After tonight’s discussion of the “myth of discovery,” I just couldn’t get one of my group member’s examples out of my head. The complexities of “discovering” any form of culture are worth really diving into on a deeper level. So yes, the Ugg boot is here and it’s ready to be dissected through our wonderful lens of social science power!
The Ugg boot was first really discovered by United States’ popular culture in the mid-2000’s. Even in California in our 60-degree winters, all of my peers would totally rock the boot. Everyone’s heal would be properly labeled “UGG Australia.” Yes, we discovered these boots in Australia and created them to fit our own culture, so totally hip! Yet in this process on discovery, we cannot help but dehistoricize the context of this particular boot.
Uggs were first worn by WWI aviators, at that time called “rug” boots. Later in the 1960’s, Australian surfers started to wear them in order to keep their feet warm after surf sessions. But it wasn’t until American surfers in the early 1980’s started using them that they were in the US. Further, it wasn’t until the mid-2000’s that celebrities started rocking them. But who needs all this history anyway?!
Through our “myth of discovery” of these authentic Australian boots, we have redefined their use, meaning, and belonging in the United States. Through this process of discovery, it is necessary to create a definition that fits the particular culture. For example, like discussed in class, the United States redefined the electric car to fit our agenda.
My attempt here was to parallel Wayne Marshall’s piece on the expansion and commercialization of reggaeton music. Similar to the Ugg boot, reggaeton has been widely accepted in the United States through “discovery” yet has been dehistoricized in the process. Marshall challenges the complex history of reggaeton’s origins to discuss the hybridity of culture and music.
What hybridity is represented through the Ugg boot’s history? What does it mean to wear authentic “UGG Australia” stamped boots versus its generic clone? What is so important about dehistoricizing commercial products?
It says POST BY AUDREY AT 6:40 PM, but that it California time, so don't be confused, it is actually 8:40 PM. That is all!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks to this video I´ve learned that my boots are¨fake¨.
ReplyDeleteWhen products become commodifyed and are used as trend, I think the objects lost there history. I didn´t know that this boots were used in WWI, and now even in the warmest places (like Puerto Rico, and as you mention California) people wear them.
In an era of reproduction, and massification commodities are dehistoricized. This in part because their value doesn´t necessarily relates to its historical value, but to the value of what it means to wear an original specifc brand. What does wearing these boots, or having a Louis Vouton? purse means, and represents? Consumers buy products because they want to say something with what they wear, and at the same with what type of music they listen to. Representation and the production of meaning, related to class... and power. Who can affords what?
The dehistorization of a cultural product coincides with the degree of its consumability. Most people when consuming a commercial product are unaware of its attached history, and rather consume it because it “fufills” some false need or desire. When a consumer purchases and wears an authentic UGG boot, he/she is purchasing and attaching value to the UGG status. Those who buy UGG boots are buying them likely because generic clones aren’t “good enough” in some way. Nonetheless, they are both merely boots. In our hyper-capitalist, consumer-driven culture, emphasis is placed on the commercial product to be an identifier. Those who have the “authentic” UGG boot are seen as more “cool” or “in.” The history of the UGG boot is an exemplifier of the evolution of a cultural product. It displays hybridity in that the line between “authentic”/inauthentic and “in”/”out” is constantly moving because culture is inherently a fluid notion. The UGG boot is a hybrid cultural commercial product. Even though it may be branded “UGG Australia,” there are inextricable influences which have shaped it to becoming the UGG boot. Dehistorization of a cultural product makes it safer and easier to consume, in that it has a wider audience appeal. I wonder how many owners of UGG boots actually know its history. As Marshall discusses, as a musical form becomes more and more commercialized upon entering the mainstream, it becomes more hybrid and inauthentic. However, it is important to note as we discussed in class, that all musical forms are hybrid to begin with. As discussed in the Fairley reading, reggaeton is tied to subversiveness and counterculture and the dance itself, particularly el perreo, is tied to larger notions of gender relations and sexuality. Just as UGG boots are encoded with a history that is often lost in the process of translating history to product value, reggaeton music and dance is encoded with larger issues of social relations which are often overlooked. Histories become obscured because just as there is a myth of discovery, there also is a myth of authenticity. When it comes to consumption, it’s the underlying purchasing power, which speaks volumes and serves to identify a consumer. One example I thought of is Walmart. Although Walmart is known to have sweat shops abroad and unethically treat its consumers, masses of people continue to shop there.
ReplyDelete(Nice post blog, Audrey)
With regard to hybridity, the Ugg boot presents itself as an agent that fuses both U.S. social culture and its need to incorporate new (according to its citizens) and super suddenly cool concepts into the social sphere. I think it's important to note that although Uggs fall into the space of the myth of discovery in both their usefulness and their stylishness. Although we are not the mecca of the fashion industry (but then again, who is?), our grasp of the boot simply says that we are "fashion conscious, fashion forward", and willing to steal anything that is tied to cultural specification, but we can mold it to resemble our generic definition of coolness.
ReplyDeleteTo wear the authentic Australian ugg is to say that you have no problems identifying the true, important and authentic foundation of this item and that you attach value to that. With regard to dehistoricizing commercial products, it allows them to be commodified more easily and to also have a lack of important original voices speaking against the commodification of these products. We typically think of things as important or having a large amount of value due to the fact that have a legitimate source and importance. When you take away that foundation, you leave that item in a space of confusion, lacking history and no true methodology for self-defense against acclimation to the new, exciting and culturally generic.
This is a great example of the myth of discovery! It is interesting to see how a new fashion trend usually starts with something “authentically exotic” and different from the current fashion mainstream. Designers, stars, and fashion companies do not always need to come up with some “new” ideas. They just need to dig into the fashion from the past that we may have forgotten or from some foreign cultures. When Professor Valdivia made a guess that, decades later, today’s fashion style may (re)emerge as a new trend, I had an example of boot cut jeans in my mind. When I was in junior high school in the mid-1990s, I saw boot cut jeans were introduced as cool, in, new fashion by stars in mass media. But my mum told me it was nothing new. She used to own many (to be more accurate, the “bell bottom style”) when she was young in the 1970s. Even though it was a recent past, many of us in my generation or the younger do not know the history of the boot cut jeans. Both the examples of UGG and boot cut jeans urged me to think whether the intention of dehistoricizing commercial products is a product of hypermodernity. People always have the forward-looking attitude towards everything in our everyday life. We want innovation, new ideas, and new technology. When something is advertised as new, innovative, different from the current mainstream, we may simply think it is cool and do not care much about its “real” origin and history. We just don’t want to be left behind. I tend to think that what people care more today is “here and now” and the near future rather than the past.
ReplyDeleteWhile Ugg was originally founded by an Australian, the UGG Australia product is entirely based within the United States. The myth of discovery of these somewhat rugged Australian boots is so integral to the brand's image that Australia remains a part of the name- despite the fact that it is the American trend that has made them popular around the world (I don't know about the actual numbers but I think it's safe to make that assumption). Interestingly, in Australia and New Zealand ugg is no longer a registered trademark and has become a generic term, but it is the American brand that is diligently enforcing the image of their brand as genuine and educating consumers about the importance of avoiding fakes.
ReplyDeleteOlivia, aren't Americans brilliant? ;-) I like your use of the word "diligently" because when maintaining an image and a commodity for a hungry consumer dying for an identity, diligence is necessary!
ReplyDeleteThis blog is great to the 'myth of discovery'...The Uggs is a part of the hybridity culture because of the style it brings to the U.S. society. It has engaged in Australia history for a while now, but once it globalize into different country it becomes a part of their identity. Now the authenic part of this only for the people who are born in Australia because trading marking another country style is non-authentic.But, who is to say Uggs are original to their style? Pretty no one except for society as a whole. However dehistoricizing is an easy way to commodify the product it allows people to adjust to the new look around. :)
ReplyDeleteConnected with our discussion of the 'myth of discovery's' relation to commodities, we should recall Marx's theorization of 'the fetishization of the commodity'. When a commodity is produced, the labor used to produce the commodity is hidden. In broader terms, the meaning is taken out of the product through the capitalist mode of production. Thus to add meaning back into these empty commodities, we fetishize the commodity, placing new meaning in it. Therefore we can read that the dehistoricization of the commodity is a necessary result of the capitalist mode of production. New-ness, and therefore the consumer perceiving a discovery, may be one of the meanings necessarily attached to any commodity.
ReplyDeleteWhat is so important about dehistoricizing commercial products? I think that's a really relevant and great question that ties in well with our discussion on authenticity. As some of the other comments mentioned, we are very focused on being on the cutting edge of trends. While 'vintage' and historical references can be cool if it's marketed as such, it's only cool because that period is one that is trendy and relevant at the time. Not because of what it previously represented but because of what it currently represents.
ReplyDeleteI think that UGGs are an example of diaspora, though not necessarily one with political or social implications. In "Diasporic Noise", Lipsitz talks about how the music of Queen Latifah is a result of diaspora traveling from places around the world, like Africa. I think that UGGs are a diaspora in their own right, but that they have lost almost all of their historical and cultural meaning. The connection that they still have with World War I has been completely lost, and as time goes on, they are losing their cultural meaning that they had for the surfing culture of Australia. Diaspora was more of a positive thing in Latifah's case because she was able to counter the negative images of Black women that were prevalent at the time in American popular music. On the other hand, UGGs have lost cultural meaning as they have been heavily commodified for American consumers.
ReplyDeleteI have never worn a pair of Ugg boots because of this reason. My youth pastor (RIP) was born in Australia and way before these boots were considered cool in the States, he used to tell me about ugly boots that he had to wear while attend his farm. Now years after his passing, I cannot believe that these ugly boots (Uggs are short for ugly) are now a fashion statement for Americans. I do think this is a great example of the "myth of discovery", for the history of these boots have completely been removed and the culture of Australia has now become a commodity.
ReplyDeleteI learned a lot from this post...I always thought that there was some type of history behind ugg boots but I never really knew exactly what that was. When you asked " What is so important about dehistoricizing commercial products?" I definitely think that it goes back to our reading by Marx and the fetishization of a commodity. In this article and through class discussions we talked about how when determining somethings use value and exchange value and thus becoming a commoditiy the work and labor behind that product is erased and forgotten. So when something becomes a commoditiy I feel that it also loses its history and what it was initially used for culturally so that it can become a valued fashion commodity in the United States.
ReplyDeleteI think the Ugg is a great example of the "myth of discovery", because I remember being introduced to this so called fashion forward boot during High school and thinking this is the ugliest shoe ever created. This basic but large boot has been use as way to claim a certain fashion status, for example in my high school I didn’t know one girl that didn’t own a pair of Birkenstocks and this was their way of saying I can afford a pair of $135 clogs that look like house shoes. Just as this $200 Ugg boot produces the message that one is trendy and fashion forward if they own a pair. This boot has become commodified and lost its history .
ReplyDeleteI think I agree with most of everybody on this post about Uggs. I knew the history of the boots being worn by Australian surfers only because I choose to educated myself on things that I am wearing. But I don't know the fact about the boots being worn in WWI.
ReplyDeleteI believe that as the fashion industry evolves alot of history behind the creation of certain fashion pieces are demolished. The reason being because of commidification. I think individuals get to caught up in the idea of trying to produce the materials so fast that the history is lost. The hybridity that is being represented in the mix between the Australian culture and the American culture. We are also mixing the traditions of their culture with ours. The when it comes to being authentic i fell most people will feel as if they will not fit in if they do not wear authentic boots or at least ones that look like them. Non- Authentic boots mean you did not pay the 125+ that it cost to purchase and there for you do not fit into the culture of the Ugg boots fad.
Honestly, I must admit, I never understood UGGs, nor understood why they were so wildly popular. If you ask me, they look like a dead animal on a foot, just my personal opinion, might I add. But it is really interesting to see the progression of the UGGs identity from a quintessential item of warfare to the latest, well not much the latest anymore, and peace loving item there is. Where did the assignment of this boot change? What is the process by which these boots went from tools of warfare to the boots of the sea to becoming the latest fashion icon, and how many times can an item be rediscovered.
ReplyDeleteCould it possibly be said, that the boots themselves have taken on a whole new identity than what they were originally intended for, much like the original intent of tang or kool-aid. For some reason, I feel like the UGG is not a case of hybridity, but rather a case of a totally new assignment of identity. Although, from the postings here, it does seem like most people have an understanding that the boots are uniquely Australian and American. So, if that is the case, then, we can say that the boots are the hybrid identity of a hybrid identity? Or maybe I'm just reading too much into this.
I feel like the Ugg boots is a hyrid between the Australian and American cultures. I feel that the idea of owning “authentic UGG Australia boots” is just another way for the industry to commodify a product to gain a profit from it. They commercialize the product in a fashion that makes the consumer feel that they are not receiving a quality product or the “real thing” unless it has the UGG stamp on the back. When in reality the product they are marketing isn’t the “the real thing” either. Industries dehistoricize commercial products to create a sense of ownership when they market their product to consumers to give the illusion that their product is authentic.
ReplyDelete