dolly-parton

Just a wild mountain rose.

A critical exploration of fashion, class, and good taste.

Figure 1. Dolly Parton Album Covers (2025) Highway Queens

This essay proposes an in depth analysis of Jukka Gronow’s critical study ‘Taste and Fashion:The Social Function of Fashion and Style’ (1993). In this text Gronow assesses both Kant (1724-1804) and Simmel’s (1858-1918) theories of ‘good taste’, and their usefulness in discussing the intersection of taste with topics such as fashion, class, individualism, and mass culture. Gronow explores Kant’s philosophy on aesthetics and proposal of a ‘sensus communis’, or community of taste (1790), contextualising Kant’s work through the lens of 18th century ‘enlightened’ thought—to which he both responded and contributed. Assessing the various interpretations of Kant, including those of Lyotard (1924-1998) and Simmel, Gronow furthers his critique of taste theory through the interaction of taste and class, a connection often attributed to Simmel’s development of ‘trickle down’ theory. This largely disputed ideology rationalises the movement of fashions from the hands of the upper-classes (as the taste makers) down to the lower-classes, whose possession ensured that these ‘fashions’ were no longer ‘fashionable’ (McNeil, 2015). This essay will address three encompassing points in Gronow’s critique; these are the ‘duality between communal and individual tastes’, ‘how the hierarchies of taste reflect the boundaries set in place by Western class systems’, and (the highly disputed) ‘discourse between the integrity of fashion as a serious site of study, and the automatic autonomy given to art’. With Gronow writing over 30 years ago, this essay aims to reassess the relevance of his interpretation of taste theory and fashion through a case study of the iconic country singer Dolly Parton (see Figure 1), whose ‘outrageous and extreme’ yet authentic style (Vogue, 1977), which has become her celebrated signature look, allows us to question who gets to be the authority on good taste. This essay assesses Parton’s place in both affirming anddisrupting the themes discussed above, and critiques the usefulness of ‘Fashion and Taste’ within fashion studies today.

Figure 2. Jonathan Jones’ Sargent and Fashion exhibition review (2024) The Guardian

Figure 3. Fashion Historian Cally Blackman’s response to Jones’ review (2024) The Guardian

Whilst both Kant and Simmel deemed it better to follow fashion then to avoid or neglect it, they also saw it as a frivolity (Gronow, 1993). Kant expressed that fashion is ‘antithetical’ to good taste—a product of ‘blind imitation’ and vanity—whereas high art, which is always unique, is equal to good taste (Gronow, 1993). Simmel, despite using fashion as a framework, similarly classified it as inherently ugly and superficial; a purely social phenomenon. He shared this prejudice with many of his contemporaries, writing that “very frequently not the slightest reason can be found for the creations of fashion from the standpoint of an objective, aesthetic, or other expediency (Simmel, 1981 cited in Gronow, 1993, p. 94). Responding to these points, Gronow interprets fashion as the embodied equivalent to the “principle of good taste”, maintaining that “fashion does function as a substitute standard of taste, without actually being one” (1993, p. 94). This creates a standard around which participants can orient their choices without compromising their individuality, however, in the eyes of Gronow, fashion and good taste are contradictory. Arguably, within the context of 21st century academic politics, Gronow’s point, much like Kant and Simmel’s, seems moot—last year’s Sargent and Fashion exhibition at Tate Modern amplifying debates around the cultural credibility of fashion and art (see Figures 2 and 3). As Amy de la Haye (2024) drives home: “I don’t think fashion has to be described as an art form […] to be taken seriously. And, in 2024, I refuse to argue its merits”. Taking this into consideration, it feels pertinent to note that this essay responds to many outdated concepts on fashion, class, and taste, specifically within the context of 18th, 19th, and 20th century Western European and North American theoretical thought. These theories, whilst relevant to a certain extent, and ripe for reinterpretation and development, pose certain Western and patriarchal biases which we must be careful to recognise and unpick.

Accordingly, Gronow’s first point, where he questions whether a person can function as part of mass society without losing his individuality, must be explored in greater depth. His argument stems from Kant’s proposal of “‘sensus communis’, common sense, or a community of [shared] feeling and taste”, a justification of our need for approval when making a proper judgment of taste (Gronow, 1993, p. 92). As Gronow continues, Kant’s ‘sensus communis’ poses difficult to interpret, and he highlights both Simmel’s understanding of common sense (or ‘Gemeinsinn’) as a “metaphysical community of souls” which “lets us believe that these judgements are not ours alone” (Simmel, 1905 cited in Gronow, 1993, p. 93), and Lyotard’s more grounded interpretation, that whilst this ‘community of taste’ could never be actualised, when making a judgment of taste we “propose that everyone joins in the same community of feeling” (Gronow, 1993, p. 93). Assessing these together within the context of fashion, Gronow argues that a person can be part of a ‘homogenous mass’ whilst maintaining their individuality, however this harmony between individual and society must be constantly rebuilt in order to keep up with the fluctuations of perceived fashionability (Gronow, 1993)

Dolly Parton, as a celebrity with her own distinct style, which has remained largely consistent throughout her career, both disrupts and reflects this discourse between individuality and mass taste. As she writes in her sartorial-focused autobiography, Behind the Seams: My Life in Rhinestones (2023): “I just wanted to be different. I wanted to be seen” (p. 9). Describing her taste in dress, she recalls how her love for makeup and clothes developed from a young age, inspired by the likes of Mae West whose larger-than-life appearance reflected her ‘town tramp’ persona—which she embraced (Parton, 2023). As Parton explains: “I always loved makeup. I wanted to be pretty. Back then, any woman who wore makeup in the mountains was considered trashy. But I didn’t care. When I started buying my own makeup, I also started dressing according to how I felt, which meant wearing tight, low-cut outfits that my mama made” (Parton, 2023, p. 1)

Figure 4. Feminine Hillbilly Hexis (2014) Joshua I. Newman

Figure 5. ‘People are Talking About: Dolly Parton’ (1977) John Rockwell, Vogue

Within North American social politics, the term ‘white trash’ has been criticised as a way for upper-class taste-makers to distinguish and uphold social hierarchies. It is represented through “specific moral, cultural, political, economic and physical transgressions. Whether called white trash, crackers, hillbillies, or rednecks, the stereotypical features are easily identifiable: Southern, rural, poor, loud, stupid, glutinous, and excessively sexual” (Brown, 2005, p. 76). The ‘feminine hillbilly hexis’ as Newman (2014) describes it—recalling Bourdieu’s use of the term ‘hexis’ to describe the manner in which people carry themselves—presents the female body as a “primitive sexual object” visually signified by “over-emphasised breasts, sexually explicit tattered clothing, disproportionately slender mid-sections flowing into short-cut denim bottoms, disheveled hair in ‘white trash proportions’ , and the absence of footwear, which imply poverty, naivety, and along with the other forms of attire, symbolises a sexual readiness for the conquering mountain man” (p. 370). As well as being characterised as such, both Newitz and Wary (1997) and Hubbs (2011) attest that terms like ‘white trash’ and ‘redneck’ pinpoint the fear undying the American myth of classlessness, Brown (2005) continuing that “No other ethnicity is doubly marked as trash because it would be redundant within the American class system”, which already sees them as ‘lesser’/‘other’ (p. 76).

Parton, who is known for her ‘white trash proportions’ , sits on the line between ‘trash’ and popular culture, people equally labelling her appearance as ‘hooker-like’ and as ‘fashionable’ (Parton, 2023). Responding to the latter, she wrote that it makes her laugh when someone calls her a fashion icon, saying that she’s “more like an eyesore” and that it never crossed her mind to be fashionable (2023, p. 69). Building upon Bourdieu’s development of the term ‘cultural capital’ (1984), which expresses how cultural status is accumulated through formal upbringing and education, Sarah Thornton (1995) draws upon her own theory of ‘subcultural capital’, which “confers status on its owner in the eyes of the relevant beholder” and is “embodied in the form of being ‘in the know’” (p. 24). Parton, whose cultural influence has grew with her celebrity and cult following, has both captivated the mainstream with her musical talent and recognisable stage presence, and maintained a “localised form of whiteness”, which has within the mass media “tended to embody a distinctive Appalachian deportment and disposition” (Newman, 2014, p. 369)—thus allowing her to adhere to Gronow ’s point of having a place within mass society without losing her sense of self . She is described as such in Vogue, in the 1977 article ‘People are talking about: Dolly Parton’ (Figure 4): Parton’s shows last spring at New York’s Bottom Line nightclub proved that her artful blend of down-home simplicity and brassy showbiz glamour can appeal as strongly to a sophisticated city audience as to the country fair-goers she’s played to so far. Soon everybody will begin to realise that she isn’t a wigged, bosomy gimmick but one of the inest, most moving singers and songwriters in the land, irrespective of genre. (Vogue, 1977, p. 2) Her appeal to a sophisticated city audience (as the ‘primary taste-makers’) Gronow's second Gronow’ssecond point that the hierarchies of taste reflect the boundaries positioned within Western class systems. Whilst everyone is able to make a judgment of taste, only those with high social standing—with access to the ‘appropriate’ role models and education—are actively in the position to make proper judgments, and be respected within their judgment (Gronow, 1993).

Simmel saw the pattern of fashion, and its perpetual coming into being and dying, as symbolic of this class disparity. He asserts this through the metaphor of roses in his seminal text Roses: A Social Hypothesis (originally published in 1897). In this text he describes a world of those with roses and those without, the latter who become disillusioned and call for revolution when they realise their difference. Once a revolution broke out, and was won by the ‘egalitarian party’, peace and equality was assumed, however: [T]his distribution of shares could not work out as evenly as the two sides of a mathematical equation. After all, one would have the luckier hand in tending their roses, the other a little more sun, a third a more successful graft; for Nature always cooperates with human plans only very approximately, and without binding itself in any way. (Simmel, 2021, p. 50) Subsequently, the same feelings of inequality and resentment arose from this “Sisyphean pursuit of external equivalence” (Simmel, 2021, p. 51). Although applicable in some instances, Simmel’s trickle down theory is widely contended, the pattern of fashion, both contemporary and historical, presenting as multidirectional. As published in Vogue, in an article titled ‘Fashion: Why not the West? Range-style dressing takes over’ (1978), Parton is listed as one of the influential ‘country-pop honchos’ who wear Western—an example of ‘high fashion’s Bible’ taking inspiration from the ‘low status’ of country and Western. Whilst this cycle of want and excess still exists, it does not adhere to the neat ‘class’ hierarchy Simmel puts forward.

Assessing both Kant and Simmel’s theories of taste, Gronow poses three main points in his interpretation. As explained previously, this essay delves into two of these points— ‘the duality of communal and individual taste’, and ‘how the hierarchies of taste reflect the boundaries put in place by Western class systems’. Taste theory, as put forward by Kant, Simmel and Gronow, is too restrictive and neat in its conception. It places the upper-classes, who have access to the appropriate role models and education as the ‘taste-makers’ and the lower classes as ‘blind imitators’, and once these fashions were imitated they were no no longer perceived as fashionable. In this essay, the case study of Dolly Parton exemplifies how Kant, Simmel, and even Gronow’s interpretations of taste theory have become outdated. Parton’s influence both reflects her ‘high-status’ as a celebrated musician, and her ‘low status’ as a “wigged, bosomy gimmick” from Sevier County (Vogue, 1977)—her story reflecting the multidirectional exchange of fashion and taste (especially within the context of the late 20th, early 21st century). Parton, who was not born into a community with perceived cultural capital, gained subcultural capital through her skill as a musician, her iconic style, and her authenticity which stuck true to her Appalachian heritage and sense of self. She is the wild mountain rose who outgrew Simmel’s garden.

Back to Abstracts