Category: 1960s

In early 2018, in the idyllic southern English city of Salisbury, two Russian citizens Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Yulia fell dangerously ill. After extensive investigation, the British government accused Russia of using a type of Novichok, which it said was developed by the Soviet Union, to poison the Skripals. Russia has vehemently denied these allegations and claimed that the Novichok agent could have originated in other European countries. With what may have seemed like the introduction to a 1960’s spy thriller, began the greatest threat to Anglo Russian relations since the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution to the USSR in 1991. It has been claimed a new Cold War between the West and Russia could lead to disastrous consequences, as tensions between Vladimir Putin and both the UK and US rise. I would argue that history is close to repeating the mistakes of the past by creating an impasse between East and West.

In the wake of the alleged poisonings, the UK expelled 23 Russian Diplomats and were supported by 18 European member states; the USA and Canada also expelled Russian representatives and Ambassadors. This coordinated effort exhibited significant diplomatic support for the UK in the face of Russia’s strenuous rebuttal of accusations and subsequently resulted in retaliatory expulsions of UK Diplomats from Russia.

The expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats from American Embassies, could be viewed as a politically overt challenge to the Russian Premier, Putin, and a return to tensions not seen since the Cold War. I would argue however, that the tensions in Russian and world politics have never really gone- that the concept of “Glasnost” (the Russian theory of openness and governmental transparency) was only ever a temporary solution to a centuries old mistrust between the East and West. That solution has been eroding for some time now, and my fear is that we are edging ever closer to a Second Cold War.

The origins of the first Cold War came in to being after World War II; the United States and Russia had fought together as allies, however, the relationship had always been based on necessity rather than comradeship. Russia had initially sought an alliance with Germany, however, after Hitler’s expansionism had encroached into Russian territory, Russia looked to be allies with the UK and USA. After the war ended, tension and mistrust grew; a grudging entente developed out of necessity rather than desire. The terms agreed by Churchill (the British Prime Minister), Roosevelt and Stalin soon disintegrated as post war Russian expansionist tendencies divided East and Western Europe into distinct economic and political blocs.

As Russia’s territory and political power expanded to be known as The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), Americans’ fears of Russia grew. Churchill expressed deep regret in relation to the terms set out in the Yalta Treaty, soon after its ratification, and recognised that the individual agenda of The USA and USSR would ultimately lead to future hostility. No single nation or cultural theory was entirely to blame for the Cold War- it was a culmination of historical territorialism, economic, social, ideological and political mistrust. Ultimately it was the disintegration of a marriage of convenience.

The Cold War spread, and hardened like a frost, impacting on American and British domestic life. This distrust spread across political relationships, leading to the disastrous conflict between the US and Vietnam, Cuba, China and North Korea, whose invasion of South Korea was backed by Russia. A temporary political and economic truce came in to place with the election of President Nixon who recognised the benefits of political and economic peace and attempted to reduce the threat of a nuclear war. However, after the election of President Reagan, anti communist sentiment became evident again. However, as Reagan “fought” communism, declining economic stability and political unrest, necessitated Soviet political openness, and “Perestroika,” or economic reform. The Berlin Wall and Communism fell. East and Western Europe enjoyed a sense of peace and economic prosperity.

Since the Salisbury poisonings, it appears that the Cold War is no longer confined to the history books and is more of a political “palindrome than a straightforward narrative” (1). History it seems is destined to repeat itself.

When President Trump met Angela Merkel in 2017, the German chancellor warned of rising Russian expansionist politics. German political analysts and the Media have expounded the theory that Putin wants to “go back to the good old days”. Putin regularly condemns the Northern Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), and has gone against their agreements and direction. He has used military force in Georgia and Ukraine in order to quash social and economic unrest against the Russian state and in the Middle East, Russia has intervened in Syria on the side Bashar al-Assad. NATO, as well as German, French, and U.S. leaders have expressed concerns after Putin announced that his country has deployed or is developing an array of new nuclear-capable weapons; it is a muscle flexing trajectory towards another war. It seems evident that the theory that German advisors told the sceptical American president back in March 2017 that Putin was “back to fighting the Cold War,” even if we in the West are not” has become a reality.

The concept of a second Cold War was signalled by UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats. Russia then declared via Twitter that “Cold War II has begun.” Will this Second Cold war differ from the first? History paints the first Cold War, as an era of espionage, atomic weapons and secret deals rather than traditional warfare. It is more than likely that the Second Cold War will be played out on Social Media, through computer hacking and on the Political stage.

The biggest concern is the reach and influence of Russian politics- the impact Russia allegedly had on elections; the impact on British institutions (Russian hackers are alleged to have crippled the NHS computer Network in Summer) and public safety which was put at risk by the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury. This did not only impact on the Russian Nationals, but one of the first responders, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, was also poisoned by the nerve agent as were two other members of the public in the weeks that followed- Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess, who later died.

The list of Russian Nationals attacked on British soil is ever increasing and constitutes a wider threat to the public: after the Salisbury attack, police found the body of Nikolai Glushkov, a former executive of a Russian airline, who was granted political asylum in 2010. He -like Alexander Litvinienko – poisoned by Polonium in 2006-had links to other Russian exiles who have died in mysterious circumstances in the UK. This is evidence that the cold war has never really ended and that Russian political schemes have never been far from the surface.

Prior to the Russian elections, Putin issued defiant warnings to the West, who he accused of trying to hold Russia back. This was a clear declaration of war. A new Cold War is exactly what the West could and should expect, sparked by the events in a peaceful English village. With the growth of political egos, “shows of strength” and instability in the UK, USA and Russia, we must see beyond the threats and accusations, and seek peace, reconciliation and unity before it is too late for a thaw to occur. Politics should not be about the rise of pure naked power. History teaches us we should have loftier aims, that democracy should not be forced into reverse and that we should strive for a better future- not to relive the mistakes and mistrust of the past.

Rod Serling’s 1960 ‘Eye of The Beholder’ from the series The Twilight Zone, and Charlie Brooker’s 2016 ‘Nosedive’ from Black Mirror, both respectively highlight how the science fiction genre emerged out of the 1960 American society and the modern technological society and projects into the future. Both films are set in a future dystopian society, exploring the dehumanizing effects of conformity and societal values. Serling depicts the strength of conformity during the 1960s American society, where society ostracized those who did not conform to societal norms and ideals.

While many themes are present within this episode, Serling particularly focuses on exploring how beauty is determined. Conversely, ‘Nosedive’ explores modern society concerning the unanticipated consequences of a social rating-based system, to provide a deeper perspective on social and socioeconomic identities. In both texts, a wide range of techniques are used to explore and elaborate on the common theme of conformity to influence similar target audiences but achieve different purposes.

While both films share a mutual purpose of entertaining their respective audience, they also communicate different moral messages. Brooker’s intended purpose was to make the audience not only question their behavior as an individual, but collectively as a nation, whereas Serling’s purpose was to make the audience reconsider their perceptions of beauty. Brooker may explore the murky relationship between humans and technology; however, it is in no way a criticism against it. Rather, Brooker celebrates what modern society has become and heightens aspects of real life within the film by offering an entertaining interpretation of the characters for a dramatic purpose and entertainment. This is demonstrated when Lacie, the leading character repeatedly yells, “F–K”, utterly releasing her built-up repression and emotions to allow for a bittersweet ending. In comparison, Serling demonstrates that everyone can recognize beauty and ugliness with some variation based on their frame of reference. He particularly achieves this through a dictator yelling indirectly at Janet, the protagonist, “We must have a norm…[and] conform to that norm”, which shows how Serling utilizes language to stress the audience about today’s pressures of conformity.

Audience

Determined by various factors and interests regarding the science-fiction genre, both individual films attract a specific target audience. In today’s modern world, the younger, impressionable generation is strongly influenced by social media, whether it be by the number of likes they receive on Instagram or by the appearances of others. While both films are targeted towards young adults, ‘Eye of the Beholder’ differs in the intended audience, as the notion that beauty is always changing can be aimed at anyone. This idea where every culture and individual has their perceptions of standard beauty, supports that the film can be targeted to a broader audience. Moreover, both films target an audience that can identify and comprehend complex themes such as conformity, which is crucial for the audience to understand how these issues reflect on their current society. Hence, these exaggerations of reality create a deeper connection between the intended audience, young adults, who would be more inclined to empathize and relate with the protagonists

Context

Both directors incorporate aspects of their period with an exaggeration, to deepen the impact on their audience. Today, the ability for one to curate not only content, but a unique persona, creates a cultural push and an incentive to portray an ingenuine life of perfection. Brooker takes this familiar approach to the next level where he conveys that technology has become a distraction from raw experience. He provides a palatable version of reality, that offers an easy way to ignore the deeply ingrained prejudice and systematically corrupt world, that most benefit from. In other words, Brooker conveys the notion that social media functions as a set of “rose-colored glasses”, used to fabricate modern privilege into a more comfortable reality and to dilute the awareness of the injustices that maintain the system of privilege. Serling however, makes a commentary regarding the 1960s, taking aspects of his society’s notion of beauty at the time and exaggerating them to reflect on society’s intolerance. His message of the film lies entirely within its title and is presented by Serling himself, “Beauty is within the eye of the beholder”, meaning the perception of beauty is subjective. Thus, Serling’s message remains as relevant as it did during his century as the notion of beauty is always changing.

Ideas and perspectives

A defining similarity between ‘Nosedive’ and ‘Eye of the Beholder’ is how they each convey their respective idea that social media creates an ingenuine but comfortable reality and that the perception of beauty is subjective, through the experiences of prejudice and conformity pressures. In both films, the female protagonists are placed within dystopian societies with great pressure to conform to ideals and norms. While Lacie is strongly adored for her high rating in society, Janet is feared and pitied by the doctors. Janet’s facial revelation and Lacie’s confrontation with truth are met with malice and criticism from society’s judgment, believing that these characters are the root of disturbance in their perfect society, and should be isolated and imprisoned. In a desperate and final act to conform to societal values, Janet tries to escape in hopes of another chance to treat her “grotesque face” and Lacie attempts to boost her social score at the wedding, “they’ll vote me through the roof”. Thus, attempting to win over their society’s validation, they both ultimately result in separation from society.

Language and stylistic features

The use of color progresses the films into becoming more realistic, warning the audience of today’s prejudiced society. ‘Nosedive’ exposes and elaborates upon Brooker’s ideology with intentional aesthetic choices to demonstrate the contrast between the naive contentment of “rose-colored glasses” and the harsh reality behind Brooker’s dystopian system. A range of muted tones and pastel colors correspond to the population’s dull sense of reality, whereas the use of stark black and dark colors, found only during the final scene, corresponds to the confrontation of truth. Alternatively, Serling shoots ‘Eye of the Beholder’ so each frame is filled with an ideal blend of light and shadow, shaping the reality of Janet’s society to manipulate shadows and provide an atmosphere of suspense and anticipation.

The intention is evident when the audience is presented with a bandaged patient under a single overhead light so that she alone is illuminated, as if under a spotlight. Surrounded by large overpowering shadows, Janet yells, “[I’m] grotesque, ugly, deformed…I want to belong!”, to which the doctor replies, “If treatment fails, we’ll move you…[where] your kind have been congregated,” drawing suspense within the audience as they have not been presented with any faces. Janet may not be ugly, however, Serling uses dialogue to influence the audience’s thought process to believe she is indeed deformed. ‘Nosedive’ however, provides the concept of choice between a comfortable but naive state of thinking and an uncomfortable but honest grasp of reality, which is often referred to using the analogy of a red pill versus a blue pill. The same analogy is subtly woven into the film’s dialogue where Lacie meets a truck driver, “blue thermos is coffee, red’s whiskey”. Naomi, Lacie’s childhood friend, later says, “Don’t come to my wedding”, and Lacie replies, “I will…you’ll weep your f–king eyes out”, demonstrating that she chose the red thermos which serves as a tool to push Lacie and the audience closer to confronting the deep truth behind the veiled society. Alternatively, Serling’s anticipating revelation brings closure to the suspense as the audience is presented with Janet’s beautiful face and the doctors’ deformed faces. Serling presents a group of deformed people, but in their eyes, that’s beautiful, demonstrating that when someone the audience perceives as beautiful is put in a place where they are a minority, they lose that association of beauty; it is all down to the individual or society. Serling’s manipulation of light and shadows presents the audience with a visceral realization that there cannot be one objective standard concerning which beauty is and is not acceptable. Thus, these examples showcase how the directors’ use of color influences the audience’s interpretation of events and looks to contribute to their opinions.

Similar stylistic features including dialogue and camera angles enhance ‘Nosedive’ and ‘Eye of the Beholder’ to showcase different reflections of today’s society. As a consequence of genuine self-expression and thus, confrontation of truth, Lacie is imprisoned. The extreme close-up on the removal of Lacie’s rating-system eye implant reinforces the audience with the discomfort and acknowledgment of the brutal realization. This shot serves to communicate that her “rose-colored glasses” have been ripped out and it demonstrates how deeply society has internalized this ingenuine life. Similarly, this idea is showcased during the close-up of Janet and the doctors’ face reveal, but instead of internalizing Janet’s appearance, Serling’s society externalizes their feelings of disgust upon realizing the treatment failed, “No change at all!”. As Janet is dragged away with a dictator yelling, “Glorious conformity,” there is a close-up shot of the doctors’ deformed faces. Their expression can be interpreted in various ways, however Serling primarily demonstrates this moment as a moment of longing. Exiled characters like Janet, are isolated to a “lovely village” where they will be “accepted by a community unconditionally”, and these deformed doctors will never experience that. Their presence in society, is at every moment, contingent on their conformity, and when deviants like Janet are taken away, all Serling leaves with the audience are these apathetic people waiting to become the monsters they just got rid of.

This is not exactly true to life, however; to be othered by an authoritarian regime, usually does not mean they will be sent to a community of “acceptance”, and this is contrasted in ‘Nosedive’. Brooker utilizes Lacie’s muddied dress as a juxtaposition to her previously pristine dress to convey that her curated persona became part of her own identity, but only after the removal of the “rose-colored glasses”, is she able to genuinely connect with herself and reality. Much like Lacie’s stained dress, Brooker also drenches the entire scene in grey tones to demonstrate the quickly unfolding truth that is sinking into both Lacie and the audience. This is supported by a long shot of Lacie removing her dress, conveying her shedding the final layer of her curated persona. Cross-cutting between Lacie’s tear-stained face and a cascade close-up shot of white dust contrasting with the dark background, Brooker demonstrates how Lacie begins to find beauty in raw truth. Lacie then argues with a man across her prison, “What the f–k are you looking at…I was wondering…don’t…Don’t wonder? It’d be a dull world without wonder…”. Not only does Brooker use this statement to prod at the use of muted colors and its implications throughout the film, but he also bridges a gap in human connection and communication. These examples establish how the directors are specific in the collaboration of the dialogue, camera angles, and color to concern the audience about society’s perspective on differences.

Conclusion

Despite being fifty-six years apart in production, both films achieve the intended purpose by offering an entertaining and relatable interpretation of the characters, ideas, and storyline. Both directors engage their intended audiences by including complex issues and exaggerating aspects of real life to raise people’s consciousness and provoke their emotions in criticizing society’s mistreatment of different individuals. Brooker achieves this through the utilization of film techniques including close-up shots of Lacie’s face to show raw and genuine emotions. Comparably, Serling incorporates dialogue and a dictator to achieve his purpose and influence the audience’s opinions on the notion of beauty. ‘Nosedive’ illustrates a more realistic prediction of the near future and provokes the audience to fear technology. However, although one talks about beauty and the other about technology, both films prove to be effective as they both showcase the sacrifice of freedom and individuality in exchange for acceptance. Each film aims to provoke the audience into criticizing today’s society, therefore being aware of their self-consciousness. Similarly, the films convey the consequence of a society built on conformity, and the overall ideology of both is framed meticulously with color, dialogue, and camera angles to serve as a direct juxtaposition to the pre-established dystopian society. Thus, each text achieves its intended purpose and successfully engages the audience in a chillingly real exaggeration of modern society.

When you ask a person, what comes to mind when they think back to the 1960’s, the most common answers are; Hippies, Drugs, The Beatles, and the ‘weird’ vibrant clothes.

Among other things, fashion seems to be what sticks in people’s heads. Many icons from that era were known mainly for their style, such as Jackie Kennedy, Twiggy, and Audrey Hepburn. The ’60s was a time of change, politically and culturally. There was a wave of liberal thinking and the population shifted to have more young people than ever! Which affected everything from music to leisure, Young people wanted to wear what they wanted and express themselves how they wanted. They partied, took drugs, and expressed their political views verbally and through fashion.

So was fashion as a whole actually that vibrant? or did it go way beyond the peace signs, long hair, and over-the-top colors?

The 60s was a very busy time, both in the States and here in the UK. In America, it was a very busy time for social activists. The civil rights movement was very active doing; peaceful protests, marches, sit-ins, and freedom rides, as a way to go against segregation in the southern states. This eventually led the government to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Digitalhistory.uh.edu, n.d.). The women’s movement fought for their rights to have equal job opportunities and also equal education. Whilst simultaneously fighting against standard views on women (Digitalhistory.uh.edu, n.d.). LGBT people were also fighting for their rights, mainly for the end of discrimination based on sexuality (Digitalhistory.uh.edu, n.d.). In 1964 President Johnson set up his ‘Great Society Program’ as an effort to; help malnutrition, push out medical care, provide housing, try and reduce poverty, and make the poor more employable (Digitalhistory.uh.edu, n.d.). With all the chaos surrounding the Vietnam War, the Anti-war movement, riots, and the rise of the counterculture. This hugely contributed to the fact that Republicans were in control of the country for 10 years (Digitalhistory.uh.edu, n.d.). The United Kingdom was also full of social activism. The teenagers of that decade were the first to live without conscription – their parents had fought in or lived during WW2, and they wanted their kids to enjoy their life and have freedom. Teenagers of that decade were significantly different from their parents. As they did not live in fear and could do what they liked (Watson, 2015). This was a big era for women’s rights, as in 67’ the pill became legal for all women and not just women who were married. Which meant they could control their life and be more than just a wife and mother (Watson, 2015). Another good push for the women’s movement was a strike in Dagenham, at the Ford Factory, when 850 women went on strike for equal pay. Which lead to the Equal Pay Act of 1970 (Watson, 2015). It was only until 1967 that gay and bisexual men could be allowed to date, without being arrested. Beforehand they were prosecuted and could have even faced life in prison. Sadly, even after that, gay people did not have the same rights, and more men were arrested (Bbc.co.uk, 2017). Harold Wilson, during his term as prime minister also introduced the Race Relations Act. Making discrimination based on race a legal offense, despite his tighter controls on immigration (Crystal, 2009). So, this was a very busy era in general.

When looking back, politics in particular Influenced fashion immensely.

Feminists in the 1960’s, used fashion politically. Lots of them cut their hair, rejecting the idea that hair was connected to femininity. Which itself was rejecting traditional beauty standards for women, that objectified them (Luther Hillman, 2015: page 62). But as the evidence suggests, not all feminists cut their hair, reject beauty culture, or try to look non-traditional. The way that women dressed, wore their hair, and presented themselves was a central part of the feminist movement (Luther Hillman, 2015: page 62). They did not outright reject obvious feminine things such as makeup, dresses, or heels. They rejected the restrictive way women had to present as a part of sex roles in society (Luther Hillman, 2015: page 62). So, in a sense fashion in that community was not vibrant, but it had a way deeper meaning as a way to make a point and feel free than to turn men’s heads.

The civil rights movement also came with its sense of political fashion. It mainly involved a major sense of black pride and being proud of your culture. As more young people joined the movement in the 60’s that changed, and the way they presented themselves changed. Lots of women stopped straightening their hair and the natural hairstyles became ingrained as a part of the black liberation (Luther Hillman, 2015: pp 34-35). Another trend was African-influenced attire, which showed cultural pride. So, you could see people who were Black nationalists by identifying the vibrant clothes, dashikis, African Jewellery, and natural hair (Luther Hillman, 2015: page 38). By the end of the decade, It stopped being about black power and became liberating for black people In general. The fashion of Black activists was vibrant in a way, as it was rich was culture, meaning, and colour.

In the 60’s there was a major movement for gay rights, some people wanted to challenge the norms that society had in place. Other gay activists thought that the gender-bending styles were a major liability that pushed stereotypes (Luther Hillman, 2015: page 93). Many new gay activists adopted the style of the hippie subculture, so as new leaders of gay organizations became more known, the media focused on their appearance (Luther Hillman, 2015: page 95). The younger activists also thought that being gay automatically meant they had to reject respectability and dress codes. Fashion in the gay rights movement was vibrant when looking at the gay activists who didn’t want to conform. But it wasn’t vibrant on the other side which thought it was a liability.

Another major part of fashion was subcultures, particularly amongst the younger generation. Politics still plays a major role, but their upbringing and personal tastes also play a part in the subcultures that were formed.

A good example of this is the Hippie subculture, which formed in the States this decade in colleges (Greer, 2014). Most hippies were white people from wealthy backgrounds who had just rejected normal American customs (Greer, 2014). They felt like outsiders mainly because they thought they were repressed. Leading to them making their communities and surrounding themselves with like-minded people (Greer, 2014). The Fashion of this culture is what most people think of; long hair, bright psychedelic clothes, etc. Most hippie clothes were very loose fitting, such as wide-legged pants and maxi dresses and the style was more feminine (Greer, 2014). This subculture is what most people think of and it is very apparent why! When compared to other subcultures of the decade, this one stands out – It’s extremely vibrant and was a prominent part of that era.

Mods, in comparison, are a lot less vibrant. The subculture did emerge in the late 50’s but was very popular in the 60’s. It came from mostly working-class people being tired of being discriminated against because of class (Gonzalez, 2016). Young people tried to look like they were more sophisticated, by wearing luxury clothes. They also valued having fun, by going clubbing and taking drugs (Gonzalez, 2016). Mods wanted to be unique and individual and the fact it started to go mainstream made people leave. Many of them join the rock and hippie subcultures (Gonzalez, 2016). Most of the fashion consists of French line haircuts, tailored suits, ankle boots, loafers, and the iconic M51 parka. Girls were androgynous, and they were the first to embrace the mini skirt (Theblondesalad.com, n.d.). So, when you compare that to the hippies it’s very different and not very vibrant at all.

The Rocker/Greaser subculture is also a shift from the vibrant clothes people expect from the 60’s. Here in the UK, Rockers were from a biker subculture that started in the 50’s. The term Greaser was even used despite the different meanings it had in America (En.wikipedia.org, 2007). Rockers were mostly middle-class people, who could now afford cheap bikes – due to people having more money and being able to get credit. They were also heavily influenced by American pop culture, and the peak of motorcycle engineering (En.wikipedia.org, 2007). The style of the subculture was born from necessity, they wore decorated biker jackets with studs and patches among other things. Wearing mostly t-shirts, leather hats, and Levi jeans. The hair was also a staple, they styled it with Brylcream, and the most iconic hairstyle was the pompadour. Which was popular among 50’s rock ‘n’ roll musicians (En.wikipedia.org, 2007). So again, not very vibrant. It was very monotone when it came to style, but the style was meant to be practical unlike the mod subculture – who they had a major rivalry with.

Celebrities have and always will play a major role in fashion, they set trends, and promote big designers and people want to be them.

Mary Quant was extremely influential in the 60’s, for lots of reasons. The main one is the trends she set. She opened up her boutique called ‘Bazaar’ in 1955, and the extremely popular items were the plastic collars and black leggings (Biography.com, 2014). But unhappy she decided to stock the shop herself, filling it with knee-high boots and tight jumpers in bold patterns (Biography.com, 2014). After that, she built up her reputation, by making her things that were affordable and marketed to young people. Which was a very smart move in the 60’s (Biography.com, 2014). She opened up a second Bazaar in ’61 and two years later her clothes were being shipped to America (Biography.com, 2014). The ’60s was the peak in her career, she popularised the mini skirt and created the ‘micro-mini’ and the ‘paint box’ makeup in 66’ (Biography.com, 2014). In 1966 she also got her OBE medal from Her Majesty – Queen Elizabeth the 2nd, for her contribution to the British fashion industry (Lister, 2016). She was a major influence on fashion as we know it, sure her style may not have been psychedelic or vibrant with color. But it was different and new, she was an innovator and it’s hard to deny.

Jackie Kennedy Onassis was also one of the most influential women in the 60’s and 70’s. For a very good reason. Her style was copied by so many women in the States. With her signature gloves and boat neck dresses. Megan Markle even emulated Jackie’s wedding dress, which was made by a small African American designer called Anne Lowe. After her first dress was ruined (Abrams, 2019). Whilst she was first lady, she often wore Oleg Cassini and Chanel suits, which became her signature during her husband’s presidency. But her most iconic outfits consisted of a pillbox hat and a suit with her gloves (Abrams, 2019). After she had left the White House, her style switched, and she became Jackie O. She became known for her big framed sunglasses and Hermès scarves, Jackie also started to wear more bohemian resort wear as well (Abrams, 2019). Her style was vibrant, it brought life to the White House and inspired many women! It wasn’t very out there like the hippie style; it was more sophisticated.

Marsha Hunt was a major inspiration for black women in the 60’s, living through racial tension in the music and fashion industry. She first appeared after starring in the production of ‘Hair’, despite having a few lines she became the poster child for the show (Brown, 2017). Marsha then started her singing career and became a rock star, even having a relationship with Mick Jagger. But her fashion accomplishments are astounding for the 1960’s! Marsha Hunt was the first ever black woman to be on the cover of ‘Queen’ and she also appeared on ‘Vogue’ (Brown, 2017). This is a major achievement in that era! She is a vibrant person who wears more understated and neutral clothes. The vibrancy was in her personality.

To conclude, only some parts of this era’s fashion were vibrant. Not all of it. Fashion in the 60s was way more than just peace signs, weird colors, and long hair. Fashion was a tool for self-expression, it went way beyond aesthetics. People just wanted to be people, dress how they wanted, and think how they wanted. They lived in a society that enforced ‘respectability’ and fitting in. The same society treated middle-class white men better than, women, people of color, and people who were gay. They didn’t want to conform, so what better way to go against society than self-expression? It was a way for their voices to be heard, it was a way for them to stand out and show that they were not going to let society win. So, the vibrant clothes were a way to get people’s attention, to get the voices of; working-class people, people of color, gay people, and women heard.

The people whose voices deserved to be heard. The people who wanted to be treated like individuals, and who wanted to be equal. They used fashion to their advantage, it wasn’t to be cool or edgy. It was a way they could fight for the right to be themselves.

Bibliography

Website Sources

1. Digitalhistory.uh.edu. (n.d.). Digital History. [online] Available at: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/era.cfm?eraid=17&smtid=1 [Accessed 5 May 2019].
2. Watson, K. (2015). The 1960s, The Decade that Shook Britain. [online] Historic UK. Available at: https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/The-1960s-The-Decade-that-Shook-Britain/ [Accessed 5 May 2019].
3. Bbc.co.uk. (2017). Decriminalization of homosexuality: History of gay rights in the UK – CBBC Newsround. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/40459213 [Accessed 5 May 2019].
4. Crystal, G. (2009). Civil Rights in the UK. [online] Civilrightsmovement.co.uk. Available at: http://www.civilrightsmovement.co.uk/civil-rights-uk.html [Accessed 5 May 2019].
5. Greer, L. (2014). The Hippie Movement of the 1960s. [online] Rock and Roll the Sixties. Available at: https://471665674241657755.weebly.com/blog/the-hippie-movement-of-the-1960s# [Accessed 5 May 2019].
6. Gonzalez, K. (2016). What is the Mod Subculture? – Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com. [online] Study.com. Available at: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-the-mod-subculture.html [Accessed 5 May 2019].
7. Theblondesalad.com. (n.d.). THE MOD MOVEMENT, IS A SUPER COOL BRITISH SUBCULTURE. [online] Available at: https://www.theblondesalad.com/en-AR/all-mag/the-mod-movement-a-super-cool-british-subculture [Accessed 5 May 2019].
8. En.wikipedia.org. (2007). Rocker (subculture). [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocker_(subculture) [Accessed 5 May 2019].
9. Biography.com. (2014). Mary Quant. [online] Available at: https://www.biography.com/fashion-designer/mary-quant [Accessed 5 May 2019].
10. Abrams, M. (2019). 60 of Jackie Kennedy’s chicest looks, from ballgowns to Chanel suits. [online] Evening Standard. Available at: https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/royalssociety/jackie-kennedy-style-icon-photos-a4100596.html [Accessed 5 May 2019].
11. Brown, N. (2017). Marsha Hunt History – Essence. [online] Essence. Available at: https://www.essence.com/holidays/black-history-month/marsha-hunt-history/ [Accessed 5 May 2019].

eBook/Book Sources

1. Luther Hillman, B. (2015). Dressing for the Culture Wars. [eBook] University of Nebraska Press, pp.34, 35, 38, 62, 93, 95. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/sunderland/detail.action?docID=3571069# [Accessed 5 May 2019].
2. Lister, J. (2016). British fashion 1966-1970. In: V. Broackes and G. Marsh, ed., You Say You Want a Revolution?. V&A, p.226.