英语论文网

viate from common, mass consumption. Similar to Nietzsche’s (1969) and Featherstone’s (2004) notion of the individual aesthetic self, individuality is expressed by a constant quest for uniqueness and otherness and the creation of an authentic, inasmuch individual, aesthetic identity. For this purpose consumers pursue different strategies to aesthetically escape commoditization. One strategy refers to the creation of distinct consumption activities by public display of non-traditional gender aesthetic items. Contrary to prior findings (e.g. Ourahmoune and Nyeck, 2008, Kimmel and Tissier-Desbordes, 1999) stigmatization is not an issue, as being different is the prime motivator for non-traditional gender aesthetics.

A further strategy is the creation of aesthetic contrasts. People create contrasts in their personal, individual styles so as to emphasize otherness. Furthermore, contrasts are created through the application of diverse styles to facilitate an aesthetic break from the ordinary. A third strategy relates to the individualization of consumer objects. Consumers either remove parts, redesign or olden consumer articles to distinguish themselves from the masses. Contrasting is also used to negotiate consumers’ individual place in society. Rather than provoking and standing out at any rate, they try to style themselves appropriately (e.g. not in tutu for opera) to contexts and occasions. However, within this context dependent aesthetic range, aesthetic individuality is emphasized through non-traditional gender aesthetics. By contrasting context-dependent with non-traditional consumption, individuals sharply distinguish themselves from others.

Three different indicators also support our assumption that non-traditional gender aesthetics are a highly individual rather than communal form of consumption. First, snowball sampling technique could not be successfully applied to recruit interview partners and respondents frequently mentioned the individuality of their aesthetic behavior. Second, to our knowledge participants did not participate in internet communities of male handbag wearers. Third, a lacking of a consciousness of kind (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001) became obvious in respondents narratives. Male handbag users rather emphasized their uniqueness and striving to set themselves apart from the masses. Based on these indicators, we may conclude that non-traditional gender aesthetics are a genuinely individual life project which runs counter communal forms of consumption in brand communities (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). When items, which consumers judge as expressive for their individual aesthetic identity, are copied or become fashionable, their aesthetic identities are endangered. Consumers, again, seek to contrast communal forms of mass aesthetics by seeking for the non-traditional. Interestingly, non-traditional gender aesthetics does not oppose social norms or communal forms of consumption in a resistive manner but rather seeks to authenticate a unique and distinct aesthetic gender identity.