Fashioning Enemies of the State: Investigating Sartorial Subversion in Soviet States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As far back as 1867, early-modern fashion has been the subject of harsh criticism. In his Critique of Political Economy, Marx referred to fashion as “murderous” and as having “meaningless caprices” (Marx and Engels 1967). The Soviet states certainly recognized the importance of clothing to reflect and inform its citizens of the preferred modest lifestyle. The main purpose of this study is to analyze two specific cases of sartorial resistance in two Soviet societies. Specifically, I will be examining the case of Allerleirauh (1980-89) in East Germany, and the Stilyagi (1940s-1960s) in Soviet Russia. In order to test the differences and similarities in the sartorial subversions, I will analyze a number of primary and secondary documents. There are four forms of primary documents that I will analyze: state-run magazines, periodicals, and photographs (both state-sponsored, and fringe), from the GDR and Soviet Russia. My interpretation— of the visual and textual responses to the youth groups who subverted the sartorial codes of the GDR and in Soviet Russia— has led me to propose two main speculative-conclusions. First, the responses by the government, such as the satirical cartoons of the Stilyagi, reveal the extent to which government officials recognized, and felt threatened by, the potential potency of dress to cause political disturbance. Second, the reactions of condemnation towards the fashionably-dissident makes salient the recognition that visual culture and semiotics in fashion, particularly when the body (as a sort of canvas) is implicated, can yield politically-threatening influence.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Historical analysis of sartorial resistance in Soviet states; humanities scholarship.
It analyzes fashion and political resistance in Soviet societies, not research.
Historical study of fashion subversion in Soviet states; cultural history, not science studies of research.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".