aspects of dress, while the second is seen as symbolic, signifying and communica-
tive (Barthes 1983, Bourdieu 1986, 1993a, Kawamura 2005). This division is at the
same time both helpful and unfortunate since these two aspects are commonly
intertwined. Yet, fashion is a modern dream connected directly to the zeitgeist
(Wilson 1985, Vinken 2005) and to the now. It may be said that clothing is part of
the Hellenic time concept of chronos, the duration, while fashion resides in kairos,
the propitious moment or opportunity. Clothing can be, just like suffering, be
chronic and everlasting, but never fashion. From this perspective of kairos, fashion
is indeed like passion, a sudden burst of energy, a firing of ephemeral intensity.
This is similar to how Bourdieu describes fashion: “Fashion is the latest fashion, the
latest difference.” (Bourdieu 1993a: 135) When confronted with new fashion we
can find ourselves, almost unconsciously and often unwillingly, electrified by the
brilliance of its very newness. This burst of intensity is how a new fashion “hits” us,
how we are temporarily “blinded” by its luminosity, and how “immune” to it most
of us are to it after the last epidemic craze has passed.
This continuous stream of intensity is fashion, a phenomenon in a constant dy-
namic flow of becoming, that never stands still or is subordinated to permanent
substance. It is difference in its purest ephemeral form, the velocity of flux, energy
that rushes through a system that is far removed from equilibrium. This is what
makes fashion resonate beautifully with Deleuze’s “ontology of becoming” (De-
leuze 2007) as fashion is never a stable form but always becoming new. This focus
on the processes of becoming can be connected to fashion’s central distinction of
constant change, as in fashion “everything flows”. If fashion has a being, it is a being
of becoming, of energetic change into something new. If fashion constitutes an
eternal return, to use Nietzsche’s term, it is not the return of the Identical, but a
return of the same process which becomes, to paraphrase Deleuze’s interpretation
of Nietzsche (2007: 50ff ). Fashion is the processes of becoming, of producing in-
tensities of difference.
Another reason to use an “ontology of becoming” perspective is, as we will come to
later, the focus on do-it-yourself approaches throughout this thesis. There is an
emphasis on doing rather than having. Most academic analysis has been focused
on consumption but The Design of Everyday Life by Shove et al (2007) emphasises
that the restless process of craftsmanship does not have the same goal as consump-
tion. Crafting is a continuous becoming and throughout this thesis we will see how
in fashion it intersects with the processes of becoming.
I stress the use of the term “fashion” in my research with the purpose of emphasis-
ing that craft and hands-on interventions do not just have practical implications or
only referring to clothing but are also highly symbolic and very much connected to
the intensities flowing through the fashion system. Indeed, as we will see further
on, a common theme throughout this thesis is how to “hook up” or “plug in” to the
energetic or symbolic flows within powerful and vital systems, be they computers,
religion, fiction or the fashion system. Consequently, it would be a mistake to read
this thesis from a purely materialistic or, on the other hand symbolic, point of view.
Instead, to approach fashion from an ontology of flows and intensities resonate
with ecologist David W Orr’s notion of design as “the shaping of flows of energy
and matter for human purposes” (Orr cited in Capra 2003). For Orr designs are
never finished, they are instead continuous processes interacting in dynamic sys-
tems. The design practice explored throughout this thesis is concerned with fash-
ion as intensities, as energies, as flow of matter energy, and how we, in roles as both