Consuming transnational fashion in London and Mumbai

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Geoforum 38 (2007) 908–924

Consuming transnational fashion in London and Mumbai

Peter Jackson a,*, Nicola Thomas b, Claire Dwyer c

a Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdomb Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, United Kingdom

c Department of Geography, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, United Kingdom

Received 11 January 2005; received in revised form 13 November 2006

Abstract

Drawing on focus group research in London and Mumbai, this paper charts the changing social and cultural contours of transna-tional fashion consumption. Transnationality is approached as a complex social field, participation in which is not restricted to the mem-bers of specific ethnically-defined transnational communities. Following a discussion of the nature of transnational fashion, the paperexplores the discursive practices of a wide range of consumers with different degrees of investment in this transnational field encompass-ing differences of gender and generation, education and occupation. We highlight the existence of multiple forms of modernity (ratherthan a simple gradient from Western modernity to Eastern tradition), with social and cultural change taking place at an uneven pace andsubject to periodic disruption and temporary reversals. In contrast to more linear notions of globalization, defined in terms of the relent-less erosion of local difference, our research demonstrates the persistence of locally-specific cultures of consumption in both London andMumbai. Drawing from Appadurai’s work on the social life of things and Bourdieu’s analysis of the sociology of taste, we attempt tocharacterise these locally specific consumption cultures. We argue against conventional accounts of ‘authenticity’ as an innate property ofparticular social groups or particular goods, suggesting that the meaning of goods is defined by their active appropriation in specificcontexts of use.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Consumption; Transnationalism; Fashion; London; Mumbai

1. Introduction

Our focus in this paper is on how different groups ofpeople, variously positioned in terms of gender and gener-ation, education and occupation, participate in the ‘socialfield’ of transnational consumer culture.1 The paper drawson focus group research in London and Mumbai to inves-

0016-7185/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.015

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Jackson), nicola.j.

[email protected] (N. Thomas), [email protected] (C. Dwyer).1 According to Vertovec (1999) ‘transnationalism’ refers to the multiple

ties and interactions that link people or institutions across the borders ofnation-states. The idea of approaching transnationalism as a ‘social field’was developed by Glick Schiller et al. (1992).

tigate people’s experience of transnationality as seenthrough the lens of contemporary consumer culture.Attending to the symbolic and imaginary geographies oftransnational culture as well as to its material geogra-phies, we approach transnationality as a complex spaceor social field that is multi-dimensional and multiplyinhabited (cf., Wilson and Dissanayake, 1996). Participa-tion in this social field clearly extends beyond the mem-bership of specific, ethnically defined, transnationalcommunities (Crang et al., 2003; Jackson et al., 2004).So, for example, consumers participate in transnationalsocial space through their knowledge about the geograph-ical origins of particular goods or through the symbolicassociations they make between particular commoditiesand particular places. Our objective is to explore differentdegrees of investment in this transnational space rather

mailto:[email protected]




P. Jackson et al. / Geoforum 38 (2007) 908–924 909

than trying to produce a comprehensive account of con-temporary consumption patterns in London and Mumbai.Our findings challenge linear ideas of globalization, dem-onstrating the persistence of local cultures of consumption(cf., Jackson, 2004).

The paper aims to characterise these local consumptioncultures and the practices that sustain them through anexamination of their embeddedness in particular socialand spatial contexts. We also use our empirical materialto comment on the modernity of these diverse consumptioncultures and to contribute to current debates about authen-ticity and appropriation. First, though, we outline our con-ceptual orientation and provide an introduction to thenature of transnational fashion.

4 The official renaming of Bombay to Mumbai came into force inJanuary 1996. This act of renaming has been highly contested (see Pateland Masselos, 2003). On one hand, the change reflects an indigenizing of acolonial name; on the other, it has become associated with the rise of ShivSena, a militant Hindu cultural and political movement. In 1993, ShivSena instigated pogroms against the Muslim population of Bombayreflecting the roots of Shiv Sena in the 18th-century Maratha chieftainShivaji who was an adversary of the Mughul empire. Shiv Sena’s Hindunationalist message, xenophobic actions and increasing political power is

2. Conceptual orientation

Our approach to consumer culture acknowledges anintellectual debt to the long tradition of work on ‘publicculture’ in India. The term was adapted from Habermas’s(1989) influential work on the transformation of the publicsphere. As employed by Appadurai and Breckenridge,public culture refers to ‘‘the space between domestic lifeand the projects of the nation-state – where differentiatedsocial groups (classes, ethnic groups, genders) constitutetheir identities by their experience of mass-mediated formsin relation to the practices of everyday life’’ (1995, pp. 4–5). Appadurai and Breckenridge’s public culture projectwas a critical intervention in debates about globalizationin general and about India’s ‘modernization’ in particu-lar.2 Appadurai and Breckenridge sought to challengethose who believed that ‘‘Americanization or commodifi-cation or McDonald’s (or some variation of all these) isseducing the world into sameness and creating a worldof little Americas’’ (Appadurai and Breckenridge, 1995,p. 1). Instead, they emphasised the local reception andtransformation of global cultural flows. ‘Modernity’, forAppadurai and Breckenridge, might be a global experiencebut its local character is highly varied involving complexforms of subjectivity, agency, pleasure and embodied expe-rience. Consumers play an active role in shaping this expe-rience, with public culture emerging as a key zone ofcultural contestation.3 These processes are particularlystark in Mumbai which dominates India’s commercial,film and advertising industries and is arguably the coun-try’s most cosmopolitan city: ‘‘at once [its] New York

2 On the recent ‘liberalization’ of Indian culture and economy, seeCorbridge and Harriss (2000).

3 The public culture tradition is still very much alive, as can be seen fromthe journal that bears the initiative’s name, and in recent studies of publictheatre, story telling, cinema and magazine culture in India (Dwyer andPinney, 2001).

and its Hollywood’’ (Appadurai and Breckenridge, 1995,p. 91).4

We take a similar approach to understanding recentchanges in British consumer culture where processes ofglobalization are subject to distinct local variations. Thisis true both for British–Asian consumers and for membersof the white-British majority. Marie Gillespie’s work on theconsumption culture of young Punjabi Londoners in Sout-hall is exemplary in this respect, demonstrating that theconsumption of McDonald’s or Coca-Cola has particularcultural connotations for members of this group, definedin relation to religious and cultural discourses rather thanbeing representative of some broader notion of ‘American-ization’ (Gillespie, 1995). Ethnographic work with white-British consumers in north London also confirms the exis-tence of highly localised consumption cultures based oncomplex relationships between shopping, place and identity(Miller et al., 1998). Our work on transnational fashionculture in Britain reaches similar conclusions whether oneexamines the global networks and localizing strategies oftransnational firms or the consumption practices of diversegroups of consumers.5

A rich theoretical resource for analysing the complexcultural distinctions at play in this transnational social fieldis Bourdieu’s (1984) work on the sociology of taste. Basedoriginally on the analysis of consumption culture in post-war France, Bourdieu’s central argument is that culturaldistinctions (such as our choices about what to eat or whatto wear) involve social distinctions as well as purely aes-thetic choices. Notions of ‘good taste’ function as classmarkers and investments in the appropriate (culturallyapproved) commodities can be ‘traded’ for social position.While some people (such as teachers) may be rich in cul-tural capital but low in economic capital, others may beeconomically rich but culturally poor (such as the nou-veaux riches). We explore how these ideas play out in theanalysis of transnational fashion where the symbolic asso-ciations of the ‘East’, ‘the Orient’ and ‘India’ all serve as

feared by many of Bombay/Mumbai’s diverse communities. For a detailedexamination of the impact of Shiv Sena on the public culture of Bombay/Mumbai, see Hansen (2002). For some of our informants the use of‘Bombay’ reflected a rejection of Mumbai’s association with Shiv Sena.For others, the use of ‘Bombay’ came more naturally from long habit. Formany of our informants, the names Bombay/Mumbai were usedinterchangeably. In what follows we have retained the place names usedby our informants.

5 See, for example, Dwyer and Jackson (2003). There is also evidence ofthe significance of local consumer cultures in discussions of the changingfashion choices of British–Asian women (see Khan, 1992; Bhachu, 2003).

910 P. Jackson et al. / Geoforum 38 (2007) 908–924

markers of social distinction among different generationsand classes. Our analysis draws on an understanding ofdress or fashion not merely as a set of signifiers of classor culture but instead understands choices made aboutclothing as a form of everyday embodied social practice.Drawing on the work of Entwistle (2000, 2001) we under-stand dress as an ‘embodied and situtated practice’ (2001,p. 55). Thus we seek to go beyond an analysis of the discur-sive and representational aspects of dress to understand theuse of dress ‘as one means by which individuals orientatethemselves to the social world’ (Entwistle, 2001, p. 55).

3. Transnational fashion

Our discussion of the contemporary consumption oftransnation fashion in London and Mumbai must beunderstood within a broader historical context of transna-tional fashion trajectories linking Britain and the sub-con-tinent. These trajectories are a reminder both of theresonances of empire, within which cultural and economicimaginaries were entwined (Thomas, 1991) and the possi-bilities of postcolonial instabilities and contestationsaround the meanings of dress (Tarlo, 1996). Despite theephemeral nature of fashion, the use of certain fabrics,styles of clothing and accessories that have clear connec-tions to different South Asian contexts have remained apersistent presence in the fashion cultures of Britain. Astextile historians and curators have amply demonstrated,early European traders brought Indian cottons and paintedtextiles to the London markets in the early 17th century,starting a trend that would see the production of textilesin India, designed and decorated specially for the Europeanmarket (Barnes et al., 2002; Crill, 2006). As specific textilesor clothing items gained popularity, whether chintz orKashmir shawls, so the dynamics of this trade changed,accompanied by shifts in transcultural practices and sub-jectivities (Chaudhuri, 1992; Thomas, 2007). Placed withinthis context the resurgence of the ‘pashmina’ shawl inBritish fashion cultures at the turn of the 21st century isindicative of the continuous exchange and re-working ofclothing traditions between Britain and South Asia. Inaddition to specific clothing items, there has been a longhistory of British fashion designers seeking inspirationfrom ‘the East’, so contemporary figures like ZhandraRhodes or Matthew Williamson follow others such as the19th century designer William Morris. As Metcalf (1989,p. 159) argues, Morris and others involved in the Artsand Crafts movement, sought to define ‘tradition’ in Indiain the face of modernising processes taking place both inBritain and the subcontinent. The commodification ofIndian textiles and fashions in Britain centred on key insti-tutions such as Liberty of London (Calloway, 1992) whichhad strong associations with Morris and the Arts andCrafts movement. Such institutions were also central tothe revival of Indian-inspired fashions in the hippie cultureof the 1960s (Ashmore, 2006) and the emergence of firmslike Monsoon and EAST (see Dwyer and Jackson, 2003;

Dwyer, 2006) selling Indian-inspired clothing to a ‘main-stream’ customer base in Britain. Such ‘ethnic’ fashioninfluences are now widespread in high-street fashion andhad particular salience in the fashion seasons of 2000–2002 when this research was carried out. Since this field-work, fashions have changed, but we continue to see thesubtle influence and reinterpretation of clothing that canbe situated within a South Asian context in British fashionculture. For example the wearing of kurta inspired shirtsover trousers has been a leading trend of 2006. This persis-tent presence has been variously ascribed to the growinginfluence of British–Asian designers, artists and musiciansand reflected in the growing popularity of Bollywood filmsor British–Asian music and has been both celebrated andcritiqued by cultural commentators (Hutnyk, 2000; Puwar,2002).

The resurgence of so-called ‘ethnic fashion’ has beenparalleled by a growing British–Asian fashion industry.The post-war immigration from the New Commonwealthand Pakistan led to a proliferation of British–Asian textileand clothing stores targeting British–Asian consumers andlocated in immigrant neighbourhoods. While much of theearly Asian fashion retailing of loose fabrics, which weremade up at home or by local tailors, was male-dominanted,Parminder Bhachu (2003) celebrates the women-led ‘dias-pora economies’ of the Asian fashion industry. Theseinclude the long-standing tradition of skilled home-basedseamstresses as well as women entrepreneurs who sold‘suitcase collections’ bought in India from their homes tofriends and relatives (see also Khan, 1992). The emergenceof a new generation of designers, both British-born andtrained, has resulted in the creation of a new and distinc-tively British–Asian fashion culture which includes newshops selling ready-made clothes which are targeted atyounger consumers who are likely to wear both ‘Asian’and ‘British’ clothes interchangeably. This industry is alsosustained through a proliferation of new glossy fashionmagazines for the British–Asian market as well as tradefairs and fashion shows. The transformation of telecommu-nications links between Britain and the sub-continent hasproduced a fashion industry which is truly transnationalin its operations so that designs sketched in London arefaxed back to India for immediate manufacture (see Bha-chu, 2003; Dwyer, 2006). The success of the British–Asianfashion industry has also encouraged some Indian-basedfashion houses to establish branches in London, althoughnot all have been successful (see Bhachu, 2003 for a discus-sion of the difficulties facing one Indian designer, RituKumar).

The transnational trajectories of the Indian fashionindustry again require an understanding of historical con-text. As Emma Tarlo’s (1996) history of dress in Indiaemphasises, Ghandian politics of the khadi placed dressat the heart of colonial contestation, and these resonancesare still significant today. Yet, as Banerjee and Miller(2003) argue in their book about the sari, while newtraditions of women’s clothing have emerged in India


– for example, the popularity of the Punjabi suit or sal-waar kameez – these transitions cannot simply be readthrough a modernising frame, reflecting instead a rangeof ideas about appropriate and practical women’s dress.Tarlo describes the significance of ‘ethnic chic’ or ethnicrevivalist fashion in India embodied in the work of RituKumar, an elite fashion designer who sought to reviveIndian craft traditions and embroideries through herincorporation of them in her designer clothing and in herwork as a writer on Indian textiles. Tarlo describes thenew retail spaces in India associated with this ethnic revivalsuch as the Hauz Khas urban fashion village in Delhi. Suchspaces are now somewhat eclipsed by more corporate shop-ping malls which are emerging in many Indian cities. Asso-ciated with these are new fashion cultures whose exponentsare young Indian designers capitalising on a globalizedeconomy, such as Ritu Beri, Rohit Bal and Rina Dhaka.These designers are usually based in Mumbai, in contrastto the more textile-based fashion industry in Delhi, draw-ing on linkages with the vibrant Bollywood film industryand sustained by Mumbai’s rapid growth as a global finan-cial and culture centre (see Nagrath, 2003 for further dis-cussion of the Indian fashion industry). The newly liberaleconomy within India has also opened new retail spacesfor Indian consumers to purchase a wide range of clothesand styles.

Tracing these different but interconnected trajectories oftransnational British–Asian fashion charts the contours ofa transnational social field characterised by movements ofpeople, information, ideas, commodities and capital. It alsoforegrounds some of the themes about ‘modernity’, ‘East’and ‘West’, and ‘globalization’ which are debated and con-tested through the incorporation of different fashioncultures by consumers in the discussion which follows.

4. Methodology

This paper draws on material that was collected as partof a wider project on commodity culture and South Asiantransnationality.6 While the wider project focused on thefood and fashion sectors, this paper focuses exclusivelyon fashion consumption. The paper draws on focus groupwork with consumers of transnational fashion. This work

6 The project, entitled ‘Commodity culture and South Asian transna-tionality’, was funded under ESRC’s ‘Transnational Communities’programme (Award No. L214252031). The research team was led by PhilCrang in collaboration with Claire Dwyer and Peter Jackson and withresearch assistance from Suman Prinjha and Nicola Thomas. The projectbegan by undertaking an extensive review of a very wide range ofcompanies that were involved in the transnational fashion industry. Fromthis, we selected a smaller number of firms whose company histories wetraced in detail. We then selected a handful of case-study firms for closeranalysis, including work shadowing, intensive interviewing and participa-tory research. This involved fieldwork in Britain and India with five casestudy firms as well as some broader participant observation in retail spacesin both countries.

played a particular role in the wider project and wasdesigned to trace the way that consumers relate to specificcommodities in terms of their place in different transna-tional circuits. We use the focus group material to explorethe discursive practices that different groups of consumersemploy in making sense of their participation in this trans-national consumer culture. Focus groups are often used asa means of accessing the more-or-less public forms of dis-course that are associated with contemporary consumerculture (cf., Holbrook and Jackson, 1996). While the dis-cussions we recorded are clearly shaped by the modes ofrecruitment we employed and by the questions posed,the aim is to capture the kind of conversation that mighthave occurred among the participants had we not beenpresent. The London groups were made up of peoplewho already knew one another, tapping into pre-existingsocial networks and modes of communication. Thesegroups were recruited through a snowball technique, pur-posefully recruiting a small number of groups that wouldbe illustrative of their varied participation in transnationalconsumer culture in London. We were faced with some ofthe usual problems in recruiting through this method. Forexample, a group of British–Asian women invited one ofthe researchers (Nicola Thomas) to talk to them infor-mally at their monthly ‘Kitty Party’, but did not want totake part in a formal focus group. They were, however,happy for their discussion to be used in the research. Theirdiscussions were recorded in a research diary. A differentrecruitment approach was adopted in Mumbai where,for practical reasons, we worked through a local marketresearch company (Mudra Communications Ltd.) andrecruited participants individually. The focus groups weredesigned to include a range of consumers with varyingdegrees of investment in transnational consumer culture.Participants included those who we expected to be rela-tively ‘high investors’ in transnational consumer culturebecause of their involvement in the media and fashionindustries, for example. Others were ‘ordinary’ consumerswith no particular specialist knowledge or experience oftransnational fashion. This selection strategy was designedto reflect the diverse nature of the social field we sought toexamine, inhabited by a wide range of different peoplewith varying degrees of investment in transnational com-modity culture. All of the groups were conducted in Eng-lish, with ourselves acting as moderators, either singly orin pairs.

The focus groups followed a similar pattern in terms ofthe topics covered though as moderators we attempted toavoid direct questions and stimulate free and open discus-sion. Our topic guide covered people’s choice of clothes fordifferent occasions, shopping for clothes, wearing differentstyles of clothing, and consumer knowledge about whereclothes come from and how they are made. We also useda variety of visual material (including the images repro-duced later in this paper) to prompt discussion, asking peo-ple what they thought of the items shown, whether theywould buy or wear them and who they thought the target

Table 1The focus groups

London (L) Mumbai (M)

L1: North London non-Asianprofessionals, age 40–50

M1: Media/fashion employees,age 20–30

L2: Fashion College students, age 20–30 (mixed ethnic background, allwomen)

M2: Financial service workers,age 20–30

L3: British–Asian students, age 20–30(with Indian and Bangladeshiparents)

M3: Government service workers,age 20–30 (all women)

L4: South London non-Asianprofessionals, age 20–30

M4: Self-employed women, age20–30

L5: West London non-Asianprofessionals, age 30–40

M5: Small business owners, age20–30 (all men)

L6: British–Asian professionals, age30–40 (all women, parents fromPakistan)

M6: University students (lateteens/early twenties)M7: Fashion workers, age 20–30(all women)M8: Retired lower-middle class(former government employees)M9: Retired upper-middle class(former professionals)

8 Compare Marshall Berman (1982) on the experience of modernity in


market might be.7 This material was chosen from mediasources circulating within London and Mumbai at the timeof the focus groups, but was specific to each location. Weconcluded with more general questions about multi-cultu-ralism and social change. At the end of each session, partic-ipants were offered a contribution towards their expenses(£10 or equivalent) and were asked to complete a briefquestionnaire giving details of their age, sex, occupation,birthplace, ethnicity and place of residence. The same formwas used to secure their written consent to our use of theinterview material. All of the groups were tape-recordedand transcribed in full. Each group included both menand women except where noted and the London groupsincluded both British–Asian and non-Asian participants(including people of white-British and African–Caribbeanbackground). In total, we have information on 76 Indianand 36 British respondents, with further details providedin Table 1.

The use of two different recruitment strategies resulted indifferent focus group dynamics. We are conscious that theseare not wholly comparable, yet we feel that the discussionswithin each location point to valuable indicators of theinvestment different people in different places have in trans-national commodity culture. The ease of tapping into pre-existing social networks resulted in free flowing discussionsin London, yet the advantage of anonymity clearly aidedsome discussions in Mumbai, particularly in the sharingof experiences of family pressures and demands. Extensivediscussion with the Mumbai-based market research com-pany resulted in the recruitment of people who shared somecommon bonds, which undoubtedly eased the integration

7 These images included examples from the case-study firms with whomwe were working on other aspects of the project. For further details ofthese firms, see Dwyer (2004).

of the group during the discussion. The success of theMumbai recruitment resulted in larger groups of aroundten people which presented particular challenges in termsof moderation. While each of the groups offered very livelydiscussion, it became apparent in the time immediatelyafter the focus group that participants had other experi-ences they wanted to share. This more informal exchangewas enabled as dinner was provided for participants inaddition to their travel expenses. Insights from these discus-sions have contributed to our analysis.

The data were coded manually, employing the methodsoutlined in Jackson (2001). Working upwards from lower-order codes, we eventually identified three higher-orderthemes around which the following discussion is based:multiple modernities, grounding globalization, and appro-priation and authenticity.

5. Multiple modernities

In this first section we consider how the notion ofmodernity is mobilised and used by our respondents inrelation to clothing and fashion. We argue against thenotion that modernity is a uniquely Western experience,using the focus group material to demonstrate the multiplemodernities that can be witnessed in London and Mum-bai.8 By drawing on our respondents’ discussions of theirclothing practices we challenge the idea that modernizationin India can be equated with a simple process of ‘Western-ization’, demonstrating instead that social change occurs atan uneven rate and is subject to constant disruptions andperiodic reversals. Evidence from our focus groups alsochallenges an identification of the ‘East’ (India, Mumbai)with tradition and the ‘West’ (Britain, London) withmodernity. Rather, we argue, more complex and multiplemodernities can be identified in each place. A similar argu-ment has been made by Walton-Roberts and Pratt (2005)on the basis of their research with Non-Resident Indiansin Canada and Britain. Our evidence also supports MilesOgborn’s argument that it is not enough to think of differ-ent modernities in different places but that modernities aremade ‘‘in the relationships between places and across

spaces’’ (1998, p. 19).The notion of Westernization that emerged in most

groups was a complex one, challenging the arrogant equa-tion of the ‘West’ with modernity and the ‘East’ with tradi-tion. A group of University students in Mumbai (M6)insisted that their cousins living overseas were more tradi-tional in terms of dress than them because, nowadays, ‘‘youcan get everything in Mumbai’’.9 Young women in thefashion industry were also adamant that their relatives in

Paris, Petersburg and New York.9 This argument is also familiar from movies such as Bhaji on the Beach

directed by Gurinder Chadha, 1993, where the fashion-sense of British-born Indians is contrasted unfavourably with their relatives ‘back home’in India.

Table 2‘‘Nowadays . . .’’ as a symbol of modernity in Mumbai

‘‘Nowadays . . . people wear jeans and kurtas. . ., both husband andwife work . . . and every house has a PC’’ (M3).‘‘Nowadays even forplaying dandiya [dance associated with Hindu festival Navratri]people wear jeans and kurtas instead of ghagra choli.’’ (M3)

‘‘Nowadays, even elderly ladies are wearing Western outfits’’ (M4)‘‘Kids nowadays want the same style as in the movies’’ (M7)‘‘People nowadays are more aware. . . Nowadays working women are

well aware’’ (M7)‘‘Nowadays, children are studying software [in order] to work abroad’’

(M9)


the UK were very much behind the trends in India (M7).10

Members of another London-based group recalled how‘‘they’re more clued up’’ in India and Pakistan than inBritain:

‘‘We never knew what the fashions were in Pakistanor India, and suddenly we’re five years behind them,we’re wearing something they wore five years ago andyou go over there and you feel, ‘Oh my God, I’m outof fashion’’’ (L6).

In their research with Non-Resident Indians in Canada andBritain, Walton-Roberts and Pratt report a similar para-dox in terms of how the categories of ‘modern’ and ‘tradi-tional’ are deployed. Focusing on a single extended familywhose members had migrated from India to Britain andCanada in the 1990s, they found that India was said tobe more modern in terms of fashion and style, challengingthe popular assumption that modernity resides exclusivelyin the West (cf., Walton-Roberts and Pratt, 2005).

Members of our British–Asian student group (L3)described buying what they defined as ‘English’ clothesfrom ‘‘normal high street shops like Top Shop or Hennesor whatever’’ while ‘Indian’ clothes would be sent by anaunt, made by local tailors or sewn by their mothers. Mem-bers of this group sought to ‘‘keep up with what’s happen-ing in Bollywood films, what the stars are wearing andstuff’’, acknowledging that this meant they were ‘‘alwaysbehind what the style is like’’: ‘‘I’m always out of fashioncompared to my cousins in Bangladesh’’. The rest of thegroup quickly took up this theme:

‘‘The whole country [Britain] is always behindanyway.’’

‘‘I think British Asians are behind in what’s happen-ing in India, so we catch on in the end. My aunt saidto my Mum, she was wearing some earrings and shegoes, ‘Those earrings went out with the British’’’ (L3).

This perspective was echoed by members of a focus groupin Mumbai who worked in the fashion industry:

‘‘In fashion, we are not actually alike, in fashion they[in Britain] are behind. Once we see something in themagazine, then they come to know about it. ForIndian clothes they are very much behind. They don’tget all the Indian fashion clothes there. Like in Lon-don, you won’t get the latest. They are actually notaware of what is going on here’’ (M7)

In our Indian focus groups, the modernity of Mumbai wasfrequently signalled by use of the phrase ‘‘Nowadays. . .’’which we interpret as referencing both inter-generationalchange (comparisons with a previous generation) and

10 Members of the British–Asian ‘professionals’ focus group in Londonalso recalled how their parents used to go back to India or Pakistan eachyear ‘‘so that we always got something that was in fashion over there’’(L6).

changes that have taken place as a result of India’s recentliberalization. Table 2 gives a handful of examples.

An initial reading of our focus group transcripts mightsuggest that a simple process of intergenerational changehas occurred. For example, returning to the London con-text, a member of the British–Asian student group tellsus how her mother used to make her clothes and howembarrassing she had found this. ‘‘Nowadays’’, she contin-ued, ‘‘well, at home I like to wear really casual stuff, youknow, just some like baggy sweatshirts and tracksuitbottoms and things, really comfortable stuff’’ (L3).11

‘Asian’ clothes were reserved for weddings and culturalevents. At other times, ‘‘normal English clothes’’ werepreferred.

However, a closer reading of our evidence suggests thatmore complex changes are occurring. The previous extractwas followed immediately by the following comment:

‘‘When I was younger as well, I didn’t like wearingAsian clothes. I was just like, ‘No I’m not wearingthem, I’m getting out of the house’. But you knowsince I’ve become like older, like 17, 18, then Ithought it’s fine’’ (L3).

Another respondent, while remarking that ‘‘in our family,you will never see the grandparents in western clothes’’,noted that her mother had quickly adopted Westernclothes when she first arrived in Britain, partly for prag-matic reasons (because of the weather) and partly becauseof her desire to ‘fit in’: ‘‘she was trying to find a job andeverything, and she thought she had to fit in, so she startedbuying Western clothes’’. More recently, however, thissame respondent continued: ‘‘she’s more settled in at herworkplace, everyone knows what she’s like, everyone ismore culturally aware about religions and culture, so occa-sionally she will go in wearing traditional clothing.’’ Therespondent referred to her mother’s changing clothingpractices as a ‘progression’. On closer examination, how-ever, the changes she reports are far less one-directional:

11 In Mumbai, a reverse logic was applied with ‘Asian’ clothing describedas more comfortable and easy to wear, particularly among older women.Among younger women, ‘traditional’ clothing was usually reserved forspecial occasions such as poojas [ceremonies], weddings and other festivals(M9).


‘‘My Mum, I think she’s had a progression. When shefirst came here, well in Bangladesh, she’d just wear asari, nearly all the time, and then when she came hereshe started [to wear] salwaar kameez and now shewears English clothes most of the time and sometimesshe’ll wear a sari if it’s really, really special occasions,if we’ve got a guest coming over or if we’re going tosomeone’s house, she’ll wear a sari or perhaps a sal-waar kameez and in the summer she might wear sal-waar kameez more often, but in the winter she’salways wearing western clothes’’ (L3).

This same respondent felt that she, too, might occasionallywear ‘traditional’ clothes to work once she had graduated,depending on where she was working. Members of the Brit-ish–Asian professionals group also remember being verywary of ‘Asian’ clothes when they were younger (L6). Theirreasons varied, from feeling ‘‘a bit false’’ to the lack of suit-able retail outlets: ‘‘in our time, when we were kids, youcouldn’t really buy nice Asian fashion [in London]. . . Evenin the early 80s there was no like sign of a boutique, anAsian boutique’’. All that was available, according to thisinformant, was a lot of fabric shops selling ‘‘rejects fromPakistan and India’’.

An understanding of inter-generational change must beset alongside the wider changes taking place in the British–Asian fashion scene. For an earlier generation, there wereclearly problems locating what they regarded as fashion-able ‘Asian’ clothing in London. As one member of theBritish–Asian professionals group suggested:

‘‘I think it’s a good thing now, we’ve got older andpeople our age are probably running their own busi-nesses and this kind of thing, because they under-stand more what we want’’ (L6).

But when preparing for their weddings, two members ofthis group had decided against using these new British–Asian fashion businesses, describing them as ‘‘run out ofthe garage with a fax machine to India’’. Instead, theyhad visited Pakistan to source their wedding clothes, takingup to two weeks holiday to make the necessary arrange-ments. Saving money was a key factor in this decision, con-sidering the number of different outfits required for thevarious ceremonies and social occasions associated withtraditional Muslim weddings. During our fieldwork in In-dia we encountered Asian visitors from the US and theUK in all the upmarket shopping centres in Delhi andMumbai that we visited. All of them were shopping forwedding outfits. It was also clear that many designer fash-ion shops were orientating their marketing (through web-sites and catalogues) to this non-resident Indian (NRI)market (see Walton-Roberts, 2004 for further discussionof the significance of NRIs in the Indian economy).

Such practices were commented on by groups in Mum-bai, often in terms of the economies that their relativeswould make sourcing their clothing in India: ‘‘Out therethings are very expensive. The saris that we buy here for

Rs. 200/- over there we would get for £90 which is veryexpensive’’ (M1). The same group also commented on thewider choices available and the higher quality work, partic-ularly for the heavily embroidered wedding clothing orother celebration clothes.

‘‘Like this zardosi [gold thread embroidery] work,that is such a heavy work, which is mainly used forwedding work.’’‘‘You won’t get all this work abroad.’’‘‘Over there, there are social gatherings every month,they want Indian clothes.’’‘‘They want Indian clothes around Diwali.’’‘‘Not only Diwali, I have a cousin who want Indianclothes for any social gathering.’’‘‘They are ready to spend money. They come here forholidays and spend.’’ (M7)

The Mumbai University student group commented thattheir cousins living outside India were ‘more Indian thanus’ and were more likely to buy traditional clothing whenthey visited India, or request that it be sent to them:

‘‘I have a cousin and she was born abroad but stillloves all this traditional Indian stuff. She takes ithome. . .. You would not believe the majority of mycousins, they come over and they buy Indian clothes,lots and lots of them and take them back, not just onebag, but two bags, three bags!’’‘‘Do they buy things which you would consider to be

very trendy?’’

‘‘No they buy the most traditional ones. When mycousin comes she will buy something which is totallytraditional which I would never buy’’ (M6).

While in Mumbai one group suggested it would be accept-able to wear Western dress to an evening function during awedding, it was largely agreed that ‘traditional’ dress wasmost appropriate. Wearing ‘Western’ clothing at such spe-cial occasions would mean being ignored or socially ex-cluded (M4). For University students who wore western‘casuals’ the majority of the time, weddings continued tobe an occasion where ‘traditional dress’ was the onlyacceptable option. Some cited social pressure to conform:‘‘They [family members] will embarrass you if you go wear-ing jeans and a tee-shirt’’ (M6). Similarly, in London, amember of the British–Asian professional group remem-bered wearing jeans to a wedding while she was a teenagerand being stared at: ‘‘Did they think you were the cleaner?’’(L6).

A general acceptance of the prevalence of wearing wes-tern clothes dominated our Mumbai focus group discus-sions, with all groups commenting on the widespreadadoption of western clothing practices. The groups quicklyset up a distinction between wearing what they termed‘westerns’, opposed to clothes which were discussedaccording to specific names such as sari, kurta or more gen-erally ‘Indian’. The discourse of ‘westerns’ versus ‘Indian’clothing styles was common in early discussions, but the


binary became more unsettled as clothing became situatedin the context of participants’ discussion of their practices.Given that male clothing trends have reflected westernstyles for many years (with trousers and shirts being com-monplace outside the home), much of the discussion ofrecent changes and trends revolved around shifts inwomen’s clothing. While a member of one of the retiredgroups in Mumbai thought that Western clothing styleshad taken over and that exposure to foreign influencesmeant that ‘‘girls want to wear western outfits not saris. . . with skirts up to their thighs’’ (M8), this was not a com-mon reaction, but pointed to an anxiety that echoed inother groups. This was often couched in terms of changesin wearing different styles of ‘Indian’ dress, and morerecent adoption of ‘western’ clothing styles. Despite theapparent acceptance of ‘western’ clothes or more ‘modern’Indian styles, there were some undercurrents whichreflected the contested nature of such clothing practices.These were particularly articulated by one group of womenwho shared their families’ responses to their clothingchoices, particularly drawing attention to the control thatothers exerted over their dressed bodies;

‘‘In my caste we are not even allowed to wear dresses,when I started wearing dresses I was criticised’’‘‘What kind of dress do you mean?’’

‘‘Salwaar kameez, but then I was supposed to wear asari’’‘‘After marriage you should wear a sari’’‘‘I went out of the way, I was criticised in this society,I don’t wear them [saris] and now everyone is wearinga salwaar kameez’’[Group laughter] (M4)

This exchange was readily appreciated by others in thegroup. Indeed the shift towards women commonly wearinga salwaar kameez in place of a sari (even after marriage)was widely commented on as one of the key changes in wo-men’s clothing practices that went across all the ages of ourgroup’s experiences. It should not be assumed that theseare particularly recent changes. Indeed this type of conver-sation was also developed in a group of retired partici-pants, one of whom noted: ‘‘Before my marriage I waswearing western outfits and salwaar kameez, but after mar-riage my in-laws said you have to wear a sari’’ (M8). AsBanerjee and Miller (2003) illustrate for many women inIndia the wearing of a sari marked a transition from youthto adulthood or from the freedoms of adolescence to theresponsibilities of married life although this sartorial tran-sition is now under negotiation, some of its associationsadhere.

For some participants the attitude of male family mem-bers to their clothing practices reflected the degree to whichthey could choose what to wear. The following conversa-tion occurred in response to an Indian fashion magazinespread that photographed a variety of fashions, some ofwhich incorporated ‘western’ style tops with spaghettistraps which were considered ‘extreme’ by the group:

‘‘Men like their wives to be very much covered.’’

‘‘Covered – yes!’’

‘‘They always say like covered up.’’

‘‘My husband is amazing he says you can wear any-thing you want.’’

‘‘My husband is not like that.’’

‘‘My husband is never telling me you cannot wear it,but I don’t, like, myself, I am not ready to dress likethat.’’

‘‘My fiance has been abroad a lot, goes there for busi-ness and all, and my in-laws are very educated. Theyare also into this, they say you can wear anything andeverything. My father-in-law is very good, he saidyou can wear whatever you want, he is from a verydifferent home, from a different culture.’’

‘‘She is an exception!’’ (M4)

This group of women were aware of the limits, and dis-cussed the nature of these limits in terms of family ‘restric-tions’. One woman who clearly enjoyed a more ‘liberal’household also noted the nature of the boundaries: ‘‘ I’vebeen given so much independence. Everyone has told meI can wear shorts, but I wear full pants, I wear skirts, butI would never wear shorts at all. I don’t want to go beyondmy limits’’ (M4). In this discourse of limits the adjectivesassociated with more liberal approaches are ‘amazing’and ‘good’, reflecting the positive value that these womenplace on their relative freedom to choose clothing styles.This awareness of limits was also demonstrated by a youn-ger female group, used to wearing western clothes themajority of the time. Whilst acknowledging that ‘‘these[spaghetti straps] are really common’’, respondents re-flected: ‘‘I prefer not to wear them’’, and ‘‘If you are in col-lege you cannot really have these on’’ (M6). The reason forsuch limiting behaviour can perhaps be found in the youngmale attitudes towards the same clothing style: ‘‘This isonly trouble, an invitation for trouble’’ (M5). The controlover female family members’ bodies was illustrated in afurther comment relating to a discussion of a sister wearingsuch an outfit ‘‘I’d warn her first’’ or ‘‘If she really broughtsomething like this and if she comes and shows it to some-one, it would be taken off her, there would be no point herwearing it’’ (M6). Similar concerns are, of course, notuncommon among white-British women as Skeggs’ (1997)discussion of working-class respectability in North–WestEngland clearly reveals.

These accounts of our respondents’ attitudes towardsdress reveal the complex ways in which different clothesare coded and the various distinctions of class, generationand social context that underlie their choices of what towear on different occasions. However, they also challengethe ways in which the categories ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’are constructed and the assumption within theories ofmodernization that ‘tradition’ is located in ‘the East’ and‘modernity’ in ‘the West’. What is evident from theseaccounts is a sense of multiple modernities, located in dif-ferent ways in different places. Even what constitutes

Fig. 1. ‘‘Quite traditional in style but modern in its colours’’ (L2):Response to focus group prompt material from Damini’s catalogue 1999(Copyright Damini’s, used with permission).


‘modernity’ and ‘tradition’ was debated. Thus, when dis-cussing the designs from a British-based Asian clothingcompany (Damini’s), the London fashion studentsdescribed the clothes as ‘‘quite traditional in style but mod-ern in its colours’’ (L2) (see Fig. 1).12

These discussions indicate that the codes associated withdifferent clothes have shifted over time. In Mumbai,choices about which clothes to wear, whether to wearclothes coded as ‘Indian’ or ‘Western’, reflect the negotia-tion of class, caste, gender and regional identifications allof which are negotiated within specific local contexts.13

Similarly, decisions made by British–Asian women aboutwearing clothes marked as ‘Indian’ or not must be setwithin the context of shifting distinctions of gender, raceand class. Our respondents reflected on the changing waysin which the wearing of ‘Indian’ clothes was perceived,comparing their experiences of racism as children withthe current enthusiasm for Indian-inspired fashion (cf.,Puwar, 2002; Bhachu, 2004).14

In many of the focus groups, participants adopted a bin-ary distinction between modernity and tradition, inside andoutside, surface and depth. So, for example, participants inMumbai would refer to recent changes in clothing (as wellas other areas like food) as being fairly superficial, withpeople’s core values remaining largely unaffected.15 Peoplespoke of having a ‘‘modern outlook, but traditional’’ orchanging on the outside while remaining traditional ‘‘onthe inside’’ (M1). Another respondent suggested that the‘‘Indian tradition is still there, just in a different way. . .the Indian mentality is still there’’ (M4). A retired respon-dent felt that many people were susceptible to Westerniza-tion when they were young but that this would change asthey got older: ‘‘When you grow up you should understandthe value of traditional things’’ (M9). More commonly, itwas felt that ‘‘People want both – Indian as well as Wes-tern, traditional as well as Western.’’ (M7). While thesecomments might be regarded as reinscribing an East-West,traditional-modern dualism, our interpretation suggeststhat they exemplify a more complex and dialectical rela-tionship, challenging uni-directional theories of globaliza-tion and re-working the categories of ‘modernity’ and‘tradition’. This re-working is taken up in the next section

12 For further discussion of Damini’s which develops this theme from theperspective of the company itself, see Dwyer (2006).13 See Tarlo (1996) for more detailed discussion of the politics of wearing

clothes that are coded as ‘Indian’ as well as the process of ‘ethnic revival’in India. See Thapan (2001) for a discussion of embodiment and genderedidentity among Indian adolescents and Puar (1994) for a discussion of the‘strategic’ wearing of Asian clothes by some British–Asian professionalwomen.14 The importance of local context is also well made in the case studies

discussed in Niessen et al. (2003).15 Robina Mohammad makes a similar argument about Indian fashion

based on her analysis of Bollywood movies (Mohammad, 2003). Shequotes the popular song Phir bhi dil hai Hindustani (‘still the heart remainsIndian’) to argue that, while fashion may reflect a range of ‘foreign’influences, the changes it signals are relatively superficial.

where we explore how understandings of globalization aregrounded in specific contexts.

6. Grounding globalization

Recent work on globalization has moved away from anearlier emphasis on the erasure of local difference towards amore nuanced understanding of the specific practices anddiscourses through which globalization is ‘grounded’ inparticular consumption contexts (cf., Mitchell, 1997a).Commentators have documented the way that globalforces become ‘indigenised’ through their incorporationin local cultures.16 Following from our arguments aboutmultiple modernities in the previous section, here we

16 According to Appadurai, for example: ‘‘As rapidly as forces fromvarious metropolises are brought into new societies, they tend to becomeindigenized in one way or another’’ (1996, p. 32). Compare Hannerz’srecognition of the ‘‘intense, continuous [and] comprehensive interplaybetween the indigenous and the imported’’ (1996, p. 5).


develop this theme by looking at how processes of global-ization are made sense of locally by our respondents.

Many of our Indian respondents were keen to emphasisethe modernity of Mumbai whether in terms of the fast paceof life, the city’s ability to absorb a wide range of interna-tional influences, or the increased freedom of contempo-rary consumer choice. Respondents felt that life wasgetting faster and people were becoming more Westernized,emphasising the ease with which Mumbai absorbs andadapts a variety of global influences: ‘‘In Bombay we canget anything’’; ‘‘Actually Bombay is the place where youcan get everything and you get a blend of all the cultures’’;‘‘Bombay absorbs everything’’ (M1). Within this themewas an argument that while a variety of global influencescould be found in Mumbai, they were also absorbed andadapted in specific local ways. We want to develop thistheme of grounding globalization with two examples. First,we emphasise how people’s clothing choices in both Lon-don and Mumbai are embedded within local cultural con-texts. Secondly, we consider how branded or importedgoods – stereotypical indicators of globalization – are sub-ject to localised discourses of consumption.

In all groups, the clothing practices discussed reflect thecomplex but everyday decisions that people make abouttheir individual and collective identity, their negotiationof class, age, gender, religion, in the context of the spacesthey expected to negotiate from the workplace, to college,to home and social occasions (see Guy et al., 2001). Peo-ple’s clothing choices in both London and Mumbai areclearly embedded within local cultural contexts, emphasis-ing discourses of practicality, modesty and style. In Lon-don, for example, a preference for ‘Indian’ clothing, fromsome of the British–Asian participants, was justified ongrounds of practicality and comfort (L6) while in India itwas also couched in terms of style or workmanship (M4)or quality and fit (M7). Notions of respectability were alsofrequently adduced in support of ‘Indian’ dress, such as thesalwaar kameez referred to as ‘‘respectful dress, verydecent’’ (M4) or as ‘‘simple, but wise and decent’’ (M7).Several of our respondents also remarked on the practical-ity and adaptability of salwaar kameez as suitable for manydifferent occasions.

Discourses of modesty were often specific to differentphases in the life-course. So, for example, a respondent inthe British–Asian student group reflected ‘‘it’s just whenyou get older you have to be more modest and stuff, in sortof religious terms, especially if people don’t know you thatwell’’ (L3). In this respondent’s terms the wearing of a sal-waar kameez signalled respectability and modesty. For theBritish–Asian professional women wearing western clothesin the workplace, issues of modesty governed their choiceof clothing, particularly regarding the upper body. Thisgroup rejected wearing ‘Asian’ clothes to work suggestingthat they were not necessarily appropriate within the pro-fessional environments in which they worked, but wouldfrequently wear them relaxing within the home citing com-fort as the principal reason. At the same time there was an

emphasis within this group on undercutting the significanceof particular choices as being marked as ‘Western’ or‘Asian’ but simply as appropriate or suitable for differentcontexts.

There were also some contrasts in the way consumerstalked about branded clothing in London and Mumbai.Within the London groups, transnational brands such as‘Gap’ were dropped as a marker, carrying a weight whichothers in the group clearly appreciated (L6). In London,brands provided status and prestige or offered reassuranceto those (often male) consumers who were unsure of theirown fashion sense (L5). Similarly, in India, young profes-sionals felt more of a need to dress in branded clothing,linking the quality of their clothing to their own profession-alism and the image of their company to outside clients(M2). The wearing of specific types of fashions or brandsas markers of group identities were clearly appreciatedamongst these respondents, with comments such as: ‘‘Leviattract certain groups of people’’(M5). The use of brands inmarking this kind of social distinction was clearly observa-ble amongst one of the student groups:

‘‘If you give me the choice I would go for Levis.’’‘‘Basically everyone knows Levis are much morefashionable.’’‘‘There is no doubt, no competition.’’ (M2)

While some groups in India were more accepting ofbranded goods (M1, M6), others argued that those whobought clothes purely because of the brand were wearingthem ‘‘with blind eyes’’ (M5), rather than being guidedby culturally approved notions of what suits them or whatfeels most comfortable. It is interesting to note that despitethe growing popularity of branded goods in India our fo-cus group participants were keen to present a more criticalperspective (cf., Lury, 2004).

Groups in London and Mumbai (L5, M3) both felt pay-ing a premium for higher quality goods was worth it, andin Mumbai such high-quality goods were often perceivedto be ‘international’ or ‘branded’ ones. Where internationalgoods (such as Levi jeans, or cosmetics such as Revlon)were preferred to Indian brands, the choice was often jus-tified in practical terms as more ‘‘durable’’ (M2, M6) orof better quality (M3, M8). Respondents commented onthe improved quality of the material and the ‘‘finish’’ ofgarments. Here, international branded goods required lessgeneral repairing to buttons and dropped stitches and thecolour-fast nature of the dye resulted in less fading (M4,M8). Many of the respondents in Mumbai noted theyhad received goods from family living overseas in the past,but Mumbai was now seen to offer consumers all theyneeded: ‘‘It’s not the question of getting somethingimported. I’d say even here we get everything that youwant’’ (M1). While everything may be available in Mum-bai, several groups noted the expense of internationalgoods, particularly in association with specific spaces asso-ciated with the easy availability of international goods suchas the shopping mall Herra Panna (‘‘everyone cannot

17 We recognise that ‘hybridity’ is a complex and contested term. Forsome authors (e.g., Young, 1995), the term has deeply colonial resonances.For others (e.g., Mitchell, 1997b), the term is a dubious form of ‘hype’ thatconceals a very superficial engagement with multi-culturalism. For othersagain (e.g., Whatmore, 2002), the term signals a welcome transcendance ofbinary thinking.18 On the politics of the new Asian dance music, see Sharma (1996) and

Hyder (2004). The latter has a particularly useful discussion of thenegotiation of difference, the marketing of the exotic and the burden ofrepresentation in British–Asian dance music.19 Respondents were shown a variety of images, designed to illustrate a

wide range of transnationalities (including sourcing, styling and market-ing). Some of these images (including those included here) were drawnfrom the case-study firms with which we were working on the project.


afford there’’ M3) and new department stores such asShoppers Stop. An awareness of paying the price of inter-national brands versus similar Indian-made goods wasillustrated in discussions of buying goods on ‘FashionStreet’, a place where hawkers and market stalls offer allstyles of clothing:

‘‘In Fashion Street the quality of jeans is not similarto that of branded jeans. They are rough. Its pricewould be Rs. 110 instead of 500–600. . . Ordinarybrands cost Rs. 800–Rs. 1000’’. (M2)‘‘The clothes which are sold there are good for use forcasual wear, like colleges and offices. For marriagesand parties we cannot wear them’’. (M3)‘‘The price is very cheap there’’. (M3)

For others, the shops and market stalls on the BandraLinking Road and Santa Cruz Cross Roads offered oppor-tunities for buying imported goods, western and Indianclothing styles. Unlike the new fixed price departmentstores such as Shoppers Stop, respondents noted they couldbargain for purchases on the Linking Road and CrossRoads, and get the quality of items they were looking forin their regular purchases.

Focusing particularly on the Indian focus groups, wecan see that the consumption of branded clothing by theseconsumers is marked by a variety of localising practices.While some groups, notably young professionals, empha-sise the status associated with wearing branded clothing,there is a shared theme which emphasises that brandedclothes are also about durability and quality thus makingthem a sensible choice. The purchasing of these clothes isalso done within a specific local geography of consumerknowledges. We would argue, then, that the focus groupsprovide evidence of how a variety of ‘global’ influencesare indigenised within specific consumption contexts andthat locally meaningful discourses shape individual con-sumption practices.

7. Authenticity and appropriation

Debates about the consumption cultures associated withtransnational fashion in Britain and India are frequentlyframed around questions of authenticity and appropria-tion. Within these debates there has been a forceful critiqueof the tendency of white, Western elites to appropriateOther cultures as part of a ‘cultural logic of multinationalcapitalism’ (cf., Zizek, 1997; Root, 1996; Hooks, 1992;Hutnyk, 2000). In this section, we argue that British andIndian fashion cultures are inherently hybrid: a complexmixture of global and local influences including both ‘tra-ditional’ and ‘modern’ elements. By asking what makes aparticular type of clothing ‘Asian’ we challenge the essen-tialist view that sees cultural authenticity as the innateproperty of a particular group or product. We argueinstead that the meaning of goods is contingent on howthose goods are appropriated within specific contexts ofuse.

Many of our respondents, in both London and Mum-bai, insisted on the hybrid nature of contemporary fashioncultures.17 So, for example, members of the student groupin Mumbai referred to clothing nowadays as being ‘‘morewesternised’’ but ‘‘with a little bit of Indian taste’’ (M6).In Britain, too, the south London young professionals alsotalked enthusiastically about ‘‘cross pollination’’ and‘‘fusion’’ in music and fashion.18 Our respondents alsotalked about the transnationality of clothing, especially inresponse to the range of visual material with which theywere presented.19 Looking at the EAST catalogue, forexample (see Fig. 2), one member of the British–Asian stu-dent group commented:

‘‘Like these last few, they’re just, they’re not reallyAsian clothes. . . and I think the choice of model aswell, she doesn’t look exactly Indian but she couldbe, so I think they’ve tried to market it at white peo-ple and Asian people as well, because she’s obviouslynot your traditional typical looking Asian . . . butshe’s sort of Anglo-Indian or something like that. . . so it’s appealing to both markets’’ (L3).

References to hybridity should not be taken to mean thefusion of two entirely separate strands. Indeed, few ofour participants could distinguish clearly what made a par-ticular type of clothing ‘British’ or ‘Asian’. Talking aboutthe popularity of ‘Asian’-inspired fashion in Britain duringthe late 1990s, for example, the London fashion studentsfelt that ‘‘Asian influences’’ were being interpreted quitebroadly. As well as the more obvious indicators of thesetrends – such as David Beckham’s sarong or Madonna’smendhi [henna tattoo] – they drew attention to ‘‘the generalcolours: gold, orange, red’’; type of fabric: ‘‘lace andsilk. . .’’, and jewellery: ‘‘shiny, dangly. . .’’ that signified‘Asian’ influences on ‘British’ fashion. ‘Asian’ influencewas said to be about patterns and accessories, cut and de-sign, as much as where a particular garment or style origi-nated: ‘‘The colours, the floral, the decorative beading’’;‘‘the colours, just the way it’s actually dropping’’ (L2). Sim-ilarly, the south London young professionals liked ‘Asian’clothes for a variety of reasons: aesthetic factors such as thematerial, the colours; more embodied factors such as theshape and fit, and also associations with specific subcul-

Fig. 2. ‘‘They’re just, they’re not really Asian clothes’’ (L3): Response to focus group prompt material from East advertising brochure, Spring/Summer2000 (Copyright EAST, used with permission).

20 This exchange parallels the company’s own idea of its target market ascomprising ‘older explorers’ and younger ‘life managers’. For furtherdiscussion of EAST’s target market see Dwyer and Jackson (2003).21 For further information about Liaqat, see Dwyer and Crang (2002).22 A member of the south London professionals group used a similar

phrase: ‘‘It could be Taiwan or anywhere’’ (L4).


tures such as the 60s (‘‘like the hippie thing’’). All kinds ofclothes were described as ‘‘quite Asian’’, ‘‘borrowed styles’’or ‘‘sort of Indian’’ including skirts over trousers, croptops, and jeans with embroidered paisley patterns. Anotherrespondent remarked: ‘‘It’s quite Asian now I think aboutit . . . it’s got a bit of Asian’’ (L4).

Other groups also debated the ‘Asianness’ of particularclothing styles. A member of the North London group feltthat ‘‘everything is going chintzy and feminine at themoment and that is very much the exotic influence’’ (L1).Another member of the same group suggested that ‘‘they’restill very much Western cuts but with an Indian twist’’. Forthis group, at least, the ‘Asian’ influence amounted to ‘‘abit more flair, and the trimmings, and the sort of glitzybit’’ rather than any real concern about provenance ormode of production.

Looking at the EAST catalogue, one member of theNorth London group described the clothes as ‘‘a Westerninterpretation of what Indian clothes ought to be like’’,while another described the clothes as ‘‘an Indian look witha sassy slant on it’’, concluding that they were ‘‘a veryWestern design, but in traditional cloth’’. These extractssuggest that some consumers have a sophisticated under-standing of fashion marketing, not seeking ‘authenticity’in terms of geographical origin or unadulterated designbut looking instead for more subtle markers of culturaldifference. The following exchange indicates a similarknowingness about EAST’s target audience:

‘‘Middle class women.’’

‘‘Western.’’

‘‘Women who are looking for that exotic [look]. . .they’ve travelled, people who have travelled.’’

‘‘People who have got an interest in special fabricsand interesting textures.’’

‘‘Arty farty people.’’

‘‘. . . working women as well’’ (L1).20

When this group were shown some clothes by the British–Asian designer Liaqat al Rasul (see Fig. 3), they immedi-ately observed that they were targeted at a differentaudience:

‘‘young Indian women. . .’’

‘‘They’re not first generation – second, third genera-tion, sort of teenagers, you know, sort of 20-some-thing, sort of getting hip and trendy and they wantto retain some of their culture but to have somethingthat new designers amplify’’ (L1).21

The London fashion students felt that ‘global’ influenceson British fashion were a very positive thing: ‘‘It opens likethe general public’s mind a bit more . . . to other cultures’’.They were not interested in where particular clothes origi-nated: ‘‘Probably in Asia’’, ‘‘It could be Surrey, it could beanywhere, it doesn’t really matter’’ (L2).22 But they did

Fig. 3. ‘‘Complete mixture, completely different, like this is really slick’’ (L2) Response to focus group prompt material from ‘Multi-cultural MindMayhem Collection’ by Liaqat al Rasul, 2000. (Photographs by Gavin Fernandes, used with permission).

23 For an analysis of the cultural politics of charity shopping, seeGregson and Crewe (2003).


admire clothes that were ‘‘completely different’’ in designterms from ‘‘more mainstream’’ clothes, including Liaqat’swork which they described as ‘‘really slick’’.

Notions of authenticity were, however, prevalent in dis-cussions of cultural appropriateness. The London fashionstudents distinguished between clothes that they thoughtwere directed mainly at the British–Asian market, describ-ing them as ‘‘the real McCoy’’ and as ‘‘more rooted Asianclothes’’. The lack of branding associated with Indianclothing was also taken as a marker of authenticity:

‘‘With Indian clothes, it’s not all about who designedit and where you buy it from, it’s more to do with thematerial. Whereas with Gucci, it’s not about what’sthe material, it’s about the name, getting the name. . .You’d never get a sari with DKNY on it [laughter]’’(L3).

The London groups all acknowledged the existence ofdress codes or fashion rules, even where these codes werenegotiated or actively resisted. The London fashion stu-dents felt that ‘‘real rules’’ didn’t exist (for them at least)

and talked about ‘‘trying to catch a type of feeling’’ (L2).This group also stressed the difference between seeingclothes on a mannequin and actually wearing them (‘‘dress-ing up’’ and ‘‘twirling round’’), where questions of embodi-ment also came to the fore ‘‘Yeah, it’s nice’’, onerespondent said when looking at the EAST catalogue,‘‘but I haven’t got a figure like hers’’. Because of their rel-atively high investment in clothing (as fashion students),this group were very much aware of fashion hierarchies,referring disparagingly to ‘‘mainstream clothing . . . veryTop Shop’’ compared to their own preference for ‘‘individ-ual things’’, acquired by ‘‘rooting around’’ for retro cloth-ing in charity shops.23 Members of this group rejected ‘‘thebig department stores’’ in favour of ‘‘individual little bou-tiques’’. Refusing the ‘‘fashion victim’’ label, they werekeen to negotiate their relationship to fashion: ‘‘I don’tactually follow any particular fashion’’, or ‘‘I do slightly


follow fashion but. . .’’, or ‘‘I only really wear black’’. Con-scious of the social distinctions that are conveyed by fash-ion – ‘‘you can determine your wealth by your footwear’’ –they were anxious to promote their own individualitythrough the clothes they wore, even to the point of wanting‘‘to look odd’’.

In our analysis, therefore, notions of authenticity aregenerally less important than modes of appropriation inunderstanding the cultural significance of transnationalfashion. Perhaps surprisingly, in view of recent debatesabout ethical consumption, most of our respondents wereunconcerned about geographical provenance or mode ofproduction: ‘‘I couldn’t tell you where most of the clothesI wear were made’’ (L5). When awareness of the geograph-ical origin and mode of production was acknowledged, thisdid not always relate to concern around the politics of theseissues, or outweigh the importance of the brand: ‘‘I’m buy-ing Nike because it’s got an attitude, not because it’s madein a sweatshop in Indonesia’’ (L5). There were occasionalexceptions such as one member of the North Londongroup (L1) who referred to a company run by JemimaKhan in Pakistan which employed local women to makeexpensive garments for export, adding: ‘‘and I don’t knowhow much of the profits go back to the women’’. Later inthe same group, the following exchange also occurred, withan undercurrent of concern about the politics ofproduction:

‘‘Most clothes, I don’t know, this is my assumption,are imported in this country, aren’t they?’’‘‘Maybe designed here though. . .’’‘‘. . . but made in India’’ (L1).

These, though, were exceptions to a general lack of concernabout location or mode of production.

More generally, the focus group discussions centred onthe appropriateness of different clothes for different womenin different contexts. Some ‘Asian’ clothes (such as thoseproduced by Damini’s) were clearly thought of as for‘Asian’ people: ‘‘I just wouldn’t sort of feel right’’. Suchclothes were ‘‘a cultural thing’’ with ‘‘some religious basis’’,not for ‘‘any white girl walking down the street’’ (L2).Wearing such clothes without an awareness of their cul-tural context would be wrong: a kind of ‘invasion’ of some-one else’s space.

Prompted by pictures of Cherie Blair wearing a sari toan Asian Business Network function, discussions of appro-priate clothing practices indicated that there were veryambivalent feelings surrounding the wearing of ‘Asian’clothes by non-Asian consumers. In general, the culturalappropriation of ‘Indian’ clothing was not rejected outrightbut said to depend on how it was carried off and whetherthe wearer was ‘‘trying too hard’’ (L3). This view wasshared by the British–Asian student group (L2) and otherswho felt it could be ‘‘quite dodgy’’ for a white person towear a sari (L4) particularly if worn as a ‘‘gimmick’’ orto gain attention. However in other circumstances, theappropriation of ‘Indian’ dress was generally regarded

quite positively – as ‘‘making an effort’’, ‘‘a good gesture’’,‘‘there is a courtesy there’’ – rather than as patronising orinappropriate (L1, L2). These discussions drew attentionto the experience of one member of the North-Londongroup who recollected receiving a sari as a birthday giftand her efforts to learn how to wear it:

‘‘I went into one of the Indian shops to ask thewomen to show me how to tie it, and they were a littlereluctant first of all, and I said ‘I’ve been given thisone could you just show me’ and then they alllaughed and sort of did show me the pleats andthings.’’ (L1)

Although this respondent did not appear to have contin-ued to wear a sari, her desire to learn the practice of wear-ing appears to be the courteous engagement that wasaccepted, rather than the gimmicky appropriation rejectedby the British–Asian students. The crucial difference thatthese exchanges indicate is that how things are appropri-ated and used is more important than where they comefrom or to whom they belong.

Acknowledging that ‘Asian’ clothes were very popularin Britain in the late 1990s, members of the West Londongroup were keen to indicate that they didn’t mean kaftansor saris, but ‘‘beautiful cuts’’ and ‘‘quite subtle’’ Asianinfluences. For this group the wearing of ‘Asian’ clothingwas not something they would practice: ‘‘I don’t wear anAsian outfit on a Friday night’’ and some clothes weredescribed as ‘‘too ethnic’’, like saris that are only wornby ‘‘sad Western tourists in India’’ (L5). This group’s con-cern that ‘‘pitch[ing] up in a sari or something really in yourface Asian’’ would mark them as ‘‘weird’’ was a more gen-eral attitude commented up on by the British–Asian stu-dent group who asked: ‘‘Do they think it is patronising ifI wear western clothes?’’(L3). Another commented ‘‘I thinkpeople should stop being silly’’ when non-Asian respon-dents anxieties about wearing Indian clothes wereexpressed.

The exasperation this group felt towards those fromnon-Asian backgrounds resisting wearing overtly Asianstyled clothes reflects that, for some people, clothes remaina marker of racialised identities, despite other discourses ofhybridity in circulation. In discussions of what to wear to anon-Asian friend’s wedding, the British–Asian professionalwomen discussed their dress habits: ‘‘I really enjoy dressingup in English clothes, it’s fun. . . it’s nice and even to go toan English wedding I would always wear English clotheswith a hat and everything, I just think it’s nice’’. Despitethis group’s everyday comfort in wearing western styledclothes, in association with a specific occasion these clothesbecome subtly marked as ‘English’. Although the initialgroup focus centred on the enjoyment of dressing up, otheranxieties emerge when another such occasion is remem-bered: ‘‘I dressed up and had a matching handbag anddress and everything that I bought, it was English clothes,then I looked at everyone else and I though ‘oh my God,I’m over dressed’’’. Acknowledging that they would now

24 Tarlo’s comments are available on the SOAS keywords website: http://www.soas.ac.uk/csasfiles/keywords/Tarlo-Khadi.pdf (accessed 7 Septem-ber 2006).


‘be tempted’ to wear an ‘‘understated sari’’ to an ‘‘Englishfriend’s wedding’’ the group quipped: ‘‘you wouldn’t gowith all your finery on’’ because ‘‘You wouldn’t be invitedback!’’ (L4). Here, hybridity is marked not in terms of themixing of styles of clothing, but the subtle practice of mix-ing appropriate style to occasion.

Our focus group discussions, concentrating particularlyhere on the London-based respondents, reveal an under-standing of appropriation and authenticity which is lessrigid than some critiques suggest (cf., Hutnyk, 2000).Nonetheless, what we want to highlight from this discus-sion is the ways in which cultural distinctions are under-stood not through notions of origins but through howthings are appropriated and used.

8. Conclusion

Kothari and Laurie have recently argued for studies ofglobalization to include the experiences of consumers inthe South and to understand the ways in which ‘differentbodies wear the same clothes across global–local spaces’(2005, p. 226). In this paper we have drawn on focus groupresearch in an attempt to characterise the nature of trans-national fashion consumption in London and Mumbai.Our evidence demonstrates the resilience of local consump-tion cultures and reveals the specificity of their discoursesand practices. Our focus groups also demonstrate the per-meability of cultural boundaries and the existence of multi-ple modernities in London and Mumbai, challenging anyfixing of binaries of ‘modernity’ and ‘tradition’ or ‘East’and ‘West’. We have also shown that consumers in bothplaces have difficulty in distinguishing what is authentically‘British’ or ‘Indian’ about their clothing practices. Rather,we suggest, the most significant cultural distinctions (in thiscontext at least) inhere in the way things are appropriatedand used, not in where they are thought to come from orhow they are produced.

In analysing our findings, we have drawn on the work ofAppadurai et al. to trace the social life of things and theindigenization of external forces in the evolution of distinc-tive local consumption cultures. We have utilised Bour-dieu’s ideas about social distinction to illustrate thesignificance of clothing cultures in marking differences ofgender and generation, class and caste. We have also elab-orated a more expansive notion of transnational space,encompassing wider sections of society in London andMumbai than those who are themselves directly involvedin transnational migration. Our findings are therefore con-sistent with recent anthropological and geographical workon globalization which has moved away from linear theo-ries involving the erasure of local cultural differencetowards more complex theories of hybridity and creoliza-tion (cf., Rankin, 2003). Our focus group evidence demon-strates how a variety of global influences have beenindigenised within specific consumption contexts, identifiedhere in terms of locally-meaningful discourses of practical-ity, comfort, style, workmanship, respectability and mod-

esty, all of which are seen to vary over space and time,and by generation and gender, education and occupation.

Fashion is often regarded as of only ephemeral signifi-cance. Our analysis suggests that consumer choices aboutwhat to wear speak to a host of wider issues about the natureof contemporary transnationalism and the commodificationof cultural difference. As has been seen in our researchalthough fashions may change, transnational clothing cul-tures have been a persistent presence in both Britain andSouth Asian contexts. Fears of ‘western’ appropriation of‘traditional’ Indian-inspired fashions need to be set againstthis long term trajectory but also set against the continuousre-inscription that occurs surrounding clothing and clothingpractices. Our research with consumers in Mumbai andLondon indicates that traditions are never static, but contin-uously re-worked and reinvented, with the associated cloth-ing practices gaining a complexity that supersedes simplisticideas of ephemeral fashion. An example of the re-inscriptionof clothing meanings and practices can be seen withinthe contemporary politics of khadi. The wearing of khadiin India continues to be associated with national dress,although this is a contested practice, as Chakrabarty(2001) has noted in his critique of khadi wearing politicianswho are increasingly disconnected from the Ghandian idealsthat the fabric continues to symbolise. For some of ourrespondents in Mumbai the wearing of khadi on an annualbasis around the birth date of Ghandhi offered a means ofpublic memorialisation (M4). Our fieldwork also confirmedTarlo’s observation that the wearing of khadi by artists,academics and social activists is an indicator of the ‘livedreality of an alternative lifestyle, aesthetics and politics’.24

Amongst such a set of cosmopolitan elites in Mumbai, fash-ion led boutique shops such as Melange were noted as asource of superior khadi designs. In contrast to these morepolitically situated practices in Mumbai, amongst the KittyParty circuit in Pinner (a suburb in North London) discus-sions revealed that individuals might attend one kitty partygroup wearing designer brands, but attend a separate groupwearing a khadi salwar kameez. Here the embodied politicsof khadi give way to a different situated bodily practice.

Such practices indicate that clothing choices are highlycharged and deeply embodied social practices (cf., Entwis-tle and Wilson, 2001). Their social and cultural significanceshould not be disparaged. Set against the continuous re-inscription of transnational clothing practices, it wouldappear that new forms of hybridity are emerging that arebecoming more subtle as familiarity with different clothingstyles and fabrics increases. Our research indicates thathybridity increasingly concerns the performance of trans-national identities that are set within situated contextsand involve practices that illustrate the subtle art of mixingstyle to occasion. As we have sought to demonstrate, theempirical investigation of transnational fashion can cast

http://www.soas.ac.uk/csasfiles/keywords/Tarlo-Khadi.pdf

http://www.soas.ac.uk/csasfiles/keywords/Tarlo-Khadi.pdf


new light on the nature of contemporary consumer cultureand on wider issues of globalization and modernity.

References

Appadurai, A., 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions ofGlobalization. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Appadurai, A., Breckenridge, C.A., 1995. Public modernity in India. In:Breckenridge, C.A. (Ed.), Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in aSouth Asian World. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp.1–20.

Ashmore, S., 2006. ‘Far out and way in: London as fashion cosmopolis1945–1979. In: Breward, C., Gilbert, D. (Eds.), Fashion’s World Cities.Berg, Oxford, pp. 201–215.

Banerjee, M., Miller, D., 2003. The Sari. Berg, Oxford.Barnes, R., Cohen, S., Crill, R., 2002. Trade, Temple and Court: Indian

Textiles from the Tapi Collection. India Book House, Mumbai.Berman, M., 1982. All that is Solid Melts into Air: the Experience of

Modernity. Simon & Schuster, New York.Bhachu, P., 2003. Dangerous Designs: Asian Women Fashion the

Diaspora Economies. Routledge, London.Bhachu, P., 2004. It’s hip to be Asian’’: the local and global networks of

Asian fashion entrepreneurs. In: Jackson, P., Dwyer, C., Crang, P.(Eds.), Transnational Spaces. Routledge, London, pp. 40–59.

Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: the Social Judgement of Taste. Routledge,London.

Calloway, S., 1992. The House of Liberty: Masters of Style andDecoration. Thames & Hudson, London.

Chakrabarty, D., 2001. Clothing the political man: a reading of the use ofkhadi/white in Indian public life. Postcolonial Studies 4, 27–38.

Chaudhuri, N., 1992. Shawls, jewelry, curry, and rice in Victorian Britain.In: Chaudhuri, N., Strobel, M. (Eds.), Western Women and Imperi-alism. Complicity and Resistance. Indiana University Press, Indiana,pp. 231–246.

Corbridge, S., Harriss, J., 2000. Reinventing India: Liberalization, HinduNationalism and Popular Democracy. Oxford University Press, NewDelhi.

Crang, P., Dwyer, C., Jackson, P., 2003. Transnationalism and the spacesof commodity culture. Progress in Human Geography 27, 438–456.

Crill, R. (Ed.), 2006. Textiles from India: The Global Trade. SeagullBooks, Oxford.

Dwyer, C., 2004. Tracing transnationalities through commodity culture: acase study of British–South Asian fashion. In: Jackson, P., Dwyer, C.,Crang, P. (Eds.), Transnational Spaces. Routledge, London, pp. 60–77.

Dwyer, C., 2006. Fabrications of India: transnational networks and themaking of ‘East/West’ fashion. In: Breward, C., Gilbert, D. (Eds.),Fashion’s World Cities. Berg, Oxford, pp. 217–233.

Dwyer, C., Crang, P., 2002. Fashioning ethnicities the commercial spacesof multiculture. Ethnicities 2, 410–430.

Dwyer, C., Jackson, P., 2003. Commodifying difference: selling EASTernfashion. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21, 269–291.

Dwyer, R., Pinney, C. (Eds.), 2001. Pleasure and the Nation: the History,Politics and Consumption of Public Culture in India. Oxford Univer-sity Press, Oxford.

Entwistle, J., 2000. The Fashioned Body: Theorising Fashion and Dress inModern Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Entwistle, J., 2001. The dressed body. In: Entwistle, J., Wilson, E. (Eds.),Body Dressing. Berg, Oxford, pp. 33–58.

Entwistle, J., Wilson, E. (Eds.), 2001. Body Dressing. Berg, Oxford.Gillespie, M., 1995. Television, Ethnicity and Cultural Change. Routledge,

London.Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L., Blanc-Szanton, C., 1992. Transnationalism:

a new analytical framework for understanding migration. In: GlickSchiller, N., Basch, L., Blanc-Szanton, C. (Eds.), Towards a Trans-national Perspective on Migration. New York Academy of Sciences,New York, pp. 1–24.

Gregson, N., Crewe, L., 2003. Second-hand Cultures. Berg, Oxford.

Guy, A., Green, E., Banim, M., 2001. Through the Wardrobe: Women’sRelationships with their Clothes. Berg, Oxford.

Habermas, J., 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.Polity Press, Cambridge (originally published in German in 1962).

Hannerz, U., 1996. Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places.Routledge, London.

Hansen, T.B., 2002. Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity inPostcolonial Bombay. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Holbrook, B., Jackson, P., 1996. Shopping around: focus group researchin North London. Area 28, 136–142.

Hooks, B., 1992. Eating the other: desire and resistance. Black Looks:Race and Representation. South End Press, Boston, pp. 21–39.

Hutnyk, J., 2000. Critique of Exotica: Music, Politics and the CultureIndustry. Pluto Press, London.

Hyder, R., 2004. Brimful of Asia: Negotiating Ethnicity on the UK MusicScene. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Jackson, P., 2001. Making sense of qualitative data. In: Limb, M., Dwyer,C. (Eds.), Qualitative Methodologies for Human Geography. Addi-son-Wesley, Longman, London, pp. 199–214.

Jackson, P., 2004. Local consumption cultures in a globalizing world.Transactions, Institute of British Geographers NS 29, 165–178.

Jackson, P., Dwyer, C., Crang, P. (Eds.), 2004. Transnational Spaces.Routledge, London.

Khan, N., 1992. Asian women’s dress from burqah to Bloggs – changingclothes for changing times. In: Ash, J., Wilson, E. (Eds.), Chic Thrills:A Fashion Reader. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 61–74.

Kothari, U., Laurie, N., 2005. Different bodies, same clothes: an agendafor local consumption and global identities. Area 37 (2), 223–227.

Lury, C., 2004. Brands: the Logos of the Global Economy. Routledge,London.

Metcalf, T., 1989. An Imperial Vision: Indian Architecture and Britain’sRaj. Faber, London.

Miller, D., Jackson, P., Thrift, N., Holbrook, B., Rowlands, M., 1998.Shopping, Place and Identity. Routledge, London.

Mitchell, K., 1997a. Transnational discourse: bringing geography back in.Antipode 29, 101–114.

Mitchell, K., 1997b. Different diasporas and the hype of hybridity.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15, 533–553.

Mohammad, R., 2003. Consuming the Bollywood spectacle. Paperpresented at the Association of American Geographers’ annualconference, Philadelphia.

Nagrath, S., 2003. (En)countering orientalism in high fashion: a review ofIndian Fashion Week 2002. Fashion Theory 7, 361–376.

Niessen, S., Leshkowich, A.M., Jones, C. (Eds.), 2003. Re-OrientingFashion: the Globalization of Asian Dress. Berg, Oxford.

Ogborn, M., 1998. Spaces of Modernity: London’s Geographies, 1680–1780. Guilford Press, London.

Patel, S., Masselos, J. (Eds.), 2003. Bombay and Mumbai: the City inTransition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Puar, J., 1994. Resituating discourses of ‘‘whiteness’’ and ‘‘Asianness’’ inNorthern England. Socialist Review 25, 21–53.

Puwar, N., 2002. Multicultural fashion. . . stirrings of another sense ofaesthetics and memory. Feminist Review 71, 63–87.

Rankin, K., 2003. Anthropologies and geographies of globalization.Progress in Human Geography 27, 708–734.

Root, D., 1996. Cannibal Culture: Art, Appropriation, and the Com-modification of Difference. Westview Press, Boulder.

Sharma, S., 1996. Noisy Asians or Asian noise. In: Sharma, S., Sharma,A., Hutnyk, J. (Eds.), Disorienting Rhythms: the Politics of the NewAsian Dance Music. Zed Press, London, pp. 32–61.

Skeggs, B., 1997. Formations of Class and Gender. Sage, London.Tarlo, E., 1996. Clothing Matters: Dress and Identity in India. University

of Chicago Press, Chicago.Thapan, M., 2001. Adolescence, embodiment and gender identity in

contemporary India: elite women in a changing society. Women’sStudies International Forum 24, 359–371.

Thomas, N., 1991. Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, andColonialism in the Pacific. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.


Thomas, N.J., 2007. Embodying imperial spectacle: dressing LadyCurzon, Vicereine of India 1899–1905. Cultural Geographies, in press.

Vertovec, S., 1999. Conceiving and researching transnationalism. Ethnicand Racial Studies 22, 447–462.

Walton-Roberts, M., 2004. Returning, remitting, reshaping: non-residentIndians and the transformation of society and space in Punjab, India.In: Jackson, P., Dwyer, C., Crang, P. (Eds.), Transnational Spaces.Routledge, London, pp. 78–121.

Walton-Roberts, M., Pratt, G., 2005. Mobile modernities: a South Asianfamily negotiates immigration, gender and class in Canada. Gender,Place and Culture 12, 173–196.

Whatmore, S., 2002. Hybrid Geographies: Natures, Cultures, Spaces.Sage, London.

Wilson, R., Dissanayake, W. (Eds.), 1996. Global/Local: CulturalProduction and the Transnational Imaginary. Duke University Press,Durham, NC.

Young, R.J.C., 1995. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture andRace. Routledge, London.

Zizek, S., 1997. Multiculturalism, or, the cultural logic of multinationalcapitalism. New Left Review 225, 28–51.

Date post:	05-Sep-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	peter-jackson
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Consuming transnational fashion in London and Mumbai

Documents