Cultural Analysis, Volume 16.2, 2017: Reviews

Heritage Keywords: Rhetoric and Redescription in Cultural Heritage. Edited by Kathryn Lafrenz Samuels and Trinidad Rico. Boulder: The University Press of Colorado, 2015. Pp. xx + 292.

The editors of Heritage Keywords: Rhetoric and Redescription in Cultural Heritage argue that because culture and language are always changing, so must the ways we communicate about our culture and history. Scholars must constantly re-examine how we use language and develop those findings to create practical ways of dealing with heritage work today. Reexamining heritage keywords provides a “healthy system of checks-and-balances" to make sure the definition of what is or is not considered heritage remains up-to-date. Likewise, rhetoric and the study of it plays an important role in “deliberative democracy." That is to say that rhetoric serves as a theoretical orientation designed to complement and enhance the quality of established democratic practices (12). Their fundamental purpose behind reevaluating terms is to acknowledge and listen to more perspectives as well as urge scholars of heritage studies to operate locally instead of the current trend of increasing institutionalization.

The main goal of the book is to fuse rhetoric with heritage, social, political, and economic practices, in order to advocate for positive change. Kathryn Lafrenz Samuels and Trinidad Rico, the editors, have chosen sixteen phrases in heritage studies that have been oversimplified by scholars and which also highlight where this positive change can occur. The editors define cultural heritage as an object, site, building, landscape, or cultural practice that holds historic significance which deserves proper preservation. Their goal is to reexamine the sixteen keywords in cultural heritage studies to analyze the function of those words and redefine how we talk about heritage. After a brief introduction, each chapter analyzes one of the sixteen keywords. How we study heritage and the words assigned to it provide a vessel for contemporary engagement that needs to include more consideration for multiple perspectives.

Divided neatly into clear sections, each chapter problematizes the words that other scholars oversimplified. In chronological order, the words include authenticity, civil society, cultural diversity, cultural property, democratization, difficult heritage, equity, heritage at risk, heritage discourse, intangible heritage, memory, natural heritage, place, rights, and sustainability. Each author(s) demonstrate the hypercomplexity of how the word came into use, its function, and the future implications of using that word. Each section gives context to the selected word including the formation of the word’s meaning, how that meaning has changed, and how the word may continue to change. Scholars in the fields of cultural or heritage studies, public archaeology, cultural policy or resource management, or historic preservation would benefit from this book.

The best practices to safeguard cultural heritage has increasingly been institutionalized with the greatest success occurring on the national level. Because of this, Samuels and Rico argue that since heritage itself can be persuasive, that the rhetoric we employ, which also holds the power to persuade, needs to be specific and accurately reflect the intention of the author. This strategy holds most true in areas such as social justice, public sentiment, international communities, and cultural site of larger significance. Additionally, the editors look at the rhetoric of heritage which emphasizes codification and the institutionalization of heritage. Rhetoric is their focus because it exposes the creative capabilities of cultural heritage. Ultimately, the volume challenges and critiques the established key heritage phrases to show their potential for change to reshape social relations.

Hoping to inspire institutional changes, each chapter problematizes global approaches by suggesting that participation on heritage operates best on a local level. However, they want all levels of heritage to be included in the mix so deliberate practices with international contexts in mind can generate the greatest impact. More so, studying the overarching levels lend the study of mass messaging and policy that push scholars to adjust their language but not necessarily cause the words to disappear. Rather, deliberate word choices matter and should reflect more ways of seeing. For example, Sigrid Van der Auwera examines the phrase ‘civil society’ in chapter two. She expresses the need to bring more attention to grass roots attempts at power and mobility within heritage because it has been taken for granted. To bring more democratization to the average person, we need more NGOs, or non-governmental organizations, to provide the bottom-up effects of local communities. Similarly in chapter 10, Malcolm Cooper reviews institutional change by the implementation of policy in ‘heritage discourse.’ Grassroots efforts, or the public opinion, needs to influence policy to reflect the ‘spirit’ of the social conditions. More contributions to the field of cultural heritage including heritage policies needs to occur on the local level, semi-free from governmental influence.

Some look at vocabulary in order to redescribe and rearrange words in a different light so more perspectives can enter the scholarly the public domains. For example, the first word, ‘authenticity,’ presents several paradoxes due to the taken-for-granted nature and the conflicting perspectives on what may be considered “authentic." Anna Karlstöm presents the plurality and multivocality indicative of this word because what some might deem heritage may not be interpreted the same way by others. An egalitarian approach to value all forms of heritage should take precedence as well as the acknowledgement of both material and immaterial, such as performance heritage. Rhetoric can help with community by hearing the concerns from various groups to bridge the divide through dialog. They want to strengthen heritage engagement, not split the global and local into opposing binaries in which scholars of the past few decades have been doing. More and more often, state and federal governments all around the globe seize control of how heritage studies operates to preserve and teach culture. Samuels and Rico challenge this view point to push for more local control over heritage preservation or at least for the local and national to coexist in mutual consideration. The face-to-face interaction of the local paired with the broad global discussions foster engagement from a plethora of diverse perspectives.

The volume speaks to the empty usage of some heritage keywords which prevents the inspiration and acceptance of new meanings apart from the hegemony. By questioning and decommissioning specific rhetorical terms, the conversation surrounding cultural heritage terms will fluidly remain in constant conversation which best reflects what the culture is trying to explain. This fluidity does not come naturally to the field of heritage, that is why it must be promoted. The “right" word may never be found. Take for instance Joshua Samuels’ analysis of ‘difficult heritage’ in chapter seven. He argues the phrase ‘difficult heritage’ brings to light important conversations necessary for understanding word choices such as Italian Fascism in the Sicilian countryside. The meaning both assigned and attached to words demonstrate the importance of clear communication involving the violence, embarrassment, or trauma associated with challenging or undesirable past events. When ‘dealing’ with difficult heritage, various perspectives must be taken into consideration to ensure productive dialogue. We must constantly search for the most appropriate can inclusive term that fits an idea for that time period. Through tracking transformation of heritage, more equitable and inclusive research programs can develop. No single direction can come to fruition; instead, all directions through the counter-hegemonic approach.

The rights of the people are also important when studying cultural heritage and rhetoric. Included in this are ‘equity’, cultural property’, and ‘rights’. In chapter 15, one of the editors, Kathryn Lafrenz Samuels, argues heritage ‘rights’ include alternative social imaginaries that demonstrate the capabilities of many historical versions of realities. Instead of one, monolithic reality, heritage sites should include many imaginative capabilities that expand human rights while also redescribing the study and management of cultural heritage. Alexander A. Bauer beautifully discusses the rights of ‘cultural property’ in chapter 5. The struggle between ‘national retention’ and ‘cultural internationalism’ governs policy and how we engage with cultural material. Ultimately, collaboration through long-term loans and other shared stewardship agreements will change the notion of ‘property’ into shared heritage. ‘Equity,’ Jeffrey Adam’s concentration for chapter 8, conducts a comparative analysis of sustainable tourism and their impact through an international lens. Tourism, Adam’s asserts, narrows the gap between income disparities; however, tourism can sometimes worsen social inequalities. To encourage less developed countries to maintain heritage sites, small steps must be taken such as basic management programs that represent more concrete goals.

Finally, the book addresses heritage studies meshed with environmentalism. Robert Preucel and Regis Pecos survey ‘place’ in chapter 14 by examining the juxtaposition of heritage as place and dominate heritage vocabularies. They conduct a case study of the Cochiti Pueblo in response to the building of the Cochiti Dam to bring attention to the importance of place identity to a culture. Similarly, Melissa F. Baird warns us of the word ‘nature’ in chapter 13 for ‘natural heritage’ erases voices from the past. Just as power resides with those who write history, the rhetoric of nature similarly must be pushed past the binary of nature versus culture. Instead, the two concepts must be fused together to ensure the sustainability of our environment as well as the dedication to counter-hegemonic heritage studies. Finally, the last chapter by Paul J. Lane draws attention to the concept of ‘sustainability.’ East Africa’s pastoral communities sell tropes of sustainability that reflect their ability to respond to and shape the direction of change while simultaneously maintaining their tradition. He ends with a call to action for pastoralists and conservationists to create new rhetoric of sustainability based on ideas of adaptive change and cultural flexibility.

Our vocabulary, or the language that we use, help guide us through interpretation. In this way, we see, analyze and experience culture and therefore act as a mobilizer. By way of illustration, Klaus Zehbe writes that experts and expert communities set the standards for language used to describe our heritage surrounding the phrase ‘Intangible Heritage’ in chapter eleven. To turn the study of heritage into a “vortex of intersecting, inherently incomplete, mutable relationships on various levels" requires more communication that generates new social vocabularies (194). The sixteen “binding words" do not represent a complete collection; instead, the selection symbolize mechanisms of change. The study of rhetoric including new terminology can stimulate alternative ways to interpret culture. For example, Cecilia Rodéhn, chapter 6 and ‘democratization,’ focuses on scholarly literature to warn against the constant flux of heritage without stopping to measure the achievement from past initiatives. Researchers need to cognizantly write about democratization in a way that actively creates heritage. By recognizing the power of heritage scholarship surrounding democratization, we can influence one another as well as policies, speeches, and others’ professional work which is a commendable goal. All the terms are contingent on the changing context of concepts. None are frozen in isolated impermeability.

Dodgerland: Decadent Los Angeles and the 1977-78 Dodgers. By Michael Fallon. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2016. Pp. xii + 454, prologue afterword, notes, bibliography, index.

The Los Angeles Dodgers have long been the IBM of Major League Baseball (MLB). A tradition-bound franchise, the Dodgers reputation for organizational excellence is burnished by multiple world championships, a national following by fans, and a sense of progressivism evidenced by their signing of the first African-American player, Jackie Robinson. Michael Fallon, an arts and culture writer with an affinity for Los Angeles, juxtaposes the mystique of the Dodgers against a time of turbulent societal change in his book Dodgerland: Decadent Los Angeles and the 1977-78 Dodgers. The premise of Fallon’s well-researched work is that the Dodgers played for more than World Series titles in back-to-back seasons. The team played to enhance the magical image of Los Angeles. An image the Dodgers came to embody over the previous twenty years.

The book is divided into two distinct sections. The first deals with the 1977 season and the Dodgers’ return to the top of the National League. The second covers the 1978 season in which the Dodgers struggle to return to the World Series. Fallon focuses his narrative on the lives of four men named Tom: the author’s grandfather Tom Fallon, the recently departed author/social critic Tom Wolfe, former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, and former Dodgers manager Tom Lasorda. This method allows Fallon to successfully intersperse tales of the cultural zeitgeist of greater Los Angles and America (Wolfe and Bradley) with tales of the Dodgers’ exploits (Lasorda and Fallon the elder).

Wolfe gave rise to the perception that Los Angeles was the epicenter of hedonism and self-centeredness in his famous 1976 article “Me Decade" (287-289). As the headquarters of both Playboy and the dubious self-help system est, Los Angeles lost much of the perception of purity it enjoyed in the 1950s when Disney and MGM embodied the ideal of the wish fulfillment factory. Fallon’s thorough reading of Wolfe’s work helps to describe the national perception of the city which Tom Bradley sought to change during his mayoral tenure (1973-1993). Bradley inherited a high crime rate, economic troubles and a police department with a reputation for corruption and brutality. Fallon provides a litany of Bradley’s accomplishments during the “Me Decade:" his reduction of the juvenile crime rate through the creation of several intervention programs, the economic package which created new business districts throughout the city, and his reformation of the police department’s hierarchy (244-250). Bradley’s work culminates in a successful bid for the 1984 Summer Olympics which announced a renaissance of Los Angeles as the cultural capital of the nation.

Fallon’s chronicle of the Dodgers role in the revival of Los Angeles is more nebulous. Fallon attempts to paint Lasorda as a man who differentiated the team from other MLB clubs of the time by resurrecting the “Dodger Way," a family atmosphere built on the baseball foundations of promoting from within, playing an unselfish team game, and sending players and staffers into the community as charitable ambassadors (111). While not all teams have an operating ethos of promoting from within or putting team ahead of star players, Fallon overlooks the fact that many baseball teams act as ambassadors to their communities, especially during times of economic turmoil. This topic was covered quite well by Dan Epstein in his books on 1970s baseball, Big Hair and Plastic Grass (2010) and Stars and Strikes (2014). These books especially touch on how teams from the Industrial North such as Pittsburgh and Cincinnati brought together communities being torn apart by deindustrialization. While Fallon’s personal recollections of his grandfather’s struggles to build a hardware business in the economically depressed LA of the 1970s is compelling, the tie-in between the Dodgers and the recovery is tangential at best. True, the Dodgers claim on the spirit of the city was always strong. The team enjoyed strong attendance despite some on-field struggles and a souring economy. Fallon’s grandfather looked to the Dodgers as a spirit-lifter, looking forward to an evening game after a hard day’s work (19). Lasorda coining the term “Dodger Blue" to modernize the team’s traditionalist ways in reaching out to fans no doubt helped this cause (229). These facts, however, do not make the Dodgers as unique as Fallon may hope.

The book is at its best when focused on cultural and political events. This is not a surprise given Fallon’s background as an expert on American art and culture. His choice of Tom Wolfe as guide is inspired and will benefit in a morbid way from the icons recent passing. Fallon’s profiles of Bradley, Lasorda, and his own grandfather also humanize the men and brings their stories into a singular orbit. One criticism is that the book is incomplete, almost revisionist, baseball history. Granting Fallon understanding that it is difficult to write dispassionately about one’s childhood team, there are still some glaring oversights of relevant history. Absent from the hagiographic accounts of the Dodgers façade of professionalism and class is the messy story of their move from Brooklyn. Walter O’Malley moved his team from a devoted fan base to make a windfall profit, devastating emotionally and financially the borough he left behind. Secondly, the building of the opulent Dodger Stadium required the forced relocation of Mexican-American residents from Chavez Ravine. No mention of either event makes the cut in Fallon’s book and one cannot help but wonder if the oversights are intentional or based on a lack of baseball knowledge.

Despite some misses, Fallon’s book connects well with the topic. Scholars of American culture will be well served by the connection of Tom Wolfe to the American Pastime. The prestigious writer covered many topics, but his connection to baseball, including a tryout with the New York Giants, is not as well known as his seminal works. The profiles of Bradley and Lasorda give the modern audience an opportunity to familiarize themselves with two notable contributors to political and cultural history. Finally, Fallon’s loving treatment of his grandfather’s relation to the team is akin to Field of Dreams. Ironically, baseball historians may be puzzled by Fallon’s incomplete history of the Dodgers in Los Angeles preceding 1977/1978, but there is still much to enjoy. After all, three for four is an excellent day at the plate.

Denis M. Crawford
Pennsylvania State University
Harrisburg

Words of Re-enchantment: Writings on Storytelling, Myth, and Ecological Desire. By Anthony Nanson. Stroud, England: Awen Publications, 2011. Pp. xii + 189, forward, introduction, bibliography, acknowledgements, index.

Storyteller Anthony Nanson put together a delightful book that centers on the convergence of performance and the way humanity perceives the natural world. It would be wrong to assume that each of the twenty-five short, previously published essays discuss this union when in reality Nanson takes on three separate matters sequentially through the book: the importance of myth, the act of storytelling, and the ecobardic theory that emerges from sharp storytelling shrewdness. Nanson’s concern is with those stories that arouse desire in the reader/listener and how that desire can be directed toward greater awareness of environmental issues. This is the “ecobardic approach," a new way of relaying information through the creative arts that maintains “the global ecological crisis through which we’re now living challenges postmodernism’s refusal to judge the worth of art in other than monetary terms" (92). In other words, it is imperative that the artist uses her platform to transmit important information, so that audiences are inspired to reconnect with the natural world, and ultimately to make changes for the benefit of the environment. While somewhat convoluted, Nanson’s purpose is made clear by the end of the book, though the journey there is not always direct.

The first section, “Myth," illustrates the many ways that nature is incorporated into traditional European stories like the Arcadian landscape or the legend of King Arthur. Nanson also uses this section to elucidate the basic components of a successful story. The second part of the book, “Storytelling," consists of a series of articles on the pitfalls and advantages of the performing experience. While containing stimulating insights into this artistic genre, part two seems a bit sprawling as Nanson incorporates personal narrative with reviews of other storytelling performances. It is admirable that he chooses to blend different types of writing in the book in order to illustrate the versatility of storytelling, challenging the reader to move beyond her conventional understanding of the category. Yet, the reader desires to find a home in the stories presented but remains floating above the scenario or fully outside of the experience. This is the opposite effect that a storyteller wants to have on his audience. Narrative cohesion is crucial for the reader or listener, though Nanson would argue that the overarching premise—an ecological awareness—is what ties the text together. This is true. Nonetheless, the reader must remind herself periodically that this theme weaves its way through the text. It is not always obvious.

However meandering, the first two sections prepare the reader for the culminating theory, “Ecobardic," where the essays are a little more academic and ideas fully formed. Even if the reader feels out of her element prior to reaching this final segment, what was once ambiguous becomes clear. The term comes from the Ecobardic Manifesto, formed by the Fire Springs storytelling group, of which Nanson is a founding member. Their aim is for a practical use of the arts, beyond the all too common assumption that the arts are strictly for pleasure, to show that storytelling—in its many forms—can bridge the gap between scientific evidence and interpretation of it by the general population. He writes that the manifesto “speaks to the coming paradigm: one in which postmodern respect for diversity is coupled with responsiveness to the critically strained relationship between human beings and the ecosystem we inhabit" (95). This proclamation is on point. For two decades scholars pointed to an idea shift that moves beyond postmodernism. One of the first to point this out was David Foster Wallace in the early 1990s. One particular contemporary school of thought considers the twenty-first century to be fixed in an assortment of modernist sincerity and postmodern irony, dubbed the “metamodern." While Nanson may not be a follower of strict metamodern concepts, he certainly rejects postmodern sardonicism, but gathers postmodern antiessentialism and incorporates a new sincerity in describing the human relationship to the natural world.

Nanson reveals that interpretation is more than knowing what the experts show, it includes an assessment and assimilation of this information into intimate forms. Storytelling can compress the divide and translate key issues into warm and inspiring language for non-scientists. It becomes evident that essays from parts one and two, like “Telling Other People’s Stories" and “Storytelling as Catalyst of Tolerance and Transformation," point the reader to the final ecobardic concept, but “The Benefits of Amateur Storytelling" and “What does Accreditation Mean?" do not. Yet, for the storyteller, and potential storyteller, these more practical articles may be helpful.

This book is written for scholars of folklore and storytellers alike, and most certainly the environmental scholar will find the text useful as well. Each group will find valuable information on the creative arts to broaden their interdisciplinary skills, specifically related to the humanities and sociological study. It is a sourcebook for those who wish to increase their applied and creative proficiencies, as Nanson illustrates the ways that storytelling can open an audience and enhance scholarly work. He, along with the Fire Springs members, wants to encourage an attitude change in the environmental humanities and creative arts. The push to unite the ivory tower with the general public is becoming a greater concern for many scholars, particularly for those who focus on issues of climate change. The purpose is very similar to that of environmental scholar Andrew J. Hoffman’s new book How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate (Stanford, 2015). At a time when the majority of participants in western culture have their faces turned town to their smart devices seeking an endless source of entertainment, storytelling may seem outdated. Yet, Nanson makes a strong case for the subculture and the methodology of utilizing storytelling for environmental ends. He writes, “The arts can help us orientate ourselves in time and space: to understand the geography we inhabit and the history that brought us where we are, to comprehend what’s happening here and now, and to contemplate the possibilities of where we may be heading" (95-96). Getting non-academics outside of the proverbial ivory tower to care about the scholar’s work is one of the greatest challenges in the twenty-first century. Communication must be clear when seeking policy change or widespread acceptance that will affect the lives of non-academics. Nanson argues that the fundamental nature of storytelling can make this happen.

The most significant negative critique of this book rests only in the layout. If the reader wishes to determine when and where a certain essay was first printed, in order to gain a sense of chronology, there is a continual flipping back and forth between the body of the text and the acknowledgements section. This can be tedious, though it is not a major problem. The benefits greatly outweigh this publishing glitch. Nanson’s prose is accessible and the reader who is open to new ways of approaching environmental studies will find this text useful. The philosophies supporting the ecobardic theory could perhaps change how the academic approaches her work in hopes of reaching a broader public.

Dressing for the Culture Wars: Style & the Politics of Self-Presentation in the 1960s & 1970s. By Betty Luther Hillman. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2015. Pp ix + 252, illustrations, introduction, notes, bibliography, index.

In Dressing for the Culture Wars: Style & the Politics of Self-Presentation in the 1960s & 1970s, Betty Luther Hillman opens an area of investigation that has been neglected by many scholars in the fields of political activism and cultural conflicts: fashion. This book gives a glimpse into the changing styles of self-presentation that shaped the politics, culture, and social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, while illustrating how culture and dress contributed to the conflict and turbulence of these decades. For those interested in the culture wars and the counter culture of these decades, this manuscript highlights changing style, self-presentation, and their political implications. In six concise, tight, well-organized chapters, Hillman employs a fashion lens to explore the political uses of popular hair and dress styles by participants in that era’s culture wars.

Hillman makes the case that beards, jeans, afros, colorful clothing, etc. became subversions against American sexism, racism, imperialism, materialism, and conformism. These cultural tactics were able to unite many of these social movements and Hillman successfully shows readers how self-fashioning became a central symbol during the political conflicts of the 1960s and 1970s. While other scholarly texts allude to the importance of cultural, social, and political movements of this time period, this is the first text to do so seriously through the lens of fashion and style as the main focus. Other scholars, such as George Cotkin, delve into the cultural history of the same time period, but through a consumer culture lens. Hillman, on the other hand, engages with a population that rejected consumerist practices. In this way, she brings a fresh aesthetic to old cultural and political studies, forging her way through the politics of style.

This 2015 text includes full photographic illustrations and extensive notes and bibliography sections. Hillman uses primary sources like grassroots newspapers, magazine articles, advertisements, periodicals, court papers and cases, photographs, and memoirs to fill her chapters with true accounts and examples, which help accomplish her purpose of demonstrating that fashion influenced the politics of the time. This fresh perspective into culture and politics gives us yet another lens to view these events of the 1960s and 1970s.

This is a true feat of archival dedication and a huge undertaking for any scholar. Her extensive use of archival sources makes Hillman’s book appealing to scholars and casual readers alike. Coupled with this archival information, fourteen illustrations are placed strategically throughout the text to enhance the reader’s experience. For example, in the chapter on hair styles, the picture captioned “A construction worker attacked a longhaired antiwar protestor during the ‘hardhat riot’ on May 8, 1970” does more than any words can do to show readers how the public felt threatened by longhair hippie styles (33).

The chapters move chronologically and thematically by social movement, i.e. Black Power, the New Left, Women’s and Gay Liberation. The book begins with a discussion of the media’s focus on the cultural changes in dress and hairstyles among white, middle-class American youths in 1964 (i.e. Beatle-mania). Hillman argues that hair and clothing trends in the second half of the decade blurred gender, sex, and class boundaries. Hillman then moves on to how styles of self-fashioning became political tools for social movements, such as the Black Power movement. This chapter argues that the self-fashioning styles of leftist social activists, such as the natural “Afro” hairstyles and African-inspired unisex clothing, advanced their political goals. These fashion choices also inspired conservative backlash against them. In the following two chapters, Hillman focuses on self-presentation in the feminist and gay liberation movements, arguing that dress and self-presentation as political tactic within the feminist and gay liberation movements. Women ditched their short hair and brassieres in favor of long hair, unshaved legs and underarms, and no makeup as a sign of their feminism. Lesbian feminists took this one step further, shedding their traditional stereotypical feminine dress and gender presentation. Chapter five goes on to explore the growing ubiquity of unisex styles in the 1970s. Hillman tracks the changing media reactions to this trend and explores how unisex fashion choices were often explained in economic, rather than political, terms. Lastly, in chapter six, Hillman discusses continued anxieties (post 1960s) over self-presentation as seen in court cases challenging workplace restrictions on dress and grooming styles. She highlights how men and women begin to challenge restrictions of long hair, facial hair, Afros, miniskirts, and pantsuits. In the epilogue, Hillman continues to ask important questions about culture, politics, and social movements, such as whether the social movements of the 1960s would have been strengthened or weakened if clothing and hairstyles had not been introduced into their politics. Questions like this one underscore the potential for further research into fashion and politics.

At the core of this book, Hillman makes it clear that self-presentation is a powerful symbol of change and what is means to be American, something that will be at the core of conversations for decades to come. This book raises important questions about style (hair, dress, self-presentation) as a central symbol of political conflict and urges readers to continue the conversation to the current cultural climate. Hillman’s compilation is an impressive archival undertaking that produced an in-depth look at cultural and political movements through style and self-presentation. Her research positions fashion as a key site of radical political change. This well-organized text opens up new avenues of research that will prove useful to historians and social and cultural activists alike.