Jeans: A Cultural History of an American Icon

by James Sullivan

Book Overview

Since their appearance nearly 150 years ago, jeans have been worn by all segments of American society and exported around the world. This book traces their evolution from a simple utilitarian garment... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1592402143
• ISBN13: 9781592402144
• Release Date: August 2006
• Publisher: Avery
• Length: 320 Pages
• Weight: 1.06 lbs.
• Dimensions: 8.8" x 1.3" x 6.0"

Customer Reviews

Great, but a few flaws.

I was torn between a 4 and a 5 rating. What is good is great, but I think a few things should have been added. I'd give it a couple of stars just for the loving detail of having printed it blue on white. It is a very interesting history. It is all the more informative because Sullivan gives alternate versions of various stories, instead of simply selecting the one he prefers. In addition, he mentions that he is slightly skeptical of some "official stories" without actually calling the source a liar. He has obviously spoken with or researched a large number of people involved in the industry. There is a lot of detail about various companies, although Levis gets the most space (as is appropriate.) Sullivan begins with forerunners of jeans, different fabrics, and traces the shift in usage from working people, to youthful rebellion to designer jeans. There is one thing missing in this history, in my opinion, and I admit that this is a self-serving pet peeve. Having been born in 1953, I am tired of having the baby boomers all characterized the the oldest members of the set. The Baby Boom lasted until 1968 - some of the youngest "boomers" are the children of the oldest. I can just imagine what people younger than myself think. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, when I was wearing jeans, the sense of rebellion had pretty much died out. Oh, the rebellious still wore jeans, wearing jeans wasn't necessarily a sign of being rebellious. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the adults of most of my peers accepted jeans as the costume of the young without much protest, even though most of them didn't wear jeans. That battle was fought and won by the slightly older. The issue was less blue jeans per se than the issue of formality in dress. We couldn't wear jeans to high school, but women also couldn't wear any type of pants, including a split skirt or culottes. I don't think that jeans were quite the sex symbols that they became with designer jeans. They were rather androgynous and partly symbolic of sexual equality. Some people wore them as an alternative to gendered clothing. If you're not sure what that meant, try reading Susan Brownmiller's Femininity (Paladin Books). I'm not saying that wearers necessarily succeeded in avoiding cultural norms of looking sexy, just that it was sometimes their intent. My other problems are with some of the details. Sullivan doesn't clearly define a lot of terms. While I appreciate his explanation of denim/jean/dungaree and how they came to be confused, a little more detail would have been nice. When Sullivan says that denim differed from jean in being a tougher twill, does he mean that denim was a twill and jean was not, or does he mean that both were twills but denim was tougher. I think he should have defined more of his fashion terms: there weren't so many that it would have been burdensome. I imagine that a lot of people think that "calico" applies only to fabrics with sm

Great, but a few flaws.

I was torn between a 4 and a 5 rating. What is good is great, but I think a few things should have been added. I'd give it a couple of stars just for the loving detail of having printed it blue on white. It is a very interesting history. It is all the more informative because Sullivan gives alternate versions of various stories, instead of simply selecting the one he prefers. In addition, he mentions that he is slightly skeptical of some "official stories" without actually calling the source a liar. He has obviously spoken with or researched a large number of people involved in the industry. There is a lot of detail about various companies, although Levis gets the most space (as is appropriate.) Sullivan begins with forerunners of jeans, different fabrics, and traces the shift in usage from working people, to youthful rebellion to deisgner jeans. There is one thing missing in this history, in my opinion, and I admit that this is a self-serving pet peeve. Having been born in 1953, I am tired of having the baby boomers all characterized the the oldest members of the set. The Baby Boom lasted until 1968 - some of the youngest "boomers" are the children of the oldest. I can just imagine what people younger than myself think. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, when I was wearing jeans, the sense of rebellion had pretty much died out. Oh, the rebellious still wore jeans, wearing jeans wasn't necessarily a sign of being rebellious. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the adults of most of my peers accepted jeans as the costume of the young without much protest, even though most of them didn't wear jeans. That battle was fought and won by the slightly older. The issue was less blue jeans per se than the issue of formality in dress. We couldn't wear jeans to high school, but women also couldn't wear any type of pants, including a split skirt or culottes. I don't think that jeans were quite the sex symbols that they became with designer jeans. They were rather androgynous and partly symbolic of sexual equality. Some people wore them as an alternative to gendered clothing. If you're not sure what that meant, try reading Susan Brownmiller's Feminity. I'm not saying that wearers necessarily succeeded in avoiding cultural norms of looking sexy, just that it was sometimes their intent. My other problems are with some of the details. Sullivan doesn't clearly define a lot of terms. While I appreciate his explanation of denim/jean/dungaree and how they came to be confused, a little more detail would have been nice. When Sullivan says that denim differed from jean in being a tougher twill, does he mean that denim was a twill and jean was not, or does he mean that both were twills but denim was tougher. I think he should have defined more of his fashion terms: there weren't so many that it would have been burdensome. I imagine that a lot of people think that "calico" applies only to fabrics with small figured prints

Great Read, Interesting Book

Being a 3rd generation garmento, I found this book very interesting. Denim has gone from being a blue-collar item to having full-fledged fashion status and dominating the contemporary market. Sullivan's book chronicles this transition in a smooth, intelligible way. This book explores American culture as much as it does denim. And to the person who contested the Brigham Young quote, your comment was not exactly a "review", which is what this section is designed for. Furthermore, I would be interested to know your basis in challenging this quote as you offered no source for your statement.

Great Book

James Sullivan covers the history of jeans from the creation of denim to the Levi's I'm wearing today. The book is well researched; full of great information and things I never knew about the jeans industry. It brought clarity to much of what went on in the late 70's and early 80's when designer jeans came about. A fun look at America's cultural history. Really a great read.

Sticky Fingers

Regardless of what denomination Brigham Young was when he did or didn't call jeans 'fornication pants', jeans ARE sexy and--as everyone knows--sex sells. Sullivan does a great job of tracing the arc of this most iconic piece of American clothing from simple work gear to high fashion (and big business) must-have. A stylish and functional bit of Americana, much like jeans themselves; I love the blue type and design. My only complaint is that "Jeans" doesn't come with a soundtrack, but then again I guess we each have our own.