfashion sysems. Te chaper idenifies he range of syles ha are beingused by young women o achieve modesy (as defined by each wearer)


34/44

24 INTRODUCTION

and fashionabiliy, relaing hese new rends o naional, diasporic, andransnaional fashion developmens (Bhachu 2004; Breward, Crang, andCrill 2010; El Guindi 1999; Jones and Leshkowich 2003; Puwar and Raghu-ram 2003; arlo 2010). As wih Schulz’s accoun of he mix of garmensand modes of acquisiion ha make up a conesaory “poliical economyof propriey” in Mali (2007: 274), my sudy challenges commonplace con-ceps of a polarized mainsream/Muslim fashion binary by arguing for anework of overlapping, muually consiuing—secular, religious, ehnic,

alernaive, mainsream—fashion circuis.Chaper 5 connecs he experiences of hijabis shopping for fashion

wih heir experiences of selling i, elaboraing furher he scale of Mus-lim paricipaion wihin he fashion indusry by examining he conribu-

ion of hijabi shop workers o Briish high sree fashion reail in he con-ex of Briish (2003) and (2000) legislaion proecing he expressionof religion or belief a work, a developmen of previous provision for raceand ehniciy o which Muslims were unable o appeal. Providing a sillrare qualiaive accoun (Bowlby and Lloyd-Evans 2009) of Muslim em-ploymen experience, he chaper examines how Muslim women combineheir need o dress modesly wih he requiremens of employers hashop saff represen he brand by wearing a sore uniform. Asking wha

happens when he branded body wears a veil, my research maches em-ployee accouns wih employer responses o he visibiliy of faih on heshop floor o add religious embodimen ino consideraions of aesheiclabor—“he mobilizaion, developmen and commodificaion of [employ-ees’] embodied ‘disposiions’” (Wiz, Warhurs, and Nickson 2003: 37)—ha reailers require for delivery of heir preferred service mode. Basedon inerviews wih Human Relaions and Employee Relaions direcors ofmajor high sree muliples and deparmen sores, I esablish he exen

o which, in he ransiion from equal opporuniies o diversiy, privaesecor companies incorporae faih overly ino codes of conduc, includ-ing he poenial o commodify diversiy for inernal and exernal repua-ion managemen. Sudies on service secor employmen have moved be-yond an iniial focus on emoional labor o a concern wih how he spreadof demands for aesheic labor may resric employmen opporuniiesfor hose wihou middle-class disposiions (Wiz, Warhurs, and Nickson

2003), while also exploring how corporae branding is responsive o (con-

srained by) he embodied capaciies available wihin he local workforce(du Gay 1996; Petinger 2005a). A his juncure, my research suggess cir-cumsances in which Muslim religio-ehnic disposiions and forms of cul-


35/44

INTRODUCTION 25

ural, ehnic, and religious capial may allow hijabi women o preserve (insome cases enhance) he value of heir aesheic labor.

Chaper 6 focuses on how digial informaion communicaion ech-nologies have been used by hijabi bloggers and designers o creae newforms and undersandings of modes fashion. Inerviews wih bloggersand social media hoss as well as designers and enrepreneurs bring newagens ino discussions abou he significance of he Inerne for he re-acivaion of conemporary undersandings of he umma (Bun 2009).Siuaing his hisorically in relaion o discussions abou religion andcommunicaions echnology, he chaper also deexcepionalizes Muslimyouh culures by locaing hijabi bloggers wihin a wider accoun of he de-

velopmen of he fashion blog genre. Te opporuniies for Muslim fashion

sar-ups offered by e-commerce are similarly locaed in relaion o previ-ous forms of diaspora ehnic fashion and he lifesyle media. In a conexwhere he deehnicizaion of Islam and he revializaion of he ummaprovide spiriual and poliical opporuniies for ransnaional Muslim af-filiaions, designers find hemselves dealing wih naional and regionalase disincions beween Muslim consumers. Te chaper concludes byarguing ha in he mode of everyday religion he blending beween com-merce and commenary seen in online modes fashion discourse creaes

new forms of religious knowledge producion and ransmission hroughwhich are developed new forms of religious auhoriy for women.

Te poenial of new forms of religious and spiriual capial in he acu-

alizaion of diaspora Muslim ideniies for markeing professionals is in-vesigaed in chaper 7’s discussion of Muslim branding, adding faih oprevious marke segmenaion focused on ehniciy (Grewal 2005; Haler2000). Responding o Sandıkçı’s (2011) call for more research on Muslimenrepreneurs wihin a “siuaed undersanding of Muslim consumers,”

I combine inerview maerial abou he building of Ogilvy & Maher’sNoor Islamic branding iniiaive wih examinaion of how he unevenineres in Muslim consumers affecs modes designers and culural en-repreneurs in he conex of he developmen in mass-marke apparelof Souh Asian ehnic fashion a Walmar and Asda. Te impac of newase communiies in Muslim fashion is explored in relaion o he iner-naional developmen of modes fashion commerce and commenary inhe oher Abrahamic faihs and among secular consumers, in which rans-

religious consumer aciviy on- and offline brings new forms of inerfaihand suprafaih conac. As well as exending ino inerfaih dress pracice,hijab fashion has also widened o include he growing demographic of de-


36/44

26 INTRODUCTION

jabi women, whose decision o uncover heir heads does no ake hemouside he wider zone of modes self-presenaion and fashion. Draw-ing ogeher and exending he inerviews and exual maerials usedhroughou he book, he chaper concludes by examining how his formof Muslim self-presenaion is rendered visible, invisible, or offensive oMuslim and majoriy viewers.

Notes on Method and Sources

Syles change, wha styles mean changes, and how women inerpre reli-gion in heir lives changes. I should be clear by now ha I am no in hebusiness of arbiraing which, if any, form of covering is mos correc or

auhenic. Neiher do I disinguish beween orhodox or heerodox Mus-lim affiliaions or pracices. Tis book is no concerned wih religious doc-rine. When respondens advance definiions of religious docrine I do no

challenge: everyone who agreed o paricipae was made aware ha I amno Muslim or working from a religious perspecive.

Muslims, especially young Muslims, complain abou being over-researched, or researched for he wrong reasons (S. Ahmed 2009): youhworkers repor calls from hink anks waning poenially radicalized

young men; women made, or presumed, visible by heir dress are likelyo be sopped by journaliss for vox pops on almos any sory wih a Mus-lim angle; individuals are asked by members of he public abou heirclohes, someimes wih grea hosiliy, someimes wih more neuralineres. Poenial paricipans ofen checked if I was hosile o hijab be-fore agreeing o ake par, o which I answered ha I am no hosile ohijab, neiher am I advocaing i. In aking his line, I am aware ha myengagemen wih paricipans is no wihou impac, and is made harder

or easier by various elemens of my own social posiioning. I is no simplyha he neuraliy of he unmarked masculinis “objecive” ehnographicresearcher has been debunked (Clifford 1986; Geerz 1984, 2000), bu hahe presumpion ha pariculariy will iself produce auhenic resulshas also been shown o be erroneous (Archer 2002).

No being Muslim was someimes a benefi because i ook me ou-side he nuances of spiriual or poliical judgmen faced by coreligionisresearchers (Ger and Sandıkçı 2006). Declaring myself (someimes) as a

(nonreligiously observan) Jew could provide poins of affiniy on grow-ing up (whie) in he hird generaion of an ehnicized religious minoriyin Briain. Being an older (o hem!) woman who is ineresed in fashion


37/44

INTRODUCTION 27

(wih eenage years of par-ime shop work) credied me wih sufficienfashion capial o recognize nuances of syle and opporuniies o bondover he serious pleasures of caring abou clohes. Being a he LondonCollege of Fashion brough desirable glamor hrough associaion for non-professional respondens and gave me indusry insider saus wih brands

and designers (whom I realized needed assurance ha I was no engagedin poenially compeiive commercial research).

None of his sops my paricipaion in his research having an impacon he field ha i sudies, which for sudies of youh subculures, asSarah Tornon poins ou (1995), means ha by validaing hijabi fash-ion as an objec for inellecual enquiry I, like journaliss and in-groupculural mediaors, am conribuing o he producion and promoion of

knowledge abou i. Tis is also why women agreed o speak o me. Tosewho were no promoing heir own magazine, brand, or blog waned oconribue posiive informaion abou Muslims. I found paricipans inseveral ways. Tose I me in heir professional capaciy (wheher heirwork was waged or, like bloggers, unwaged) were conaced direcly; hisincluded all media professionals, designers, and brand represenaives inBriain, Norh America, and urkey, and sore managers in Briain.Shop workers in Briain came iniially from a reques posed for me by

Jana Kossaibai on her blog Hijab Style ha also brough some respon-dens on personal dress. Oher personal dress narraives came from mypersonal and professional conacs, and from snowballing inroducionsfrom exising paricipans. Hijab fashion is a small, if growing field, andpeople were generous in sharing heir conacs. Tis also means ha someof he companies and individuals wih whom I spoke have gone on o be-come “faces,” he usual suspecs for academics and journalis alike. Tisoverlap can be producive, widening he archive and range of inerprea-

ion in wha is sill an underdocumened field of fashion pracice.o some exen I also became a face in he field of Muslim and mod-

es fashion. Wriing pre-Inerne, Tornon could no have prediced howdoing subculural research in he mid- 2000s would increase he meansand modes by which he researcher could be incorporaed ino he field.

Acing in accordance wih research ehics concerning privacy and awareha online ineracions have offline consequences (Buchanan 2011), Ichose no o seek access o any online or offline discussions ha migh

be closed o non-Muslims or he nonreligious. I also chose no o posresponses or direcly ask quesions: excep for he callou o shop saffha Kossaibai posed on my behalf, I “lurked” (Hine 2000) on digial


38/44

28 INTRODUCTION

and social media plaforms in he public domain, supplemened by iner-views wih bloggers and social media operaives, as wih prin journaliss.

As I began o publish in his area, and o embark on a linked projec onmodes fashion in he Abrahamic faihs, academic conference alks wereaugmened by requess o alk o youh and women’s groups in churches,synagogues, and inerfaih groups. Te research was press-worhy, andI more han once found myself sharing radio discussions or newspaperpages wih Kossaibai and oher bloggers and designers feaured here. Ialso convened public-facing discussions in which many of hem parici-paed. Te digial and social media ha I analyze here as indispensable ohe developmen of modes fashion commerce and discourse also circu-laed news of my research. Tis brough more respondens and began o

shape a space for me as a friend o he field ha I was sudying. Srangersconaced me, connecing hemselves o he validaing poenial of myresearch, and cross promoing my publicaions or media appearances onransnaional blogs, social media, and commercial websies. Someimes Iwas placed fron row a modes fashion shows (I am jus visible in figure3.25), and name-checked in blog wrie-ups. Graifying as his migh be omy inner fashionisa, his kudos, plus my fondness for many of he brighcreaive women I me during his research, has o be balanced wih a will-

ingness o arrive a conclusions hey may no share. Tis is especially aconcern for hose paricipans who appear wih heir real names, he blog-

gers, journaliss, designers, and brand represenaives who I spoke o inheir professional capaciy.

I ried o be discree in how I approached paricipans. While engag-ing in shopper observaion (Petinger 2004, 2005b) in all sies, in Briain Iavoided approaching shop saff in heir place of work, or asking o adver-ise on he saff noice board, in case his made Muslims uncomforably

conspicuous o coworkers. In urkey my only occasional presence meanha shop assisans were recruied informally on repea sore visis, andconversaions ook place wih varying degrees of privacy in sore or inlocal cafés during meal breaks, eiher in English or in urkish hrougha ranslaor, and were recorded only in noe form. Mosly I was able oinerview people on ape in heir offices, my office, cafés, or heir homes,wih few inerviews done by phone or Skype, and, while I have sough opreserve idiom, I have idied up excessive use of “you know,” “like,” and

“kinda” where i impedes he flow of narraive. I chose no o ask o akephoos of respondens o avoid inhibiing he ineracion, especially ina zone of enquiry where some Muslim women don’ wan heir image o


39/44

INTRODUCTION 29

circulae beyond heir conrol. Tis means ha I could no make my ownvisual record of wha everyone was wearing, excep in public evens likehe hijabi sree fashion shoo in chaper 7.

Te visual record of hijab and modes syles seen in his book derivesfrom magazine fashion ediorial, brand adverising, and blog poss con-sidered public domain (Cavanagh 1999), plus my own phoos where iden-ificaion of subjecs would no resul. Jus as in chaper 2 I apply heoriesof embodimen o consider how clohes acquire meaning when worn andseen on he body, so oo in he book as a whole do I consider how imagesacquire meaning hrough heir modes of producion and circulaion. Teconvergence (H. Jenkins 2008) of phoographic images of hijabi fashionacross media plaforms also involved readers as coproducers or cocura-

ors, whose remediaion of image and ex hrough reposing and rewee-ing provides he researcher wih elemens of recepion hisory. Given heinheren mobiliy of he digial plaforms ha make up so much of mysource maerial (Bun 2009), my digial “archive” is undersood o be a“unique version” raher han a definiive copy (Brügger 2011): liable ochange wihin seconds, digial maerial should be seen as a snapsho ofwhen i was capured in conras o oher sources such as prin ediions ofmagazines ha can be regarded as a permanen record.

Across media forms professional and amaeur images (o he exenha one can sill make ha disincion) are considered o be par of awider domain of visual culure, he suffusion and sauraion of image seen

as characerisic of posmoderniy made possible by increasingly avail-able visual echnologies (Mirzeoff 2002). Tis includes in his insance:he ways in which he presence of billboards adverising urkish esetürbrands is reaed as an incursion ino he secular visualiy of he urkishrepublic; or wha i means for Briish Muslim lifesyle magazine Emel o

be displayed on he newssand in major supermarkes; or how womenwho sar o wear he hijab find hemselves differenly hailed (and regu-laed) by oher Muslims o whom hey are now differenly visible. Forhe variey of majoriarian audiences who encouner he syled bodies ofMuslim fashion paricipans, wih dress serving as “a medium of commu-nicaion and expression,” he maerial fac of heir presence in he visualworld is iself an inervenion ino knowledges abou Muslims (Moorsand arlo 2013): young adherens in his book consciously use fashion o

challenge sereoypes of Muslims as primiive and nonmodern, despieha he responses o heir carefully designed self-presenaion will inevi-ably escape heir conrol.


40/44

30 INTRODUCTION

While my book is premised on he hypervisibiliy accorded o women in

discernibly Muslim clohing, my undersanding of visualiy also includeswha is, or is rendered, invisible: he nuances of hijabi syle changes hacanno be deeced by observers wihou sufficien culural compeency(someimes because observers are no Muslim, someimes, as migh behe case wih any youh culural dress form, because hey are no young);he ways ha he fac of hijabi fashion iself is made illegible by an Orien-alizing gaze ha canno encompass Islam in he frame of moderniy; andhe ways ha women’s decision o dejab renders hem subjec o a scopicOrienalis fascinaion

Documents

Muslim Fashion by Reina Lewis