“We Love Our Audience!”

Dressing Up and the Goth Subculture

Andi HarrimanNovember 9, 2011

MTJW 739

“Dressing up” is a term used within certain contexts: costume parties and

Halloween, formal occasions and events. Within this structure, a specific amount of time

is given to alter and exaggerate identity – a false sense of the self is celebrated through

performance. The term, “dressing up,” is rarely considered as a daily activity or lifestyle,

and it usually permits an allocated beginning and end. However, dressing up and getting

ready became a ritual within the theatrical Goth subculture – identity was found within

the act of changing the ‘natural’ self.

Getting ready for the exposition of public performance was a private event in

which Goth individuals consciously wielded the body and tweaked ‘natural’ appearances

in order to fit a specific aesthetic. Through makeup, clothing and accessories, certain

cues were constructed and read by the public based on visuals alone; these cues, or

semiotics, projected and communicated the constructs of Goth subculture simply through

the assemblage of adornment. By combining specific subcultural semiotics and

individual artistic expression, an abstract portrait of the self was sculpted. As a work of

art, the Goth body began to reinterpret the idea of beauty, proving that the ‘unnatural’

body can transform into its own semblance of desirability. The nineteenth century dandy

communicated his aversion towards societal standards by the artistic endeavors of his

own dress and adornment, much like the Goth. Dandies broadcasted an attitude through

their fashion and composition of dress; they prided themselves on performance, energized

by both the fascination and repugnance provided by their audience. In the form of the

modern dandy, Goths disregarded the ‘natural’ self through the ritual of dressing up.

Goths were formed in the United Kingdom during the late 1970's and early 80's.

Dark and macabre, Goths developed a certain combination of visual cues: black clothes,

boots, buckles, white faces, dark eyes, as well as bat and skull motifs (Fig. 1). Bleached,

black or unnaturally colored hair was teased to defy gravity with its unnatural height.

Leather and PVC, skirts and fishnet, crosses and ankhs were indispensable textures and

symbols. Thriving on the dramatic, Goths used powerful indicators in order to express

the subculture’s intense connectivity with emotion. “At once elegant and ghastly, earnest

and parodic, this conflation embodies the paradoxical and dichotomous nature of the

Goth mindset. Black clothing, hair, lipstick, nail polish and blackened eyes and whitened

faces are both visually compelling and repulsive” (Young, 78). Even though the

subculture did not ever reach the mainstream height of Punk, the Goth interplay of

gruesomeness and grace initiated a strong gathering of indiscreet androgynous bodies.

The scene steadily grew during the mid-80's, when bands, such as The Cure and Sisters

of Mercy, made their debut into the popular music charts. By the early 90's, Goth had

disintegrated and lost what little mainstream momentum the genre had developed. Ever

since, no such wave of ‘dark’ music has conquered popular culture in quite the same way,

thus sealing the boundaries of the Goth subculture into one short decade in time.

Before the emergence of the Internet and its outpouring of vast imagery, there

were magazines, television and the street in which to formulate and discover fresh styles

of music and fashion. Such means of discovery – the very basic forms of media

distribution – have extinguished with the innovation of the Internet. Post-subcultural

theorists argue that the term ‘subculture’ has become passé in twenty-first century society.

In a culture that is saturated in media and commerce, the former definition of a subculture

can no longer “capture the fluidity of contemporary lifestyle patterns” (“Goth Scene,”

135). Contemporary criterion allows alternative subgroups to breed new individual styles

– like rockabilly, grunge or metal – that begin seep through the original structural

confines of the Goth subculture (Fig. 2). Even though there are contemporary goths who

define themselves as the subgenre, “trad goths,” or traditional goths, they cannot

completely recapture the archetypal Goth because the permeation of media influence in

contemporary culture has become so prevalent and unavoidable. New theories about

post-subcultural groups are formulated in response to the extinction of subcultures – titles

such as ‘neo-tribes’, ‘scenes’ and ‘lifestyles’ are included as replacements (“Goth Scene,”

140). As a symptom of the media, multiplicity has become the feature of contemporary

cultural tribes instead of the former exclusive group constructs once found in subcultures;

contemporarily, identities are created through individual selections that are appropriated

from diverse commercial artefacts and practices (“Goth Scene,” 140). The celebration of

the individual has become the contemporary equivalent to such concepts of a ‘group’ in

former subcultures. Therefore, within this essay, when the term Goth or Gothic is

mentioned, only a specific type of this group is to be examined: ‘original’ Goths.

With the cultivation of Goth, certain constructions of dress were taken from other

subcultures – and most importantly, Punk. The concept and importance of visual

aesthetics in the Gothic subculture had been largely appropriated from the crass, militant,

anarchist Punks (Goodlad and Bibby, 1). Punk was a precursor to Goth, a more

politically active subculture that dressed aggressively in order to incite society – their

abomination of the Swastika, Mohican haircuts and safety pins are examples of such

instigation. Most significantly, what Goths drew from the Punk subculture was the desire

for dramaticism within their appearance. The idea of the tough and brittle was replaced

by a frail androgynous body in the recontexualization of Punk’s embellished dressing

(Goodlad and Bibby, 1). Even though the aesthetics split away from one another as Goth

became more defined, both subcultures managed to dress provocatively, stirring interest

on the street.

While Punk reveled in their distaste for the mass media, Goth steered away from

any political intent and preferred to soften the jagged edges of Punk style. As a

subculture, Goths preferred to speak through visual presence rather than a riot – no real

political agendas were involved in the formation of the group. They did not desire to

partake in any working class struggle, symbolic or otherwise; in general, Goths were of

the middle class, from a variety of backgrounds and their participation within the

subculture overshadowed the need to express structural affiliations (“Goth Scene,” 139).

Whereas Punks promoted violence and tough masculinity, the Goths took the pacifist

approach and fully absorbed themselves in the music, visuals and Gothic literature

associated with their subculture. Goths generally possessed dissatisfaction with society

and a pessimism of modern times which, in turn, developed a fixation with mortality and

nostalgia for other, more romantic eras (Young, 77-8). The unwavering emphasis of

ominous and feminine attributes created equilibrium among the Goth subculture – similar

fantasies of a more sensitive society brought like-minded individuals together. The

“consistent distinctiveness” of aesthetics and values within the subculture helped Goths

stand out collectively within society; however, in the boundaries of the group,

individuality was essential (“Goth Scene,” 192). Subcultural restrictions promoted

likeness between peers but encouraged singular creativity.

The flimsy line between originality and group belonging was a tricky one to

balance. In order to earn respect from peers, individuals sought to create an aesthetic of

their own; too much resemblance to a fellow Goth would signify a lack of ingenuity

(“Goth Scene,” 136-7). Within an individual’s construction of dress, the group also had

to be considered. The “internal difference visually took the form of creative, yet subtle

variations and additions rather than the sort of diversity that would undermine group

boundaries significantly” (“Goth Scene,” 143). Amber Lott, a Goth from the New York

City scene in the late 80's, acquiesces: “It was important to me when I was a Goth that I

express myself creatively. It was meaningless to embrace being a Goth but then to buy

what all the other Goths were wearing so we all looked the same. That never made any

sense to me. If I bought something new from the store I always made an effort to put my

own stamp on it. I tended to buy a lot of vintage or thrift store stuff and do the same

thing. That reduced the chances of anyone else having the same thing” (Lott).

Originality within the group was an emphasis of Amber’s – she relied on her

resourcefulness to create what she considered inventive and dramatic (Fig. 3).

Along with a participant’s distinct and structured aesthetics of the Goth

subculture, the commitment to and longevity of, the member was valued. With the

immersion of an individual in the Goth subculture, a sense of affiliation was extremely

high; most social, consumer and media habits of the Goth-oriented began to dominate

over alternatives, likening little space for outside influence (“Goth Scene,” 145).

Therefore, participating in artistic or social endeavors outside of the subculture was not

necessary since the commitment to the group was so extremely relevant to its

participants. Such loyalty to the Goth subculture involved levels of status within the

group; members who maintained the strict devotion of Goth ideals through their record

collections, appearance and knowledge of the subculture were revered (“We Are All

Individuals,” 324). All aspects reflect back to the Goth aesthetic, its steadfast dedication

to the macabre and gloomy, a profound devotion of the subculture’s principles.

Assembling the body into a Goth was not a trivial task, the dramaticism of dress

and the standards of the subculture transformed into a performance – one that was

reenacted daily. Through the process of dressing up, the comfort of hiding the 'natural'

self – meaning the naked, unmarked body – provided both confidence and

companionship between peers. Connecting with one another through the abstraction of

the body became a safe way for Goths to express themselves, establish real relationships

and converse with other Goths (Shumway, 141). Dressing up was an aesthetic change of

the ‘natural’ that ignited a construct of dress that, in society, reflected a visual attitude and

social meaning.

The nineteenth century had a profound influence upon Goth subculture both

aesthetically and emotionally. Queen Victoria, the celebrity of the era, changed the scope

of dress in 1857 when her husband, Prince Albert passed away. Victoria’s grief engulfed

her lonely remaining years; she wore only black as a symbol of her mourning until her

own death in 1901. Mourning rituals in this time were long-winded and the use of black

to symbolize the death of a loved one was portrayed often: veils, jewelry and clothes,

ribbons tied to the door, and the draped crepe that directed the processional captured the

unbearable sorrow of the family. The sensitivity and the outward exposure of emotions in

the Victorian era translated into modern Goth ideals (Kilpatrick, 33). Theatrical

exclamations of sadness and grief were adopted by the subculture. Black became the

predominant color of Goths, symbolizing both sadness and fascination towards mortality.

Like Queen Victoria, her dress spoke of her heartache without vocalization. Mourning

dress was one aspect of fashion’s development within Victorian times that began to inject

personal articulation of the dressed, projected self in public situations. “Finding out

about a person from how he or she looked became… a matter of looking for cues in the

details of his costume. This decoding of the body on the street in turn affected the bridge

between stage and street” (Sennett, 414-5). During this time, the performer was no

longer confined to the theatre, constrained only to the stage, but had the ability to reflect

fashion and visual signals into daily life. Self-awareness was heightened when the lines

between theatre and street were blurred. The importance of the public personae only

flourished thereafter, generating a deeper desire to distinguish the individual apart from

others.

Fashion and style developed from the Victorian era and became much more

prominent in the twentieth century. Ever since the performer’s stage became the street,

there were no boundaries between himself and the audience – the real and imagined

identity became jumbled. Perhaps the most iconic ‘chameleon’ of the twentieth century

in terms of on-stage performance would be the glam rock visionary, David Bowie. His

creation of Ziggy Stardust with his hennaed-dyed hair, eye-shadowed and heavily made-

up face, was formed in 1972 and initiated through his album The Rise and Fall of Ziggy

Stardust and the Spiders from Mars (Fig. 4). Bowie, unlike other musical artists,

expressed himself through a disguise – a disguise of his own imagination brought to

completion by playing dress up (Shumway, 130). Fans of Bowie understood the

metamorphosis of his façade, which sparked an innate desire for the true, ‘natural’ self to

be hidden from view (Shumway, 131). By altering the ‘natural’ self in order to heighten

an aspect of the body, individual personas began to formulate and a surrogate reality of

prominent visual expression occurred. “To dress up like Bowie was a different act than

to dress up like the Beatles or the Rolling Stones. Imitating them meant copying the real

thing; imitating Bowie meant playing a role that someone else had played” (Shumway,

131). Ziggy Stardust as a character transformed into an identity – one that fans attempted

to appropriate through wisely chosen aesthetics.

Bowie's divide between the ‘artificial’ and the ‘natural’ sprouted the beginnings of

Goth subculture. A strong aspect of Ziggy’s appeal was his male feminization; he was

designed to become androgynous through his makeup and red hair (Shumway, 133).

Rather than purely feminine, Ziggy created symmetry between the sexes: his drag queen

dangly earrings versus his flat chested, purely male, figure became distinct aesthetic

contrasts (Shumway, 133-4) and created a neutralized gender. Musically, Bowie did not

influence the Goth genre, but his staged and ‘artificial’ body helped distinguish the

aesthetics of Goth’s forerunners. Peter Murphy, the godfather of Goth who sang for the

definitive band, Bauhaus, idolized Bowie's transformations: “It was very erotic, but

asexual, this beautiful spaceman – at least, that's what I picked up from [his characters].

Of course, the reality that was really happening in the Bowie mind was nothing like I was

creating in mine but that didn't matter” (Thompson, 51). Murphy, like most fans, found

sanctuary in the space where an alternative body could be adopted. Because of this, the

construction of a neoteric identity communicated a new perception: an 'Otherness'

(Subculture, 88-9). Separate from the uniform of prior subcultures, Goths rejected

society before it rejected them and it resulted into a “self-conscious commentary on the

world and the act of dressing up” (Shumway, 136). The ‘Otherness’ of Ziggy Stardust

compelled fans to discover solace in hiding the ‘natural’ self in order to shun society – to

proclaim a lack of ‘fitting in’ and belonging – which was a prevalent attribute of the Goth

subculture.

The luminaries of Gothic rock, like Bauhaus, Siouxsie and the Banshees and The

Cure, all integrated Ziggy’s aspect of performance into their aesthetics. Elements of

makeup and clothing became just as relevant, if not more, to the fans of Goth bands

(Shumway, 136). The aggressive, Cleopatrician black eyes of Siouxsie Sioux and Robert

Smith’s disgruntled black hair and smeared red lipstick became off-stage performance

aspects of the individuals. Followers acquired the idea of acting out even further: “Goths

would steadfastly adhere to a game of dress up as their primary way of presenting

themselves to the world, making no necessary distinction between a visit to the grocery

store or a club date” (Shumway, 137). Instead of a character, like Bowie, fans became the

‘Other’ – no longer distinguishing the difference between the self and the ‘unnatural.’

Thus far, Goth dress and its importance has been primarily focused on prominent

influences of the subculture, but the idea of dress as communication is essential to the

understanding of Goth fashion and their positioning of presence within their culture. The

idea of dress on an everyday level can also be referred to as a ‘look,’ ‘style,’ or ‘fashion’

(Calefato, 71). Always defined by culture, the means and approach to dress is determined

within these confines – whether one chooses to dress in a punk or preppy fashion is an act

dependent on a person’s reaction to the society that surrounds them (Entwhistle, 277).

The context of the body in social situations and the messages, or signifiers, sent through

one’s clothing does not “exist in limbo” but are rooted in public, social circumstances –

thus concerning the perception of one’s audience (Kaiser, 30). The viewer becomes the

litigator as to how one constructs the idea of the self through dress: if to blend in with the

crowd or to draw interest or repulsion, seduction or modesty; such attributes reflect back

on how the self chooses to connect to society. The process of self-construction and the

alteration of the 'natural' body largely involve the private sphere. This isolated

environment regards introspection and self-understanding that might not be shared with

others (Kaiser, 182). Private contexts become a type of “dress rehearsal” for the

individual, an act of priming the self for public performance (Kaiser, 182).

Within the private sphere, ritualistic forms of getting dressed were practiced in the

Goth subculture. The time spent in preparation for going out required hours of grooming:

crimping the hair, applying a pale face and cat eyes – even the layering and draping of

chains over the neck were involved. Amber recalls her process of getting ready: “It

would take an hour on an easy-going night but most of the time it would take upwards of

two hours if I decided to tease my hair” (Lott). The act of teasing her hair became a

ritualistic activity which indicated an aspect of belonging to the Goth community; most

Goths participated in this grueling event but managed to individually separate themselves

through their cuts and color. Because of such rituals, an awareness of fellowship was

suggested when a sense of unity could be socially integrated through an activity

(Marshall, 360). The privately formulated practice of teasing hair became a visible

dedication to the subculture. Goths deliberated about their “curtain call” appearance

during their “backstage” dressing rituals, carefully considering their collage of visual

signs and how they would communicate to the audience (Kaiser, 228). These private

ritualistic practices, or dress rehearsals, transformed the Goth into an abstraction of the

‘natural.’

The symbolic meanings of the abstracted body were premeditated and important

to a successful metamorphosis. Visuals and aesthetics were “unspeakably meaningful”

(Wilson, 3) to public interpretation of the self. Fashion as a sign system regards both

signification, the fact something has meaning, and significance, the value of which is

meant (Calefato, 74). The system of signifiers within dress is called semiotics: the motifs

and symbols, colors, textures, and objects placed on the body that are understood

according to the audience’s comprehension of visual signs. Semiotic analysis allows for

the perception of appearance within distinct separate parts and then equates the totality of

these parts as to how they react together as a whole (Kaiser, 219). Along with a means of

understanding, semiotics provide for significant communication. For example, the rosary

as a Goth accessory, rather than a Catholic vestige, was grasped differently because of the

placement of the object in context. Recurring symbols – the ankh, cross, pentagram –

“take on a symbolic dimension, becoming a form of stigmata, tokens of self-imposed

exile” (Subculture, 2). The significance of objects chosen by Goth subculture because of

their semiotic language became indicators of double meanings. Crosses represented

blasphemy as a symbol of rebellion, worn to shock and “identify the wearer with

dangerous powerful forces” (Young, 79). Amber adopted her symbols similarly: “I

enjoyed using crosses in my outfits because it was controversial to some people” (Lott).

The combination of “objects borrowed” is known as bricolage – the determining factor of

subcultural styles and the creation of them (“Style,” 258-9). The collision of clothes and

accessories that are not typically thought of as fitting together ultimately result in a

finished ‘appearance’ in the assembly of bricolage (Wilson, 248). The selection of

adornment is essential to the understanding of the body within semiotic language – a look

must be formed with precision. A Goth individual became a “walking collage” or a

“contemporary installation” that evolved and adapted as the public performance took

place (Wilson, 248).

The Goth body – and largely, the Goth male – was the antithesis of popular

culture; the divide between masculine and feminine had made clear separation in

magazines and other forms of media in the 80’s. Man was the hero – within Western

society, the muscled jock that displayed no signs of weakness or sensitivity had grown to

be the norm. But Goths, in their skirts, makeup, and teased hair reified the idea of the

male: sensitivity became desirable. As an extension to Victorian empathy, the

feminization of the male had become standard in Goth aesthetics (Fig. 5). These

attributes, stolen from femininity, sheltered a “realm of forbidden depth” and sensuality

(Goodlad, 107). Complexity was important to Goth subculture through the portrayal of

emotion: a postmodern reformation of the dandy (Goodlad, 107).

Dandyism began in the late eighteenth century and was relevant for well over a

hundred years (Fig. 6). In opposition to traditional aristocratic standards of menswear,

the dandy began to react against society through visual language. The role of the dandy

was to apply daily life with “an intense preoccupation with self and self-presentation;

image was everything…” (Wilson, 180). Such social stimulations could be detected in

the values of the Goth subculture within its codes of dressing up. Much in the way Goths

displayed femininity, the dandy “did not abandon the pursuit of beauty; he changed the

kind of beauty that was admired” (Wilson, 180). Though the Goth aesthetic might have

seemed initially off-putting and grotesque, the delicacy of the Goth body was quite

seductive. As a reaction to the hard-edged male of the time – the modern, supercharged

masculine being – Goth androgyny attempted to change society’s norms of the beautiful,

or the ‘natural,’ man.

The dandy spent hours in his toilette, creating the visual coolness he deemed

appropriate for presentation. By self-proclaiming exile from the realm of social

commonality through his dress, the dandy symbolized an anachronism between

traditional and progressive classes, as a person who has been “historically displaced

because [he] is out of harmony with time” (Lane, 36). The Goths acted as a modern

anachronism: they mourned for a more graceful period when sensitivity for death was

appreciated. “L’Homme sensible moderne,” wrote Baudelaire, dandy and philosopher,

“is distinguished by a nervous and passionate temperament, a cultured mind… a sensitive

heart attuned to sorrow” (Rhodes, 390-1). Baudelaire’s idea of modernity is relevant to

the Goth subculture in which all attributes of this statement are symbolic of the Goth

community: passionate, educated, profound and always in constant pursuit for idyllic

splendor.

Baudelaire understood the importance of visual communication and semiotics.

He believed the dandy could not allow his artistic consciousness to “slumber” because

“he must determine his every action and thought in life by the nature of [society’s]

reaction on his aesthetic…being” (Rhodes, 390). Thus, both the dandy and Goth body

became a living, transformable work of art. The invocation of body as art began in the

Victorian era – beauty was found in ‘ugliness’ and the bond between beauty and the

‘natural’ became detached (Wilson, 127). “What was ‘unnatural,’ exaggerated, and even

deformed could, according to these new… canons of taste, become ‘beautiful’” (Wilson,

127). Changing and altering the self into a more androgynous personae reinstated the idea

of the ‘unnatural’ and blossomed the ghoulish delicacy of Goth aesthetics. Dick Hedbige,

subcultural theorist and author of Subculture: The Meaning of Style theorized: “The

communication of a significant difference… is the ‘point’ behind the style of…

subcultures” (102). Commitment to the subcultural idea of ‘unnatural’ beauty – makeup

application and hair modification – became a form of art through the transformation of

the face – or canvas – with decorative pigment.

The development of street style in the nineteenth century ignited the

contemporary notion of dress; an offshoot of street style during that time was dressing as

a form of rebellion in order to ignite a reaction from society. The ‘Otherness’ found in a

different method of dressing generated artwork on and of the self and began to yield

abstraction. Traditional conventions of art do not apply to the idea of dress as art; the

“notion of art as ‘work’, as ‘practice’, as a particular transformation of reality…” became

the subcultural terms of style and dress (Subculture, 118). Artworks within a museum

setting are static; the body is, however, not a timeless object but is a mutation and a

movement (Subculture, 129). In the vein of Bowie and his Ziggy Stardust character, the

Goth became a walking affectation – he was a shifting, transformable work of art,

reinforced by his audience. Oscar Wilde, a nineteenth century dandy and literary, wrote

in The Picture of Dorian Gray about the dressed body as an artistic endeavor: “All art is

at once surface and symbol… it is the spectator, and not life that art really mirrors”

(Lane, 45). The anticipation of audience interpretation to a Goth’s “role embracement”

(Kaiser, 180) became appealing to the dressed up individual. Baudelaire, who always

wore black, felt that his artistic renderings of the body and his public display had caused

him to “[take] particular delight in shocking people…in which art I excel when I want to”

(Rhodes, 395). Shocking society became its own extension of art to Baudelaire; the artist

could only exist and thrive because of his audience – a performance without the

voyeuristic eyes of society could not occur.

Perhaps Baudelaire was the first true Goth. Always dressed up and acting out his

artistry, he provoked without words but communicated his sentiments through visual

semiotics. Baudelaire understood what modernity provided to society: a new way of

thinking through the transformation of the body resulting in the redefinition of

masculinity and public normalcy. The dandysme philosophy closely resembles Goth: a

life spent in front of the mirror and the ritualistic dress rehearsal as a composition of art

became necessary and desirable. Baudelaire was the foundation of the subculture:

melodramatic and shocking, provocative and sorrowful. Goth has been decoded; without

the performance of visual aesthetics, the subculture could not exist nor have such

relevance during its prime. And when Peter Murphy, in his fiendishly high voice,

chanted: “We love our audience!” it became obvious that dressing up was the definitive

characteristic of Goth subculture – the mutation and destruction of the ‘natural.’

Fig. 1.

"Texacala Jones." Photograph. Arta Des Stars. Web. 7 Nov 2011.

<http://theguitardiary.tumblr.com/post/4252150493/after-discovering-niagara-i-

feel-like-its-only>.

Fig. 2. "Cyber Goth." Photograph. Goth Underground. Web. 7 Nov 2011.

<http://gothunderground.tumblr.com/post/11167760999>.

Fig. 3. "Amber Lott: New York City, 1991." Photograph. Facebook. Web. 7 Nov 2011.

Fig. 4. "Ziggy Stardust." Photograph. Web. 7 Nov 2011.

<http://weheartit.com/entry/16578205>.

Fig. 5. "Rozz Williams of Christian Death." Photograph. Web. 7 Nov 2011.

<http://charlotte---sometimes.tumblr.com/post/10413798622>.

Fig. 6. “Charles Baudelaire – Poet.” Photograph. Web. 7 Nov 2011. < http://life-is-a-

kaleidoscope.tumblr.com/post/12252814754/only-and-art-history-major-would-

think-of-this-as>.

Bibliography

Calefato, Patrizia.  “Fashion and Worldliness: Language and Imagery of the Clothed Body.”  Fashion Theory 1.1 (1997): 69-90.

Entwhistle, Joanne.  “Addressing the Body.”  Barnard, Malcom, ed.  Fashion Theory: A Reader.  New York: Routledge, 2007. 273-291.

Goodlad, Lauren M. E.  “Looking for Something Forever Gone: Gothic Masculinity, An-drogyny and Ethics at the Turn of the Millennium.”  Cultural Critique 66 (Spring 2007): 104-126.  JSTOR.

Goodlad, Lauren M.E and Michael Bibby. “Introduction.” Goodlad, Lauren M.E. and Michael Bibby, eds.  Goth: Undead Subculture.  Durham: Duke University, 2007. 1-37.

Hebdige, Dick.  “Style.” Barnard, Malcom, ed.  Fashion Theory: A Reader.  New York: Routledge, 2007. 256-266.

-----.  Subculture: The Meaning of Style.  London: Routledge, 1991.

Hodkinson, Paul. “The Goth Scene and (Sub)Cultural Substance.”  After Subculture: Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture.  Andy Bennett and Keith Kahn-Harris, eds.  New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.  135-147.

-----.  “‘We Are All Individuals, But We’ve All Got the Same Boots On!’: Traces of Indi-vidualism within a Subcultural Community.”  Goodlad, Lauren M.E. and Michael Bibby, eds.  Goth: Undead Subculture.  Durham: Duke University, 2007. 322-331.

Kaiser, Susan B.  The Social Psychology of Clothing: Symbolic Appearances in Context. 2nd ed.  New York: Fairchild, 1997.  

Kilpatrick, Nancy.  The Goth Bible: A Compendium for the Darkly Inclined.  New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2004.  

Lane, Christopher.  “The Drama of the Impostor: Dandyism and Its Double.”  Cultural Critique 28 (Autumn 1994): 30-52.  JSTOR.

Lott, Amber. "Interview." Personal Interview. 22 Oct 2011.

Marshall, Douglas A.  “Behavior, Belonging, and Belief: A Theory of Ritual Practice.” Sociological Theory 20.3 (November 2002): 360-380.  JSTOR.

Rhodes, S. A.  “Baudelaire’s Philosophy of Dandyism.”  The Sewanee Review 36.2 (Oc-tober 1928): 389-404.  JSTOR.

Sennett, Richard.  “Public Roles/Personality In Public.”  Barnard, Malcom, ed.  Fashion Theory: A Reader.  New York: Routledge, 2007. 408-421.

Shumway, David and Heather Arnet.  “Playing Dress Up: David Bowie and the Roots of Goth.”  .”  Goodlad, Lauren M.E. and Michael Bibby, eds.  Goth: Undead Subculture.  Durham: Duke University, 2007. 129-142.

Thompson, Dave.  The Dark Reign of Gothic Rock: In the Reptile House With the Sisters of Mercy, Bauhaus, and The Cure.  London: Helter Skelter, 2002.

Wilson, Elizabeth.  Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity.  London: Virago Press, 1985.

Young, Tricia Henry.  “Dancing on Bela Lugosi’s Grave: The Politics and Aesthetics of Gothic Club Dancing.”  Dance Research: The Journal of the Society for Dance Research 17.1 (Summer 1999): 75-97.  JSTOR.