Throughout this chapter we will follow some differ-
ent protocols and see how they affect shared work
processes in groups. We will first look at how “subver-
sive” communities, or the counterculture movement
has argued for their shared tactics, of rebellion and of
dropping-out. By moving beyond this position we
will instead try to find ways to plug-in new practices
into a social environment such as the fashion system.
This could be exemplified in the Swap-O-Rama-Ra-
ma organized in Istanbul 2007, where visitors to a
clothes swap also redesigned the clothes they swapped.
Together they formed their own participatory fashion
scene, where everyone hands-on built their contribu-
tion to themselves but through this action also formed
a new community. This might give us some clues on
how to see a new form of non-dialectic resistance, a
resistance not built on NO logo but on MORE logo
approaches. After an initial NO, the MORE approach
is a resistance that builds new connections and creates
a diversity of new alternatives and builds on many
small changes. Finally we will explore the potentials of
this type of design practice, of small change steps, and
see how this could form catalytic loops to amplify the
small contributions to a higher order of change. This
approach is examined further in a design project, the
Dale Sko Hack project, which took place in 2006 in
Dale, Norway.
fashionable resistance
As long as there has been fashion there has also been
a resistance to it. During the Middle Ages the ruling
classes instituted sumptuary laws governing luxury
goods aimed at the upcoming merchant classes. The
aristocracy wanted to limit the impact of imitation
and luxury consumption and were supported by the
church that detested the corporeal celebration of
luxury goods. During the last centuries we have seen
many forms of resistance to fashion. There is the
spiritual resistance from religious movements, who
cursed the vanity manifested through fashion. There
is also the institutional resistance to extravagant per-
sonal expression that instead proposed the blessing
of uniforms with the aim to even out differences be-
tween individuals. There is also the artistic resistance
of the intellectuals who mean that fashion is a shal-
low form of culture that cannot represent anything
else than society’s massive “sell out”.
However, all these forms of resistance have problems,
as they actually form the founding forces that make
fashion work in the first place. They produce tension
and the differences from which various anti-state-
ments can thrive. Even though they desperately try to
avoid fashion, they are inevitable drawn into a rela-
tionship with it. Fashion theorist Anne Hollander
(1993), phrases this elaborately as she paints out a
wide spectrum of what fashion is.There are different ways of defining fashion, but
what is meant here is the whole spectrum of desira-
ble ways of looking at any given time. The scope of
what everyone wants to be seen wearing in a given
society is what is in fashion; and this includes the
haute couture, all forms of anti-fashion and nonfash-
ion, and the garments and accessories of people who
claim no interest in fashion – a periodically fashion-
able attitude in the history of dress. (Hollander 1993:
350)We have to ask ourselves therefore what the strongest
anti-fashion statement could be? What could be the
most violent resistance? A classic form of resistance
against fashion is to position oneself with an anti-
fashion stance, yet this position is hard to maintain.
Most often this position is also in a state of change, as
it constantly has to redefine itself to keep up the
“anti” posture of opposition. Even worse, the differ-
ence one wanted to establish from fashion will soon
become fashionable. However, according to theorist
Malcolm Barnard there are some garments that can
be true anti-fashion, namely those that never change.
He proposes coronation and ceremonial dress, but
perhaps would also include the uniforms of the Pa-
pal Swiss Guard in the Vatican (Barnard 1996: 13).
However, these garments were also once designed in
relation to the fashion of their time, so stepping out
and being “anti” to fashion can indeed be very
tricky.
However, since the birth of the popular youth cul-
ture a wide range of styles has succeeded each other,
each of them defined in contrast to the other. Every
culture is “anti” to someone else. Yet every subculture
shared one common feature, the opposition to the
dominant culture, most commonly the culture of
young people’s parents. As some of these subcultures
became ostensibly political and active they also saw
the importance of dressing differently, not only from
the other subcultures but also expressively to attack
the meaning systems of the dominant culture and
form an explosive position of counterculture. This
position of a counterculture emerged as a radical and
political stance around what is usually called the -68