By Jerry "Clapso" Avissato
April 2000
Walk through the streets of any city in America and you will see young people wearing baggy clothes. This fact may seem just a matter of the current fashion trend, but there is a deeper explanation for every style change. In the case of the "baggy look" I believe this explanation can be found in America's prisons. The usefulness of loose pants as a place to secret and transport weapons and other contraband should be obvious. This was also the case with the "fat shoes" look of the past. The reason that trend died can be explained by the fact that most prisons started confiscating shoelaces. These are both examples of what I call "Gangsta Couture"
How does something that starts as a utilitarian style within the bounds of the total institution become a new street aesthetic? What implications do the "mainstreaming" of these styles have on the social aspects of expression? At this point I feel the use of three well know sociological paradigms will go a long way toward shedding some light on possible answers to the above questions. Macionis (1992) defines these three paradigms thusly: "Structural-Functional Paradigm a framework for building theory based on the assumption that society is a complex system whose parts work together to promote stability." (Page 10) "Social-Conflict Paradigm a framework for building theory based on the assumption that society is a complex system characterized by inequality and conflict that generate social change." (Page 12) "Symbolic-Interaction Paradigm a theoretical framework that envisions society as the product of the everyday interactions of individuals." (Page 14)
I will proceed from this point by stating my contention that the Structural-Functional Paradigm and the Social-Conflict Paradigm are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe that both can be used to analyze the same issue. I will do so with my stated example of Gangsta Couture.
My analyses from a Structural-Functional point of view is that the total institutions, in this case prisons, are the personification of the way in which the power structure attempts to "stabilize" society. That is, that "unstable" elements of the population are placed in such institutions for forced acculturation. As with all secondary groups, there is a status structure in the inmate population. In prison, status is gained by developing a "Rep". Such a rep can be gained with violence or the threat thereof. Baggy pants then become a symbolic threat, whether a weapon is present or not, and as such a status symbol. That is how it becomes a style within the secondary group.
This is where a Social-Conflict analysis comes in. The intentional power "inequality" within the total institution leads to "conflict". That is, the stated style becomes a symbol of resistance to the prescribed culture of the total institution. This conflict leads to "social changes" such as the banning of shoelaces within the prison.
The released former inmates then bring cultural elements such as gangsta couture home with them. From a Symbolic-Interaction perspective, the "interaction" of these former inmates with others within their communities leads these elements to become a prescribed style in these communities.
At some point, this creates a Social-Conflict type problem for another power structure within society, the fashion industry is suddenly faced with a demand for such things as baggy pants which may conflict with what they were going to push as "the look" in their current advertisements. Never bashful of exploiting an opportunity to make a profit the corporations gear up production of baggy pants. The advertisements then push baggy pants. The gangsta couture style is then sold in every mall in America.
The above scenario then becomes a matter for Structural-Functional analysis. The system co-ops what was originally a symbol of instability, and thereby stabilizes itself.
References:
Macionis, John J. (1992) Society the Basics 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
Read, Think, Speak, Write, Be!