Department of Media Studies 30 hp Studies Master Thesis Spring semester 2020 Supervisor: Klas Nyberg Abstract This thesis aims to highlight the smock- within the context of Soviet-Estonia during the post-war epoch, ca. 1950s until 1990s. Through Mauss’s socio-anthropological tripoint view, the concepts and identities of the smock-dress are studied from the angles of biology, sociology and psychology. The intention is to show its widespread use amongst Soviet- Estonian women and their remembrance of it, in accordance with the Soviet ideological structures. Using semi-structured interviews, I have assembled oral history from women who attain this historical retrospective, aiming to depict the smock-dress as both a concept and an object, thus functioning as an emblem of Soviet society rather than a historical artefact. Relying on the terms nostalgia, socio-cultural belonging and phenomenology, I seek to capture the smock-dress as both a vestiary phenomenon and representation of social structures. Thus, creating a dual identity, individual and collective, through its usage, showing that sartorial fashion encompasses more than just emotions and promoted stylistics.

Keywords: Women, Home, Smock-Dress, Soviet-Estonia, Nostalgia, , Phenomenon

Cover photo: Vello Västrik (private collection) approx. 1975. Accessed: Ellen Värv. Kittel – nägus või näotu? [Smock- handsome or hideous?], Eesti Rahva Muuseum, 2019-09-05, https://blog.erm.ee/?p=12849, [Blog] Stockholm June 10th, 2020 Acknowledgments Firstly, I wish to express my gratitude to Klas Nyberg for being my supervisor throughout this turbulent time. Without his guidance this thesis would not have seen the light of day. Similarly, I wish to give thanks to Louise Wallenberg, whose encouragement I have always valued highly. Importantly, a sincere thanks to the women of this study for allowing me access into their personal histories. All of them demonstrated that fashion indeed exists and communicates in multifaceted and timeless ways. Additionally, a special thanks to the National Library of Estonia for facilitating my archival research and others who have contributed to the makings of this thesis. Also, thanks to my friends, who not only aided to identify this topic but also kept my mind from spinning throughout this process. Lastly, I am ever so grateful for my family’s inspiration and support, whom without none of this would have been written.

I dedicate this to my mother and grandmother.

“An object in motion tends to remain in motion along a straight line, unless acted upon by an outside force.”

Sir Isaac Newton Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis, 1686 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 3

AIMS & QUESTIONS 6 SUMMARY 7 METHODOLOGY & MATERIAL 8 FACING HISTORY 8 APPROACHING HISTORY 9 DISPLAYING HISTORY 11 SUMMARY 11 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 12 ESTABLISHING THE PHENOMENON 13 SOCIO-CULTURAL BELONGING 16 ACHING MEMORIES 17 SUMMARY 19 DE-LIMITATIONS 22 LITERATURE REVIEW 19 SUMMARY 21 THESIS OUTLINE 23

CHAPTER 1｜ STICHING TOGETHER A CHARACTER 24

IDENTIFYING THE DRESS 25 ESTABLISHING THE ORIGINS 25 FINDING THE GARMENTS PURPOSE 28 THE ‘DIY’ GARMENT 31 BUYING INTO IT 31 FINDING THE RIGHT MATERIAL 35 FINAL REMARKS 39

CHAPTER 2｜ ILLUSTRATING IDEOLOGICAL IDEALS 40

PORTRAYING COLLECTIVE CONCEPTS 41 FASHIONING IDEOLOGICAL POTENCY 41 TRANSFORMING INTO A UNIFORM 44 CONFORMING WITH IDEALS AND TEMPLATES 47 ILLUSTRATING A MODEL WOMAN 47 SEARCHING FOR ROLE MODELS 51 FINAL REMARKS 54

CHAPTER 3｜ REMEMBERING UNSENTIMENTAL MEMORIES 55

THE SOVIET HOUSEWIFE REVISITED 56 CREATING COMFORTABLE SOCIALISM 56 INHERITING THE DRESS 59 EMOTIONS OF THE PAST 62 SUPERFICIALLY IDEOLOGICAL 62 DRESSING IN RETROSPECTIVE 64 FINAL REMARKS 68 CONCLUSION 69

FINAL DISCUSSION 69 WHAT WAS THE DRESS? 70 WHERE WAS THE DRESS? 71 HOW WAS THE DRESS? 72 FINAL REMARKS 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY 74

PUBLISHED MATERIAL 74 INTERNET SOURCES 77 ARCHIVAL MATERIAL 78

APPENDIX 80

DESIGNER MARIT ILISON 80 A - 70 COTTON SMOCKS 81 B - 77 CHINTZES 85 C - PATTERNS: KREENHOLM’S TEXTILE DESIGN 1953-2005 91 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 96

2 INTRODUCTION Tallinn, January, 1981. In a ‘khrushchyovka’ apartment, a teenage girl notes down in her diary; “Reagan has just been inaugurated president of the United States of America…”, unaware of how the world will look like in ten years’ time. Meanwhile her mother, having just come home from work, rushes through the front door, hanging her thick woollen on one hook, grabbing her lighter smock dress from another. Tying it around her in order not to ruin her clothes underneath with grease stains, she heads into the kitchen to fry some pancakes for her children. Whilst flipping them by the stove, she notices the purple stains on the sleeve, reminding her of the blackcurrant jam she cooked of the berries they picked last summer. She then makes a mental note – “it is about time to take out the sewing-machine again”. When the red banner overlooking the Kremlin, descended for the last time on December 25th 1991, one, being citizen of a communist country, might have asked — was that it? One might even have questioned what they had just lived through.1 One might also dispute if it ever really left. Lasting imprints of the Soviet Union [SU/USSR] makes itself reminded in many ways still today. In this way, the reminiscences of the former SU are not that far-fetched at all. Nostalgic cues of how life once was are something hard to relinquish. Sort of a re-visit to a once very real and lived myth. Likely, because it represents a bygone era having once been part of, if not even being a piece of one’s own identity. Like many of us hide, re-use or simply forget certain garments in our wardrobes. They allow us to momentarily travel back in time. Not only treasuring memories, but even the time and space they took place in. Proving that they were charged with much more than their practical use. More so, the direct influence of politics in fashion production. Not the least including the act of embodiment and, even more so, a certain piece of used for the embodiment that resonates with that encircling political discourse. In this attempt to improve and develop the field of fashion studies, I believe that one should always attempt to challenge and confront it from opposing angles. Very much so in fashion and its constant need for new interpretations. What does and does not fall under the category of adored fashion? Can any garment that has previously been so cherished serve as historical evidence of fashion? Especially if the use and concept of the way of dressing is collective, can it be considered a trend or even a style, or merely remain a shared way of covering the body? Still, if multiple people dressed similarly, using a particular piece of clothing, that could potentially open new dimension of ‘fashion’.

1 Schmemann, Serge, ”END OF THE SOVIET UNION; The Soviet State, Born of a Dream, Dies”, The New York Times, 1991-12-26, https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/26/world/end-of-the-Soviet-union-the-Soviet-state-born- of-a-dream-dies.html 3 One of these objects I find fitting here is namely the smock, or more particularly the smock dress. A womenswear item, made in different variations, in a smock-like cut, functioning as a shield towards dirt and dust while tidying at home. Which over time came to be much more than that, practically gravitating towards becoming an insignia of Soviet female society. Demonstratively, the smock dress has come to be more than a bearer of social and cultural meaning, but also becoming an historical artefact. As it, in accordance with its practising in Soviet-Estonia [S-E], not only embodied the everyday wear female life, but also a favoured ideal and practical appearance. Initially, I would like to take advantage of a general politicisation of the fashion discourse. A topic interlinking the aspects and dimensions of politics which both influence and undermine fashion in all sort of measures. Set aside from published literature covering the interrelation between fashion and politics, particularly socialist fashion, I have not seen any signs of the smock or smock dress been studied as a distinctive type of clothing, let alone with any political influence. With many other types of garments becoming characteristic for a political cause, ideological sympathy or even patriotic affiliations.2 My attraction to this topic particularly, is how this practice takes place under certain non-considered conditions. Meaning, dressing in a more or less identical way, without any broader self-reflection of one’s façade. Simply adapting to a homogenous way of dressing as well as embodying a given role. Thereby – as a bodily cover – it acts as a shared embodiment of a certain role. Whether that role plays out in work related, religious or leisured circumstances. It confirms a sort of togetherness and commonality based on a shared understanding or concept.3 Generally, there has remained a long-lasting shadow over Russia and the other former Soviet republics, with a general idea of its style to be rather uniform. At the same time, the SU led one of the largest organisations of in the world, completely under the realm of the communist party. Hence, gaining the supervision of political institutions and stipulations. This being the main topic that I shall try to develop and shall further discuss through an examination of the socio-cultural function of the artefact of the smock dress. Scholars, Jukka Gronow along with Sergey Zhuravlev, claim that the SU never really achieved a good reputation nor a competitor within the world of fashion, in regard to its standardised and mass-producing industry.4 But, how did they get a hold of fashion news and adopted them? And more importantly, how was it protected?

2 Djurdja Bartlett. ”Can Fashion Be Defended?”, in Fashion and politics, (red.), Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2019, pp. 17-57 3 Bartlett. ”Can Fashion Be Defended? ” 4 Jukka Gronow and Sergey Ivanovič Zhuravlev. Fashion meets socialism: Fashion industry in the Soviet Union after the Second World War, [Digital resource], Finnish Literature Society, Helsinki, 2015, p. 10 4 In this thesis, I will argue that fashion not only regards clothing worn in public, but also a common practice of dressing in the domestic sphere. Especially a variation made out solely for women. Looking back at the post-war period in S-E, I will investigate the usage of this smock dress and most notably the memories of it through the told stories of women who themselves preserve this memory. What I wish to bring to light is the mere notion of the smock/smock use as a collective practice. Aspiring to unveil and expose the emergent identity that is transmitted through a physical object and also an attire, I detect that it also possesses a potency of narrating a minor insight into the daily lives of women in the SU. Thus, converting its symbolic Soviet meaning of being an outlet for nostalgia. Furthermore, how the merging of the garment and its wearer mutually structure a new understanding of its vestiary understanding and historical background. By pinpointing its phenomenological existence, as both a physical and abstract object, struggling to not be forgotten due to lack of modern-day popularity. Then again, many stories relating to other topics emerge, as the smock dress in this study is recollected and investigated through open-ended questions performed in semi- structured group interviews, allowing the informants to mutually spark each other’s similar and dissimilar thoughts of having once made, worn and owned this particular garment that deviates from ‘beautiful’ fashion. With this thesis, I thus wish to demonstrate that any subject, object or concept will never serve the exact same meaning or purpose it once previously has. By limiting myself to the post-war era of S-E, I enable myself to remain focused on a time and space equally confirming and contradicting its autonomous definition of fashion during this epoch. I do this with the belief, that even if history is indeed left to the past, it finds new ways to re-emerge and manifest itself again and again. And for that reason, it makes it even more interesting to set eyes on one particular object – even if not physically present – to remain constant. Regardless of how many books of history have been written, my firm position is that it levels up to a different dynamic when spoken by its experiencers. In this case solidified within the object of the smock dress. With many kinds of representation at hand, I find these interviews to highlight the production, function, practice and experience of the smock dress in a glow unattainable through descriptions, replicas or interpretations. It represents life, embodiment, social structures and emotions on a scale that the fashioning of womanhood in the SU has never seen before. It serves as mental memorabilia worth a try to be researched about. The main reason being that it not only gives us an indication of life in a no more existent society, but to the contrary, illustrates another conceptualisation of fashion, opposing the fashion industry of our time, where valuing certain objects has come to be a question of capital worth. Arguably then, the smock dress had a greater importance than being a cover whilst frying pancakes.

5 Aims & questions The general objective of this thesis is to unveil that even under authoritarian communist rule and planned economy, an organising of fashion was still capable of operating. As a result of that, also a practicing of dressing norms under presiding (political) conditions. My supposition, as well as my starting point is, that this accordingly also impacted the individuals freedom of choice, as well as their access to certain garments and fabrics, which in turn reflects the practice. More specifically, a produced ideal of the female’s appearance. How might it come to be that certain appearances and objects have such a strong dependency on their environment? The smock dress proposes an interesting case where it was defined to a certain space but also to a given gender. Besides encircling a certain identity-nostalgia, I accordingly would also wish to integrate the idea of a political[ideological] identity which adds to both the wearer’s and the worn’s comprehensiveness and whether that might result in either discrepancy or frustration. Accordingly, this study targets to highlight the unique role of the smock dress and its symbolic potential as a domesticated home dress. In a retrospective exploring both its practical and social functions in S-E, as well as its potential of being labelled a part of both fashion and dress history. Specifying my aim, my ambition is to investigate what role the smock dress had in accordance with the practice of in S-E. Studying is the surrounding discourse that added to this social construction and execution and how much that covered the smock dress. Meaning that the central theme consists of how the institutionalised role of the woman took place in accordance with social conceptions and image. Investigating the idea of how pre- determined social roles are projected through a material object. What I find to be of interest here, however, is the collective impression of this dress. Its [visual] power through its sheer presence. Thereby becoming somewhat homogenising as the smock was undeniably common. Capturing the spirit of my intentions, namely, is to highlight the ambiguous definition of fashion and the smock dresses prominent nature. Something which I believe always finds a way of manifesting itself within any community. Therefore, bracketing the smock dress to the period of S-E during the post-war period, serves as an entrance for understanding how it existed, performed and survived over this overreaching period. I hence question;

• What are the traits of the smock dress? o What was its looks and origins? o Who wore it? o How was it made?

6 • How was the smock dress portrayed during this period? [aprox.1950s-1990s] o In which ways was it collectively conceptualised? o What role did the fashion magazines have?

• How is the smock dress remembered in a retrospective? o What was(is) the personal experience of it? o In which context was it appropriate to wear? o Was there any direct political influence?

By connecting two historical nodal points, it permits fresh insight to a wider narrative, as well as the historical transformation. Positioning of the body at the centre of this analysis of fashion/dress allows me to examine the micro-level individual experiences to the macro-level of fashion industry, keeping the body in mind whilst spreading fashion.5 Especially objects that are not necessarily considered to be fashionably attractive or chic. Still they make out a good portion of a vestiary practice which likewise makes it out to be an intelligible study object. Helen Berry explains that most historians have made it a habit to study historical objects as artefacts of a bygone era. Meaning that a particular object is tied together with a certain period or context.6 My claim being that the smock dress in particular could not be made comprehensible without the woman it was constructed for. Not claiming it would be empty but perhaps insufficient without adding a human experience to it. Attempting to show, reinterpret and clarify how meaning is formed with and around the smock dress but also a contextual understanding of it through descriptions of it and the relations to the [social] body.7

Summary With these questions attempt of interpreting the smock dress from three angles, studying the body alongside the object that constitutes the meaning and function of the object, as they are both interlinked and culturally produced within the same ideological framework. Which in this study focuses on the object [garment] gaining its meaning with and through the body [woman] in the set social context [the domestic sphere in S-E]. Thus, constructing the female’s smock dress embodying, seeing its symbolic power of its own creation, solidifying not only a human experience and a physical object but also a shared idea, supported by [indirect] politics.

5 Entwistle. ”Addressing the Body”, pp. 31-56 6 Helen Berry. in Karen Harvey (red.). History and material culture: a student's guide to approaching alternative sources [Digital resource], 2017. pp. 188-191 7 Simionescu-Panait. p. 37 7 Methodology & Material The ultimate way of engaging with history, I would dare claim, would be to listen to it first- hand. More specifically, what a certain object represents and both the individual and collective bond to it as it certainly evokes various emotions and notions. I will in this section therefore present both my methodological approach for sourcing this, as well as my material giving me this opportunity. Investigating their capability of doing so by the applying of my theoretical framework. I additionally present some previous exhibitions that add to the social discourse.

Facing history Motivating the choice of material for this study, I believe face to face encounters with both wearers of this garment are vital to provide me with a nuanced understanding. In a way, stipulating this dress with 'life' as it, after all, is connected to a performative aspect, thus perceiving the smock dress as a ‘uniform for the Soviet-woman’.8 Barthes refers to this as one of three ways of interpreting dress; the technological, iconic and verbal translation of structures which jointly base the discussion of a real garment. Yet, they are in need of operators to deliver these representations, which here would concern the power of speech.9 Gathering the components of females that have experienced the smock in Soviet conditions, I reached out to two elderly groups that could provide me with this vital perspective. I consequently found it useful to meet all of these women at their local community centre, where they more or less regularly gather once a week for a handicraft circle (doing knitting, embroidery and/or looming). One of these centres located in the northern Tallinn-district of Kopli and the other in Tabasalu borough, not far off from the capital. In chronological order the interviewed women were the following; the first group consisted of 5 in between the age of 78-79 (born in 1940s). The second group consisting of 4 belonging to a tad younger generation, overreaching the ages of 55-65 (born in 1950-60s) with the exception of one woman of an honourable 85 years old mostly adding comments along the way. The third group consisting of a slightly larger group of 6 between the ages of 70-75 (born 1940-50s). All of the interviews were documented through recordings and simpler notetaking during the interviews but are only semi-transcribed.10 The reason being that some screening had to be made, as parts of the conversation were not covering the investigated area or came to be too off topic. I thus see all the interviews as one combined quantity of material, collecting these women’s experiences with the presumption that their experiences were somewhat similar and some of them not being as active as others.

8 For a further evaluation on this concept of ‘uniform’, see Appendix A 9 Barthes. pp. 5-7 10 Recordings available upon request 8 Even if they each spoke for themselves, they recurrently answered me from a somewhat preestablished basis, which often proved their common understanding of it. I therefore got no greater insight into their personal lives, other that detailed mentioning’s during the course of these interviews, since the topic of the interviews primarily concerned the topic of the smock [dress] and their recollection of it and not Soviet-Estonian history nor their experience of necessarily being housewives. I will hence moreover reference to the informants groupwise although emphasising each woman’s individual voice. Thus, attempting to find a balance of comparison between the groups while at the same time underlining their collective understanding of the smock[dress] and its use. As already mentioned in the literature review, I will complement with a selected number of magazines to balance these women’s retellings of the Soviet era. Thus, the magazines are in themselves not a part of this study’s material but serve rather as an extensive reflection of these women’s representation of the garment during this time. The magazines hence serve as documented material for this study rather than being the investigated topic. Validating these women’s stories in an attempt of confirming that the mentioned magazines to which the women of this study often refereed to, indeed featured the smock or smock dress. Serving as one layer of the sociological aspect of the smock dress as a vestiary phenomenon. Moreover, all of these women were plausibly of Estonian decent or had at least resided in Estonia sometime during this period up until this study — hence for this study they are considered as Estonian. Likewise, they were all living in an urban area. Which, on the one hand supposedly might have affected their perception of dressing or fashion. Yet on the other hand, the smock[dress] was discussed in wide nation covering terms as these women likely originally have their roots in other parts of Estonia but also, from the all-covering aspect of the USSR. I then do not intend to isolate these women’s retellings. To the contrary, seeing how the quantity and kinship of their stories intervened add and narrate the smock discourse.

Approaching history These semi-structured interviews, borderline to becoming focus groups at points, provided me with a multifaceted understanding of the smock dress, as each of these women capsuled both an individual and collective relationship to the physical object simultaneously.11 The discussions between these women were overall continuous and enriching as one thought often led to another alongside finishing each other’s thoughts and often finding a common ground of sharing a notion or memory of the smock[dress].

11 See Anne Galletta. Mastering the Semi-structured Interview and Beyond: From Research Design to Analysis and Publication (Qualitative Studies in Psychology) [Digital resource], New York University Press, 2012 9 Through their retellings of it, they could thus answer me from both the personal and shared perspectives of using the object, whilst also being able to compare and discuss with other informants. Hence at the same moment being able to combine their individual experiences with others. If yet passively agreeing or disagreeing by not showing any greater affections to the smock[dress]. With all of these 15 women (each one belonging to their group) sitting in the same room, asked the same constitutive open-ended questions, enquiring them to describe their relation to the smock dress; their perception of it, their recollection of it as well as their use of it. I collect their answers as a group, providing me with a homogenous understanding of the history, function, appearance and experience of the smock dress through the lens of these women’s combined retrospective memories. I therefore also interpret some of these women’s unresponsiveness as being either confirming or denying to the collective opinion, pointing out that each of them took part in discussing the questions that were given. Since the primary ambition is to investigate their memory of it, I also found it important to meet the interviewees in a space were they usually gathered, as a ‘safe zone’, surrounded by other [Soviet] women. By me paying a visit to the informants, it naturally constituted a time and space for the women to liberally evaluate on my investigated topic. Each of these pre- arranged meetings shaped out to be of a rather spontaneous form, as the interviewees were only given the topic and purpose of illustrating the smock[dress] in both a retrospective and in present day. Thus, the proposed questions were not asked systematically, nor were they answered as such.12 Rather, they were proposed irregularly as the discussion went on and in that way answering, on a pre-arranged basis, the same questions as the other groups. It proved itself useful to interview these women in particular, because of their skills in handicraft in combination with their [gendered] historical knowledge. In a way, letting reminiscence become the space for the smock dress to exist during our gatherings. The prepared questions were formed with the help of questionnaires (nr. 204, 207, 226) provided by the National Museum of Estonia. Although not completely overlapping my topic, these forms proved me with a good base for studying the theoretical concept [phenomenon] of the smock dress and these women’s emotional relation to it. Additionally, I did not find it essential for the physical object to be present, even though two examples of smock dresses were presented during one interview session. In anticipation of not being able to maintain an absolute focus of all the interviewees simultaneously, I reduced myself to asking as few dominant questions as possible, only asking follow-up questions in moments of unclarity or asking their more graphic memories of the role of the smock dress.

12 Questions provided in the appendix 10 Displaying history Another way of accessing history, has been to follow these following exhibitions that have taken place during last years in Tallinn. Having myself not interacted with all of them, I consider them as a pillars for the overall discourse confirming a wider interest for this topic, showing that the relating exhibitions mentioned are not isolated events. One exhibition of this was at the panoramic of Tallinn TV-tower in 2017, with various colourful smocks displayed. The retrospective named Smock and arranged by students of the Estonian Art Academy, consisted of garments used by the S-En woman at home. Asking what mothers and grandmothers wore during 1980s Estonia and describing how nostalgia brings one back to the deficit times and how the smock came to be a saviour when nothing else was obtainable, truly bringing out both female creativity and beauty.13 Besides the previously mentioned Fashion and the Cold war and Smock and Apron, the smock has returned twice through multidisciplinary artist Marit Ilison. The first one in a fashion/art performance named 70 Smocks at the Museum of Applied Arts and Designs in Estonia (See Appendix A). Returning to exploring the smock as part of an art retrospective named at the Art Museum of Estonia, with her piece 77 chintzes (See Appendix B).14 Additionally, extending to the topic of the fabrics used and produced during the Soviet era in exhibition named Patterns: Kreenholm's textile designs 1953-2005, also displayed at the Museum of Design and Applied Arts (See Appendix C).

Summary Combining these women’s retellings of the smock dress, I seek to interpret their answers to respond to the given research questions, that in turn see to the three phenomenological aspects used (explained further below). Through semi-structured interviews and inspective questions asking them to illustrate the smocks appearance, use and experience, my material provided me with a multi-layered understanding of what the smock was during Soviet rule. Thus, it is the quantity of their records that is of essence alongside their personal experiences. Not separating their individual answers, as they jointly elicit and echo each other’s memories. Quoting feminist scholar Audre Lorde; there cannot be single issue struggles since we do not live single-issue lives.15

13 Tallinna Teletorn. Nõukogude naise kitlid ja põlled [The Soviet woman’s smocks and ], Tallinna Teletorn, 2017, https://www.teletorn.ee/event/naeitus-noukogude-naise-kitlid-ja-polled/ 14 Kumu. Sots art ja mood - Kontseptuaalsed rõivad Ida-Euroopast [Sots art and fashion - Conceptual clothes from Eastern Europe], 2020, [Exhibition], https://kumu.ekm.ee/syndmus/sots-art-ja-mood-kontseptuaalsed-roivad-ida- euroopast/ 15 Hoskins. p. 7 11 The premise of this study could thus be described as studying the concept and memory of the dress, and not the actual object or its production. Whilst this is taken into consideration to form a better understanding, it proves its difficulties to choose one dress as representative for the smock dresses entire phenomenological existence. The smock dress as a purpose fitting, self-governing piece of clothing fits into the larger picture. Finally, also not considering the smock dress to be a certified object of fashion. I consequently do not also consider it to be an up-front product of the S-En fashion industry. Rather, I perceive it as a garment of similar qualities. Without any insight into the informants personal or collective experience, it marks a border between me and anyone who has come to know life during this distinctive period – the S-En and appearances. It is also crucial to mention that the stance of polarising the eastern and western spheres of Europe similarly colours my perception and research of this topic. Having myself predominantly been raised in Sweden, my persistent connection to Estonia via my mother has undoubtedly influenced my perspective. Accordingly, this has played a substantial role in my choice of topic. Researching the demarcated region of Estonia might not need a personal connection in other types of disciplines. However, I would argue that when it comes to disciplines such as sociology or anthropology my culturally ingrained views, having an Estonian background, play out a certain role in analysing this topic, which I see as both inevitable and beneficial, as certain considerations might clarify even if the topic itself is unfamiliar.

Theoretical framework What approaches are then necessary for reviewing a phenomenon of the past? Gathering the right tools for investigating this topic, I have attempted to match the tripoint phenomenological approach used in this study with three combined aspects of studying the object in question. By initially explaining these three viewpoints developed by Marcel Mauss, I move on further to establish the scene of events, namely [Soviet] Estonia by providing a general overlook of how the nation today recalls its cultural heritage, much dominated by Soviet rule. It is an important fundament to base this study on, as the historical past in many ways has come to influence how Estonians today identify in an east/west polarisation of European belonging. Finally, I see to the more emotional aspect, provided by Svetlana Boym’s definition of Nostalgia, tackling the personal and more individual angels in creating a collectively shared sensation.

12 Establishing the phenomenon Diving deeper into this particular discourse, as given literature allows me to, I see to any material dealing with the fashioning of the Soviet women – simply because the idea of the Soviet woman did not variate a lot. With this said, nothing points to the fact that all women across the USSR looked or dressed exactly alike, presumably the opposite. Referring to philosopher Andrei Simionescu-Panait, he explains that applying phenomenology to the domain habited by clothes [body, society and conception] forms its natural habitat. He clarifies that the domain consists of various parts that unitedly create its appearance as well as a common attitude towards the object. Thus, the common perspective is essential for its phenomenological comprehensiveness, as they jointly make up the frame of conditions enabling a further analysis. That there is not a single understanding of a phenomenon, nor a right way of using it.16 He continues by stating that one act does not necessarily imply another, neither does it imply possibility of another. Yet, his claim does not reveal if he has a particular object in mind or not. However, I attempt to propose a historical era which would prove him wrong. In agreement with his argument of fashion’s own awareness of its constant hunger for evolving by innovation. I disagree with his implied limitation of fashion being reliant on new expressions. Especially concerning objects that are not conventionally seen as fashionable. On the note of owning a certain meaning, Simionescu-Panait writes that it is somewhat unsurprising that the making of clothes accompanied by its aesthetical factors reaches us through direct, unmediated sensuous experience. Allowing us to gain a deeper value via the cultural habits reflecting our identity.17 In matters of theory then — seeing the smock dress as an ‘occurrence’ — I seek backing from sociologist Mauss who reflects upon the doing of a body and the physical performance and meanings/habits of that body. Asserting that a complete understanding of the body acquires a triple-viewpoint, those being sociological, psychological and biological attributes which combined make out a social body through persona and self.18 The sociological covering the field of politics/ideology and social norms, the psychological dealing with both the individual and collective conceptualisation of it, and the biological its embodied practise. The pivotal research questions of this thesis are also framed in accordance with this tripoint perspective. Moreover, Mauss makes it clear that every society has its own habits, thereby creating its own representations of a phenomenon. He also clarifies that the same type of action or doing across societies have varied definitions.19

16 Andrei Simionescu-Panait. ”Husserl, Fashion and Its Clothes: Introducing the Phenomenological Project of the Vestiary Object”, ANNALS of the University of Bucharest Philosophy Series, Vol. LXIII, no. 2, 2014, p. 32 17 Ibid. pp. 28, 32-33 18 Jennifer Craik. ”, body techniques and Culture” in Uniforms Exposed [Digital resource], Berg, 2005 19 Marcel Mauss. (1935), ”Techniques of the body”. Reprint, Economy and Society, 2:1, 1973. pp. 70-73 13 This is complemented with Simionescu-Panait’s perspective on studying the vestiary object from a phenomenological stance, which looks more into the emotional experience of wearing a particular garment as well as what notions are awoken through wearing it. Arguing, that the bodily cover possesses an idea of its own. Kerry E. Howell, who describes Edmund Husserl's execution of a [transcendental] phenomenological study, is to precisely do so. According to Husserl, this is what leads us to read a phenomenons structure, but more significantly, its action in society. To some extent, this would require relying on a ‘natural attitude’ which would constitute some ‘realness’ of understanding meanings of structures.20 In an ethnographical/socio-anthropological way of exhibiting how consciousness exists and how the human engages with the attitudes of the world through their senses, making the correlation between the object and the acts of consciousness.21 I hence impose the term uniform for the smock dress, as the collective action for dressing might not be visually identical yet used and conceptualised communally, in order to study the techniques of a uniformed body. The Cambridge Dictionary defines the word uniform, as: “A particular set of clothes that has to be worn by the members of the same organisation or group of people”.22 This description opens up for a wide range of interpretations. However, one characteristic becomes more evident than the other. Namely, the uniform’s ability to make something joint, mutual and collative. Under the subject of history and material culture, Giorgio Riello proposes three ways of digging deeper into the historical importance of an object are proposed. Either looking at an object with, within or alongside history. One can then choose whether to perceive the linked, confined or parallel relevance to a time period. Or from Sara Pennell’s perspective, how mundane objects which are given attention through retrospective, when they become evidence of ‘everyday life‘ that are able to provide us with something more. Something more virtuous and intimate than commonly associated objects of an era. Berry also proposes, that comparing an object[s] across time allows researchers to cast doubt on the idea that commercial globalisation is both linear and incremental.23 Interestingly enough, when studying this object in a retrospective point of view it raises the question of how present this object actually is, considering that this study does not look at the actual object.

20 Kerry E. Howell. An introduction to the philosophy of methodology, [Digital resource.] SAGE: Los Angeles, 2016. p. 61; Simionescu-Panait. pp. 31-32 21 Howell. pp. 56-64 22 The Cambridge Dictionary. Uniform, Cambridge University Press, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/uniform, 2020open 23 Giorgio Riello; Helen Berry; Sarah Pennell in Karen Harvey (red.). History and material culture: a student's guide to approaching alternative sources [Digital resource], 2017, pp. 27-29, 188-191, 222-224 14 Then again, it is the idea/phenomenon of it and I thus perceive this object as absent in matters of being defined by a previous epoch and not in matters of function or materiality. While I do to some extent agreeing with Quentin Bells claim that ‘dress’ not always shows itself adequate of mirroring social climate, I hypothesise that this indeed manifests itself differently.24 Studying what is considered as 'other', i.e. a non-democratic circulation of fashion. Consequently, adapting phenomenology, Husserl formulates the concept of epoch, through which one can read both if and how consciousness exists which becomes necessary when studying my enclosure time period. Even more so, studying how interactions with objects engage the human's attitude. Husserl goes further into the term bracketing which primarily requires identification of a phenomenon and its maintenance, meaning how this variates among an abundant number of practisers and the integration of experiences. There amongst the experience and/or memory of dressing in a certain way during a certain time and space such as the smock dress in S-E. Although I do not expect argumentative discussions regarding the smock dress or the female's societal loyalties, my belief is that a phenomenological viewpoint can provide with some ethnographical truth and realism.25 I believe that new providing with interpretations and phenomena that re-inscribe how and to which extent a certain event or experience is manifested and represented, has the ability to nuance the definition of fashion. Kaori O'Connor chimes in, elucidating how cultural studies in sociology have had the habit of excluding anthropologists from studying fashion through a more one-dimensional modernity paradigm, namely, that western fashion changes and is modern apart from fixed and traditional non-western clothing.26 What I am at length arguing here is that this dress in itself serves as a material phenomenon. From one aspect becoming emblematic of the female Soviet citizen and her appearance, showing the emergence of this particular garment, in a way, having a life of its own. Bearing some resemblance to Roland Barthes semiotic approach of the signified and signifier, in this case would make nostalgia the signifier of the concept of the dress. The smock allows itself to be studied more easily through phenomenology, as a non- specified object located within the memory of the interviewed women in this study.27 The interviewed women serving as main material for this study are more importantly also a first- hand source, describing their personal and shared experience of the smock dress in their daily lives. Some having left it to the past, other keen on using it to this day.

24 Joanne Entwistle. The Fashioned Body [Digital resource], Wiley, Hoboken, 2015 p. 74 25 Howell. pp. 122-123 26 Kaori O’Connor. ”The Other Half: The Material Culture of New Fibres” in Susanne Küchler and Daniel Miller (red.) Clothing as Material Culture [Digital source] Oxford: Berg, 2005, pp. 41-49 27 Roland Barthes. ”Between thing and word” in The Fashion System, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 1983[1990] pp. 27-41 15 Socio-cultural belonging In an article from one of Estonia’s largest daily magazines Postimees in 2018, 1139 Estonian residents between the wide age range of 15-84, were asked whether the country geo-politically and culturally belonged to either the ‘west’ or ‘east’. An overwhelming majority (49%) claimed that Estonia surely belonged to the West, whilst merely a fraction (4,7%) argued that it leaned more to the East. Interestingly enough, the opposing majority (35,9%) states that it belonged somewhere in between with the remaining percentages not being entirely sure.28 The ambivalence I draw from this is how majority are determined to be part of what is considered to be ‘western’. Then again, there is also a concise opinion of ending up in a midway grey-zone. Defending my reason for bringing this up, is because I see there to be a direct link between the current self-perception and state of mind, due to centuries of occupying forces. Having been conquered by different empires, many seeds have been sown on Estonian soil, leaving both ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ cultural imprints.29 The Republic of Estonia has since its first mentioning, around 1st century AD, been an interesting settling place for many conquerors. Squeezed in between the dialectic Eastern and Western Europe, it has come to house many people groups and rulers throughout its history. With not everything succeeding to sprout undying roots, it is interesting how the shaping of this nation to this day leaves the Estonian thinking twice when it comes to identifying culture — and by extension fashion. This is also pointed out by Eha Komissarov and Berit Teeäär, who equally point out how the post-war process of de-Stalinisation set in motion a meeting between the ‘east’ and west’.30 Even if the exposure to a heavily indorsed Russification increased after the first world war, Estonian ties to Russia more or less start by Sweden’s defeat during the beginning of the 18th century, when the territory of Estonia was fused together with the Tsarist Russia which about 200 years later increased when Russian criminal and civil codes replaced the existent ones in the Baltics. Making Russian the dominant culture and language. As explained by The Encyclopædia Britannica, Estonia today accommodates a large number of foreign-born residents. Estimating that about 1/3 of the population are non-ethnic Estonians, a majority are seemingly of Russian decent, with almost 25% in 2018. After the Bolshevik revolution, up until the 1990s, Estonia came to belong to Soviet-Russian rule and influence.

28 Helen Mihkelson. ”Kuhu Eesti kuulub? [Where does Estonia belong?]”, Postimees, 2018-10-20, https://leht.postimees.ee/6433805/eesti-kuulub-laande 29 Ellen Värv. ‘Estonia: Ethic Dress’, in: Djurdja Bartlett & Pamela Smith, (eds.), Berg Encyclopedia of World Dress and Fashion: East Europe, Russia, and the Caucasus [Digital resource], Oxford: Berg, 2010 30 Eha Komissarov and Berit Teeäär (red.). Mood ja külm sõda [Fashion and the Cold War], Eesti Kunstimuuseum, Kumu, Tallinn, 2012, p. 8 16 This has mainly to do with both internal and extensive migration from the other Soviet republics, which simultaneously also created a huge transition from countryside to urban areas around the 1940s. This har further led to today’s status, where almost 70% of the population are settle in the northern, more urbanized area, leaving the agricultural production to the south. However, with the years, Estonia has moved from mainly identifying itself as an agricultural nation, towards building an industrial labor force in forestry, energy production and towards the millennial in technology and consumer goods. Having under the 21st century come to focus greatly on wool, silk and mainly cotton production that are exported. Whilst the general fashion in the European west was unprohibited from development and flourishing accordingly to the decades. The European east had no other option but accept what the state governed institutions provided. Whatever was labelled as ‘Soviet’, resonated with stagnation, conformity and uniformity, whilst the ‘forbidden fruit’ of the West came to not only symbolise liberty, but non- conformity and option. Surely, this does not change the social position of the woman or her wearing a smock in other countries. What attracts me nevertheless is the mere idea of a more liberal and alternate society in any way served as a contrast to the general perception. Using this framework, I will attempt to unveil the worn experience, as told by my informants, to see this dialectic identity of the Estonian, in an attempt of decoding my informants experience of it. That is, how it not only signals a connection to the occupation but additionally the state ideology. Yet, as Tansy E. Hoskins discusses the impacts of consumption and production in capitalist societies, she states that there is no way to write about fashions [environmental] impact, writing about the factories and not mentioning the people who staff them.31 If so with some insistence, I wish to underscore that the same impacts and circumstances were equally ruling in the establishing of a fashion system or notion of fashion in the anti-capitalist SU.

Aching memories This furthermore leads me to the term of nostalgia, and how an artefact with an attendant meaning is remembered. In this case in relation to a delimitated time period, since the smock dress as a garment still exists and is used. In line with Svetlana Boym and her reasoning about the power and centrality of remembrance and longing back, which is precisely what is examined in this thesis. Namely, the reminiscence of the bracketed time period whilst the smock dress had its fashionable golden era in S-E. To give an example of this, via Boym, I turn to the renowned philosopher Rosseau, who illustrates the effect of cowbells in the context of the Swiss alps, echoing more than just the sound, but even once enjoyed joys of life and youth.

31 Tansy E. Hoskins. Stitched up: the anti-capitalist book of fashion, Fernwood Publishing, Halifax, 2014, p. 7 17 The music thus does not persist to be only music but as a memorialised sign. Sometimes mourning that specific something unable to return, either spiritually or materially. She describes it as a historical emotion that no longer fits into the present tense.32 Paradoxically, this argument cannot be fully adapted to my topic, since the actual object and its attendant meaning still persists, still available as a manufactured and self-producible garment. As will be mentioned in the analysis, many of these women still hold on to or have even forgotten that they still own cutting-templates that they used to make these smocks. This on the one hand proves that neither the artefact nor its fundamental meaning has radically shifted. On the other hand, so has the [socio-historical] context, which is permanently unreachable. Hence the term nostalgia in this case, in accordance with Boym, looks back an original image, where reflection covers both the individual and the group. In her text, she moves further into discussing the terms of reflective and restorative nostalgia. These two ways of experiencing a look-back into a gone familiarity may cross each other’s way at points. Yet she distinct them from each other, explaining that “they do not coincide in their narratives and plots of identity”. That either reflectively distancing oneself from the individual experience with no attempt of recovering an absolute truth on the passage of time. Or restoratively attempting to recreate the past, and individual and cultural memory. In her own explanations “they can use the same triggers of memory and symbols…but tell different stories about it”. Here she brings to light the issue of ‘de-ideologization’. The stripped meaning dawning to be a new style or even a discourse. Even using the Russian context as an example, she warns against the risk of this new aesthetical norm to become the dominant fashion with the risk of being considered humourless.33 In matters of dusting off an old memory and adapting into spoken words, it becomes challenging if even impossible, to do this alone if this memory is far from subjective. To give a proper and correct transmission of collective memory, Boym sees this only to be achievable through dialogue, as they are able to fill in each other’s blanks, so to say. Jointly adding to the shared social framework based on their own understanding of the human consciousness, thus creating a conjoint cultural discourse. This discourse being the common ‘playground’ for them to establish mutual relationships over a particular object or phenomenon. Importantly though she is very clear about the fact that collective memory is not to be confused with national memory even if they share many features. National memory she writes, has the tendency to create a single teleological plot from combined everyday recalls. Where something as utilised as an everyday experience is easily identified in hindsight .34

32 Svetlana Boym. The future of nostalgia, Basic Books, New York, 2001, pp. 3, 7-9 33 Ibid. pp. 61, 68 34 Ibid. pp. 63-66 18 Summary By overlapping these frameworks with each other, I accordingly find myself to have a firm foundation to carry on my analysis with. By attaching the aspects of cultural belonging, with nostalgia and its manifestation through a vestiary object, I believe it provides me with the necessary gears of exploring this particular phenomenon under the given historical and political conditions. By studying it as a memorable sign and also marker of collective identity, I find that the absence of the physical object does not limit its possibilities of being studied. On the contrary, its pure conceptive idea replacing it allows me to access the necessary historical lookback for understanding a phenomenon/object of the past, which in its mere mundanity has come to create and signify the social role of the [Soviet]Estonian female and her conception and adaption of the object today. Yet it is important to understand the historical background and course of events during the Soviet era, on which many scholars have come to examine.

Literature review Through my literature studies, interviews, but also personal correspondence with fashion/art scholars in Estonia (Liisa Kaljula, Anu Ojavee and Kai Lobjakas) during my research work, no evidence of wide-scale research of the smock dress has crossed my way. All of these sources have provided me a great insight to both the topic and object of the smock dress, and its interrelated history with the SU and its fashion industry. However, all of them have outlined that research covering (a wider definition of) the smock, may very well have been researched in countries other the former Soviet republics or the east-European [socialist] block. Besides preparatory work and curation work for exhibitions that have included the smock dress and/or Soviet fashion, no particular literature deals with the smock dress in [Soviet]Estonia. Besides the smock dress, some research on both a bachelor and masters level about the females role in art, the fashion industry and magazines have been conducted under the institutions of art, history, sociology or archaeology in Estonia. These being; Estonian women’s magazines between 1975-1992 by Riste Uuesoo, Women’s Fashion in the Estonian SSR on the basis of Siluett in 1958–1978 by Kaari Koch and The Image of the Soviet Woman in the Magazine Soviet Woman in 1945-1991 by Helena Pall, have all been investigating the depiction of women in the two mentioned fashion magazines distributed in Estonia of the time. As for the larger scale of former Soviet nations and states belonging to the socialist block, I am simply unable to assert if any research has been done focusing on the smock dresses functions either symbolically and/or culturally.

19 In regard to published works in Estonia, books discussing the history of the general fashion industry and trends, they bring up the smock dress as an element in daily life for women. However, to my recollection, no thesis topics similar to this has appeared, either studying fashion as material history or the smock dress as a phenomenon of [Soviet]Estonian fashion. Dealing with the smock dress as a historical artefact, moreover, requires to be studied as neither a specific object nor a representation of an era but rather as something describing that once appeared or belonged, or in this case, made sense within a certain era. So far, it recurs as a recognised but not investigated garment. Serving as both literature and inspiration, I have first and foremost familiarised myself with the smock[dress] by the help of The House Dress: A story of Eroticism and Fashion by Elda Danese. Covering much of the same topics and time period as I am, focusing on Italy, she points out how studies on fashion history predominately have focused on ‘high fashion’, which prove to be more interesting cases for both ethnographers and anthropologists. Yet, all garments show a communicative function, even those worn primarily in a domestic environment.35 Fitting it to the context, I seek support with both Djurdja Bartlett’s FashionEast: The spectre that haunted Socialism and Sergey Zhuravlev's and Jukka Gronow's dissertation Fashion Meets Socialism: Fashion industry in the Soviet Union after the Second World War. Both of them circle around the centrality of the making of a body, examining it at both the micro-level of individual experiences to the macro-level of the large-scale fashion industry. As an extension to that, I seek support in Susan B. Kaisers The Social Psychology of Clothing as a tool for interpreting how said body is made sense of in both the larger and smaller social context. Mainly using this book to seek consent from the perspective of the individual’s adaption to the collective ways of presentation and identification. In this thesis, focus is drawn to the demarcated time and space of post-war S-En fashion. I therefore also turn to the book Fashion and the Cold War, published together with the same named exhibition, curated by Komissarov and Teeäär. Displayed at the Art Museum of Estonia in 2012 – moreover described as a meeting between and the smock dress, as it was a rare happening of displaying a testimony of Soviet[Estonian] fashion.36 Amongst many topics, the authors focus on the term ‘socialist realism’, which in matters of fashion create a lens through which the woman is shown. On this topic, I will also seek backing from Antonian Finnane’s Changing Clothes in China and her study of fashioning females in communist China, where clothing came to be an important tool in propagating for an ideal and loyal womanhood.

35 Elda Danese. The house dress: a story of eroticism and fashion, 1. ed., Marsilio, Venezia, 2008, pp. 7-9 36 Anne Vetik. ”Haute couture kohtub kittelkleidiga [Haute couture meets the smock dress]”, 2012-09-15, Eesti Express, https://ekspress.delfi.ee/areen/haute-couture-kohtub-kittelkleidiga?id=64962952 20 Combinedly, these books provide me with a descriptive insight into the fashion industry and organisation, both in the context of the USSR as well as Socialism. When considering lifestyle, consumption and living arrangements of the post-Stalinist era, one can find different literature dealing with the topic of Soviet consumer culture. For this thesis, I have chosen to look more carefully at Soviet State and Society Under Nikita Khrushchev, edited by Melanie Ilic and Jeremy Smith and Soviet Consumer Culture in the Brezhnev Era by Natalya Chernyshova. These books provide with the background of the epoch, from the death of Stalin to the political reforms of the late 1980s. All of these authors focus mainly toward the practicing and production of fashion under the preconditions of socialist ideology and values, not least the resilient undertone of collectivity that ruled the societal norms of the time. Rather than comparing to the western production and maintaining of a fashion system, it showcases that there existed an equally powerful interest of appearance and good looks. I also seek support in the book, 100 years of Estonian fashion [Eesti Moe 100 aastat] published in 2018 (as a part of a book series in relation to the 100-year anniversary of the first proclamation of the independent Estonian republic) by fashion scholars Anu Ojavee and Piret Puppart. They have collected the most protruding and central point of Estonian fashion practise, amongst various things, marking its linking with global trend-flows. Another portion of the literature I support myself on is a selected amount of the above-mentioned magazines, as they periodically and collectively make up one portion of material. I consider them to be both illustrative and published literature. These being, Siluett [Silhouette] published by Tallinn Fashion House between 1958-1992 and Nõukogude Naine [Soviet Woman] published between 1952-1989 by the Committee of the Communist Party of Estonia. The selection will cover all of the years of publishing, however only one magazine per year, starting with the summer issue continuing with the autumn issue etc. Thus, gaining a gross overview if and/or how the smock dress appeared. With a systematic selection of these magazines, reaching across these decades, my intention is to gain a better insight to the period.

Summary With the help of the above listed literature, I wish to give a varied and sufficient background of understanding the socio-political framework of how Estonia and the SU has come to shape the identity of my informants for this study. Without tilting over too much to either the literature fields of gender or politics, I have seeked inspiration from some previous dissertations covering both the topics of fashion and females within S-En society besides peeking into how the adaption of female communist ideals were upheld in China.

21 In order to fully grasp the backstory of the fashion industry of the SU and its Russian dominance, Bartlett, Gronow and Zhuravlev are able to jointly illustrate the pre-conditions of the Soviet era. As for adapting this socialist to Estonia, I have turned to Ojavee and Puppart and also Komissarov and Teeäär who jointly supply with a summary of Estonian fashion and its outcomes during the post-war period, complemented with articles by Ilic and Chernyshova, who each look closer into the rule of Khrushchev and his successor Brezhnev. About the actual garment, Danese’s study of the smock/ house dress within the context of Italy, it yet politically polarised, gives a good indication of what the basic ideas of what the garment was, its use and adaption. Returning to the social context of S-E, I additionally look closer into the two selected magazines to gain a better understanding of its printed representation during that time. Combinedly, these works will allow me to identify and interpret the smock dress within female Soviet society at home.

De-limitations Since the smock dress is interconnected to the female body, by extension, it shows a direct cultural gendered codification. By magazine representation, promoting a suggestive appearance of the ideal Soviet woman, equally showing how the performance of that social role was intertwined with a S-En fashion structure. Both in its built-up of a societal and material practice. Ergo not linking fabric to gender, but rather displaying these Estonian woman using available fabrics in creating this dress. It is then the concept/perception of the smock dress that is the central pivot of this thesis, questioning how the female came to be the intersection of dressing and politics. The logical limitation to this project is to focus on one of the union's former republics, Estonia. Because of its geographical location, being one of the most western countries of the USSR, serving as an entryway between the political east and west. Added to that, it also lied home to Tallinn Fashion House, which was being one of the leading fashion institutions of the SU, which accordingly facilitated the establishment of a ‘fashion consciousness’ in Estonia.37 I thus wish to underscore that this research is not able to be representative for the entirety of the SU, its use of the smock dress or adaption of fashion trends. Neither does this study intend to mirror the practice in Soviet-Estonia to modern time (independent) Estonia. A comparison of social contexts and national narratives is not what this study is aiming for. Neither does it wish to focus on the outcome of national identity today. If yet delicately, this study wishes not to investigate the effects of the Soviet period.

37 Komissarov & Teeäär. p. 217 22 This study does not also intend to perceive the smock dress in direct relation to the intentions of the ruling ideology but rather its resonance with the conditions of the ideological circumstances and its shaping of social codes/structures. Thereby, allowing me to equally show that characteristics of the smock[dress] were not restricted to S-E, nor the SU. Simultaneously, showing the dress’s different [political] connotations apart from the ‘west’. It is therefore not the general idea of what the SU advocated for, but rather how this particular dress was not advocated against. That is, how the Soviet society allowed it to become an object that empowered and contributed to the [female] citizens shaping of identity. On this note, I rely on the term ‘housewife’ for describing the Soviet woman at home. Disregarding of the woman’s marital status, I find it to be an adaptable term for illustrating the average females dressing whilst doing domestic maintenance and cleaning. Bearing of course in mind that this indeed coincided well with ideological-political conditions, I limit myself of not digging deeper into the implementations of Soviet politics, but rather the fallouts of it. On this basis, I additionally limit myself to focus on the post-war/post-Stalinist period (1953-1991) because of the new political reforms and an awoken willingness of modernisation. Reaching from the post-war glory-mentality to the progress of western fashion until Estonian re-independence.38 Thus, bracketing my time period, although some material will concern the entire period of Soviet rule.

Thesis Outline Having established the theoretical fundament of this thesis, exploring this previously uncharted territory of studying the house/smock dress within the historical context of post war S-E. This thesis aims to highlight role of the smock dress through Mauss’s trinity aspects. Investigating how these aspects conjointly shape up the dresses characteristic; its emblematic function, understanding and importance for the woman under Soviet conditions. For this thesis I have chosen to gather oral history, retellings of memories and usage of this object by women who have both used and lived through said epoch. The three analysis chapters; the first one dealing with identifying the actual object and its user, the second chapter dealing with the broader cultural perspective and lastly the individuals relationship of it. Proceeding from the theoretical standpoints of socio-cultural belonging, comprehending an object in relations to a historical past and additionally, perceiving it as an emblem of its time. The attempt is not to focus on nor to examine the Soviet fashion industry or its ideological directions but rather shine a light on a widely functional and practical home dress.

38 For a synopsis of Estonia’s Independence, See Estonia – Independence, Encyclopædia Britannica, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/place/Estonia/History#ref37293; Reid. Gender & History, p. 469 23 Which in some sense displays how also domesticated types of wear and its encouraged use not only fell under the criteria of fashion norms that also came to be questionably symbolic for the women of its time. Thus, the material consists of self-conducted interviews, alongside my literature study of Soviet and Estonian culture and the women’s role within it. Setting a framework for understanding a dressing practice of the bygone era, in a nation falling right at the frontline of the ‘hostile’ western world. In accordance with the three theoretical frameworks and the matched three research questions for this study, I will finish with an overall picture of what, when and when the smock dress was and also experiencing it during the Soviet era.

CHAPTER 1｜ Stiching together a character

This first chapter will observe the first question of this thesis, of how to accurately identify the smock dress, in an attempt to both illustrate and characterise its conceptualisation as an object, attending to the smocks dress’s origins and evolution in post-war S-E. Establishing how my informants wore it, made it and also characterised it. Before initiating the analysis of my material, I would like to begin this chapter by further nuancing these interviewed women of this study. Without any deeper knowledge of their personal background, one thing makes itself obvious - they all have worn it. With the clear difficulty of describing a physical object in its absence, I consider it materialised through the memories and knowledge of women who have/had a close relation to it, which in one way or another extends into the present day. It is about the perspective of the Estonian woman and her adaption of it told through these women. About connecting this artefact and its meanings in a past society and thereby shaping a modern- day interpretation. The smock dress, neither in this study or otherwise, has been described as an object of intersectional subjugation. That is, not related to ethnicity, class, age and in matters of the regular smock, not even delimited to one gender. What I thus tend to look further into is how the smock dress owns a certain commonality and how it was not only restricted inside the borders of Estonia. Yet, it is interesting to review how the makings of it coincide with the ruling conditions – in this chapter dealing with the availability of materials. This chapter will see to the physical aspects of constructing the dress, adapting the biological aspect of the theoretical framework. Seeing to the interaction between the execution of the physical body to the physical material. Through the knowledge of my informants, I have asked them to both characterise and describe how they skilfully constructed the garment themselves. Being a bodily cover, a uniform or protective dress, it has left an imprint on these women. Equal to other dresses becoming an object for identification and decoration and most importantly, making it into something of their own.

24 Starting off with the first words of Puppart and Ojavee’s book, they point out how the turning point for Estonian women’s fashion occurred during the 1920s. When women were not expected to cover their knees anymore.39 Describing that “The nature-close and tradition valuing Estonian has always differentiated themselves from entering conquerors”, moreover putting their minds at good work, creating tools from whatever material that was accessible and later on commodities in order to produce an austere use of bodily covers.40

Identifying the dress Establishing the origins In this part of the chapter, I explore the roots of the garment. Further uncovering when the silhouette went from a tight wasted body into a straight base-like form and how women all over the country turned to this new liberal embodiment both in public and at home. Seeking to understand the dresses background and gradual appearance. Likewise, also pointing out to the smocks etymology which has further added to its identification within Estonian society. Puppart and Ojaveer, write how this coincided with the time and nation, when the new woman was no longer tightened by the same kind of social yielding. Additionally, they also mention that in the beginning of the 20th century it was widely common for women of all kind to use an apron or smock dress on top of their everyday clothing, while doing indoor labour.41 One way to interpret this is that as much as the progressiveness of the female’s role in society and her [public] appearance enforced her identity. Her domestic identity, or embodiment that is, stayed the same. Attempting to establish when the smock actually made its entrance to the dressing habits of Soviet women, the informants of this study were clear on the fact that both women at home and in various professions used the smock, already during the period of first independence (1918- 1940), one woman even stating that; “It was our own fashion!”.42 In the ‘fashion bible’ Figuur ja mood [Figure and Fashion], published in 1959, written and illustrated by the renowned Estonian designer Karin Siim-Juse, she asserts that a household/smock dress should follow the following criteria of being; practical, comfortable and simple, easily cleaned and made out of simple materials (such as cotton, wool, mixed and synthetical fibre clothing).43

39 Anu Ojavee & Piret Puppart. Eesti Moe 100 aastat [100 years of Estonian fashion], Post Factum: Tallinn, 2019, p. 24 40 Ibid. p. 9 41 Ojavee & Puppart. pp. 22-24 42 Informant from third group, 2020-02-25 43 Karin Siim-Juse. Figuur ja mood [Figure and fashion], Punane täht: Tallinn, 1959, p. 2 25 According to my interviewees, mostly made out of cotton chintz, since it was a nice and “breathing” material.44 Worn at home or at work, open and buttoned in the front or tied around the waist and as the ethologist and head of cultural heritage at the National Museum of Estonia Ellen Värv puts it, many names can be given to what we hold dear: Home smock, working smock, uniform smock, chintz smock, home smock and smock dress, essentially named after which context it was worn within. Either at home or during summer or even used as a beach dress, adding that the smock as a garment for work was already spoken of during the late 1920s, commonly for the farmer woman in Estonia.45The word smock itself, referred to in Estonian as Kittel, is imported from the identical Middle High German word, meaning smock-frock, or .46 In [old] English, the smock is described as a typical garment for women and speculated to derive from the Old High German word smoccho or North-Frisian smok, meaning “woman’s shift”. Which could be interpreted as a garment characterising for the female sex. Uncertain where it precisely derives from, what is asserted is its 18th century description of being “emblematic of womanhood”. As a verb; "to render (a man) effeminate or womanish", dating back to the early 17th century. In modern times, however, it is styled as a loose-fitting dress for women, which towards the mid 20th century was more specifically portrayed as a protective wear over other clothes.47 As both my discussion, interviewees and analysis will continue to discuss, one of the central uses for the smock is the relatively obvious one, the smock being a protective garment from dirt, covering the body or clothes underneath. Functioning as shield, appearing for example in hospitals, housekeeping and also in couture ateliers. Whilst the smock is undeniably worn by both genders, there are nevertheless different types of equivalents. Interestingly, these types of labours similarly fall into the category of what might be considered as ‘female’; nurturing, caretaking and maintenance - responsibilities that often fall on women. Still, it’s apparent use and situating manifests itself through its surrounding cultural context. During my first interview, I posed the question whether my interviewees remembered the smock/house dress as a common garment across the SU, to which one woman replied that that was most likely the case, another one agreeing that they were initially introduced to them through the portrayal of working women in Russian movies.

44 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 45 Ellen Värv. Kittel – nägus või näotu? [Smock- handsome or hideous?], Eesti Rahva Muuseum, 2019- 09-05, https://blog.erm.ee/?p=12849 46 Friedrich Kluge (Trans. John Francis Davis). An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language, 4 ed., G. Bell: University of Michigan, 1891[Accessed: Wikisource]; Note: Värv points out, that the notion of west- European high culture derives from German culture, influencing Estonian peasant dress over centuries, adding numerous Low German words in Estonian clothing terminology 47 Douglas Harper. Smock (n.), Online Etymology Dictionary, 2020, https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=smock&source=ds_search 26 One woman asserting that as a home garment, “It was convenient to just take it from the coat rack”.48 Indeed, all of the interviewed women stipulate it as a garment of work, mostly appearing on the countryside, such as in kolkhozes, but was also common in urban areas making itself useful for either context.49 According to my informant’s description, gather that the smock dress is following the body figure, straight cut and perhaps even a bit shapeless. Somewhat tighter in the waist, either longer or shorter with mid-long sleeves, almost as a hybrid, merging it into a working garment for the female body. In the words of one interviewee; “It was to be practical, like the Soviet citizen.”50 Like many other types of clothing, it owns and adds to its own meaning by its function and practicing. Likewise, its conceptualisation and coherence with its users in any type of culture and political reign. In all, as one interviewee said, “It is universal also!”.51 Any type of object allows itself to be studied through the spectacles of the researcher. As will be further explained in chapter two, I am keen on gaining a better understanding of how one particular piece of clothing has the ability to reach a considerably high emblematic role within a certain society. In this case, how the smock dress corresponded with women of the USSR (more specifically, the Soviet Republic of Estonia). For its ability of reaching a certain level of recognition and appreciation, I would go as far as arguing that it becomes emblematic in service of the socio-cultural context it functions within. Especially if it is endorsed by the governing power – thus becoming political, considering the smocks unifying of a large group. Hence, the smock[dress] would seemingly be considered as a type of representational wear or an embodiment of an ideal role, conveying its spectators of a combination of authority, hierarchy, specialist knowledge or techniques. Characteristics commonly used to describe a typical uniform and an appearance overtaking the displaying of the individual wearing it. The body enhanced by the uniform adds further layers to the visible construction of the persons' role. In Jennifer Craik’s own research, she investigates how uniforms are worn in extreme regimes or evolving countries seeking modernity and how it makes sure of signalling a reassuring order or even intimidation.52 However, there existed a somewhat fine border to when it was appropriate to wear according to my informants. Even though it was supposedly useful in many aspects, as long as those did not surpass the threshold of the front door. One of the interviewed women confirming that, “When going outside, you put something else on”.53

48 Informant from first group, 2020-02-19 49 See Kolkhoz, Encyclopædia Britannica, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/kolkhoz 50 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 51 Ibid. 52 Craik. ”Uniforms, body techniques and Culture” & ”Uniforms at Work” 53 Informant from first group, 2020-02-19 27 It is here I find support for my synthesis; how the smock dress came to be an unofficial uniform for the Soviet female at home, whilst simultaneously considered to be an ordinary everyday piece of clothing. As one woman exemplified, it came in hand when you didn’t want to spill on yourself, such as when dining. “If you had a smock on, then the menu would fall on that instead.”54 In matters of these women’s using of the smock or housedress, I detect the general notion to be that the adoption of it was rather based on habits, better for some, worse for others. Upon the question how the informants reflected on it, in fact being worn by a lot of women, in some way indeed making it a standard or uniform, my informants re-state the fact that it was made for the home and still is today, affirming its unchanged functional purpose and affiliation.

Finding the garments purpose Through the portrayal by my informants, it is my understanding that it was not uncommon for the smock[dress] to appear in different occupational spaces, also including the home. As for the 1960-70s, the majority of my interviewees describe women wearing them because, according to themselves; “They probably did not have anything (representative) to do at home, so she put something else on”.55Although mentioning, that when it came to the ‘fancier ladies’ they likely avoided using it. As one woman declared, “I am not sure. It was still a fashionable thing, it was at least fashion then”.56 Here lies my assumptive idea that the smock dress plays a present, if not a vital role, in how the woman had to perform her domestic, along with her civic, persona. The perception of the woman’s appearance separated in the public and private sphere. Additionally, the overall discourse of performative doing of every day-womanhood alongside her domesticated loyalties. Thus, becoming a matter of ‘dressing the part’, almost fulfilling the given role provided by the leading director, which in this case would refer to the states execution of Soviet-socialist ideology and the general conventions of gender divisions and loyalties. Jointly, it consolidated the spectacle of Soviet society and its wayward paths of keeping up appearances. Finding out the pursuits of this garment, I rely on my interviewees description of it. As will be brought up in the third chapter, it was a garment connected to work, e.g. either in agriculture or medical institutions. Occupations that were highly valued in socialist society, nonetheless, performing accordingly with proletarian traditions during Stalinist times, which rejected the need for ‘fashion’ in the working space. Thus, replaced with aprons or smocks.57

54 Informant from third group, 2020-02-25 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 Komissarov & Teeäär. p. 62 28 In the words of Craik; dressing is a practice by people as a game to maximize ones fit with their peers and, equally, to let spectators know “what game they are watching”.58 It can, of course be argued, the same way the smock dress is usually else described, that it essentially was a cover. Not an object of fashion nor a given vestiary representation of its era, but rather a shielding or protection of the ‘real’ clothes underneath, or the body itself. Danese, who looks into the Italian post-war era, explains how the vestaglietta (the Italian adaption of the housedress, which name she finds rather self-explanatory) became a common name for what women wore at home, sometime around the 1960s. The dress in itself was yet a considerably traditional indoor wear. Deriving from the word vestaglia, meaning dressing or , it marks its connection to the female’s domestic appearance. Made out of both cotton and/or silk, the items purpose was to provide the woman with to wear in an everyday leisured state.59In Danese's description, the housedress was defined by its domestic and private use. Nevertheless, modern and practical, it was a garment easily taken on an off when in need of covering the body. As per her example, wearing it to the beach, evading both sunlight and public gaze.60 In line with Hoskins discussion about how certain object or materials are given a particular set of meanings in order to generate attraction and desire, I share Friedrich Engels idea that this essentially leans over to a mindset where having [more] becomes more important than actually being.61 Then again, being judged on your appearance is quite inevitable whether you are astonishing as a diamond or murky as a piece of coal. I would argue that the smock dress ends up at the borderline. On one hand notably representative of one’s social appearance, on the other, not being excessively refined nor differing with the general mass. As mentioned above, the smock was not generally a garment to be worn outside. It was not even suitable for just heading out to buy some milk, but as one of my interviewees told me; “Perhaps if you were taking out the trash”.62 Rather frowned upon than prohibited, another woman adding that; “You don not go out with your pyjama either”.63 This moreover led into another interesting discussion during the second interview where I followed up with the question if some women at all dared to go outside wearing the garment. The answer was affirmative but got us into the topic of vanity. One woman stating she would never dare to do such a thing, adding that “Estonian women has throughout her life liked to prepare herself”64, mostly referring to the 1970s.

58 Craik. ”Uniforms, body techniques and Culture” 59 Danese. pp. 11-13 60 Ibid.. pp. 17-18 61 Hoskins. p. 63 62 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 29 All of the women in one of the groups agreeing that even during the 1940s, when people were sent to prison camps (mostly) in Siberia, claiming that there is documentation, testifying to Estonian women wished to appear nice, regardless of the fact that nothing was accessible. Hoskins continues, saying that challenging ruling class ideology could be dangerous, to prevent disobedience, society should instead determine punishments to those who “disobey fashion etiquette”.65 Much points to the idea of a true willingness to promote a sovereign Soviet fashion industry which, if anything, had the potential to reach a representational status equal to anything made in the west. In a way, making the Soviet in itself the signature branding. Gronow and Zhuravlev point out, that the Soviet press during this time favoured modesty and functionality over extravagance and luxury. Suggestively because of the SUs own shortcomings.66 Peaking back at the pre-war time’s Soviet society, Stalin’s imposing of kulturnost after the post- revolution crisis’s and general status of the nation, served as nationwide cultivation program, teaching common people proper manners, family values and, importantly, Stalinist ideology.67 Katalin Medvedev clarifies that; “With the exception of official state uniforms, women's work clothes were rarely made from good-quality fabric”. They were instead pre-shaped and ready to wear, completely ignoring the subjectivity of the wearer. It was to remain a working garment, comfortable and sensible, not in any way emphasizing the woman’s body, sexuality nor beauty. Essentially, as she puts it, making women look older than they were. Even though she speaks of the Hungarian context, much of this description of the otthonka [housecoat], she expressly marks them as simply cut dresses as “a staple of communist fashion”.68 So, whether to consider the smock/housedress modern or simply contemporary to its time, I find it difficult to separate the perspectives when reading my informants. Komissarov and Teeäär, describe how the conceptualisation of what was considered modern in the post-war economic model covered both beautiful and qualitative clothes in the broad sense. Likewise, there was no existing dispute of what manufacturing was to produce. Thus, making most s manufacturing appealing to the customer.69 Since the smock then, within Soviet society was rather undisputable, it still followed the advancement of trends, set aside from the fact that the communist regime had to deny the importance of fashion, since it could compromise their high- handed economic system and inability to control self-articulation.70

65 Hoskins. p. 151 66 Gronow & Zhuravlev. p. 231 67 Bartlett. FashionEast p. 89; Boym. p. 70 68 Katalin Medvedev. ”Ripping Up the Uniform Approach: Hungarian Women Piece Together a New Communist Fashion” in Regina Lee Blaszczyk (red.). Producing fashion: commerce, culture, and consumers, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, Penn, 2007, p. 256 69 Komissarov & Teeäär. p. 131 70 Medvedev. p. 252 30 In this opening section of the first chapter then, I have attempted to give a fundamental idea and illustration of the smock/house dress. The central argument being that the discussion does not concern one particular object, but rather the realisation and embodiment of a physical object through its diverse and dissimilar adoptions. Equally, my informants describe how it was considered fashion and non-fashion simultaneously, as it seemingly represented much more than its mere ordinary material existence. Its connection to the identity of Estonian women and through the wearing of this dress, came to link the body with the surrounding Soviet-socialist value and fashion industry. During one interview one of the women handed me a counter question, eyeing what I was wearing myself; “But would you call a uniform? Because when you ask, why do YOU dress like THAT, it is because it is the fashion.”71 My reply, having already attempted to find other comparable garments, agreeing that it was a reasonable question to ask. My answer was, that in comparison to the smock, jeans had a separate meaning between the 1950s-1990s since it was so related to…on which another woman filled in; “…society!”.72 What I then gather from this, is the smocks ability to remain popular, although relying on fashionable trends.

The ‘DIY’ garment Buying into it This second part of the chapter will focus on how my informants not only adopted a way of dressing, (as mentioned previously, it had already been introduced before their ow time) but were likewise expected to make the dress themselves, in matters of better quality and adding some individuality to the garments. Bearing in mind that the women I interviewed were all belonging to a handicraft circle of some kind, I believe they give a good representation of the average woman during the post-war part of the Soviet era. I will in this chapter evaluate on how my informants adopted the makings of the smock dress. Their experience of getting a hold of material and developing their own skills. Amongst the various things the Soviet woman was expected to do at home, my informants all gave me the impression that it was equally the matter of ‘dressing the part’ od their role. Not assuming that all women of the SU obtained these same skills, my interviewees do seem to share the idea that it was not uncommon for the majority to practice certain basic skills and, literally, take things into their own hands.73 Thus, nothing implies that the Soviet woman had only one restricted choice of what to wear.

71 Informant from third group, 2020-02-25 72 Ibid. 73 Bartlett. FashionEast. pp. 24, 251 31 On the contrary, as mentioned earlier, there were many different variations of the smock and there is no way to exclude that women were more comfortable to wear something else whilst at home. Either way, every single one of the informants admitted of having used the housedress during one time or another. Besides both making and using smocks and aprons. One woman affirmed that;

“One cannot imagine how skilful handicraft people were back then…Today, give me your ideal measurement patterns, and you would fiddle your way through making it.”74

Inevitably, there seems to be an underlying appraisal of the skills the S-En housewife mastered. All women from all my groups maintained that they commonly used to sew their own clothes, simply because it was the practice of that time. This moreover leads me to think, as I set out before starting with this analysis; How did they, as a matter of fact, gather their updates on how and according to which standards and norms they were to make their dresses? The obvious answer to this question is that they did not do it alone. Added to that, their general notion of dressing appropriately to the customs of society reached them through socialising with friends and even their own mothers, thus exchanging both skills, favours and material. The SU at large, aimed for cultivating this post-war woman partially through magazines, appearing in both Russian and Estonian.75 Along with almost every issue, at least with Nõukogude Naine and Siluett, according to my informants, there was a cutting template added. Templates, with lines and numbers criss-crossed, forming shapes of various cuts of the finished garment would seem incomprehensible for the untrained eye. Gronow and Zhuravlev confirm this, adding that they were also purchasable.76 During this study, these cutting patterns would come to show themselves as a crucial point for understanding these women’s past lives. With many of them still deliberately, or by shear forgetfulness, still finding them at home today. Not setting off from the 1950s, many of my informants point out that the distribution of fashion magazines was long pre-existent of being merged into the SU. These cutting patters showing all kinds of garments, as they explained, “…everything from underwear to ” and were even shared amongst friends, family and neighbours when needed, copying them onto baking paper, as they were made of good quality to do that. ”At least during the era of Khrushchev”, one woman added.77

74 Informant from first group, 2020-02-19 75 Gronow & Zhuravlev. p. 174 76 Ibid. p. 18 77 Informant from first group, 2020-02-19 32 Many women in S-E equally paid attention to fashion magazines, that showed what fabrics were currently in fashion. Most commonly, as the women explained to me, cotton chintz was the preferred fabric for making the smock dress.78 Mainly because it was considered practical but also very reliable. Comfortable to sweat in and easy to throw in the washing machine once it was too dirty, as some of the women explained to me. One woman even revising the dress as very ‘cool’ and ‘trendy’. Another woman even recollecting fondly how the chintz fabric made during the 1950-60s was not to be compared with today’s fabric production. Yet, access to certain fabric phased us into the following topic during one interview. Most of the informants repeatedly looked back at their Soviet history as an era of unavailability mainly pertaining to the later era of Brezhnev (early 1980s). One undisputed characteristic the informants identified with the Soviet past was the deficiency of consumer goods, covering anything from fabric and cotton, to toilet paper and food items, also studied by Chernyshova and Gronow and Zhuravlev .79 In matters of fabric, one woman determined that “The deficiency was so great, that it is hard to describe”80 another adding to her depiction of Brezhnev’s rule; “But in the end, you could get everything from somewhere”81. On which the first answered, “Yes, of course, if one had any acquaintance at a market”82, which still meant digging deeper into your wallet. Along with the rest of group, the same woman continued to speak about the former days and how life had changed a lot up until today, where anyone could buy anything, at any time. This was likewise a similar theme that came up during the other interviews as well. The woman in question illustrated it to me accordingly, “Russians have this expression; people are standing in line and you asked, ‘What is given here?’. You simply took your place in the line, just in case you could get a hold of something useful”.83 Even if this anecdote would accurately depict the many lives across the SU, as will be depicted throughout this thesis, the same kind of rationing and limitation of consumer goods was not seeming as distressing in Estonia as it might have been in the other republics. During the same discussion, a third woman concluded that they usually bought as much as they were given. ”If you were given 10 meters of fabric, you did not buy less than that.”84 Värv, who also remembers the times of the 1980s as the “worst time”, when essentially nothing was available, and one bought whatever they got their hands on.

78 Examples of this can be seen through the artistic creations by designer Marit Ilison, See Appendix A & B 79 Chernyshova. pp. 80-81, 110-112; Gronow & Zhuravlev. p. 20 80 Informant from first group, 2020-02-19 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 33 In an article with the newspaper Õhtuleht, she portrays how she to this day still own three-meter pieces of chintz at home, not really grasping why they are all sold in three-meter pieces.85 Upon asking one of the interviewed groups what the price of fabric was then, the entire groups answers were slightly uncertain, one woman replying, “Not sure, but we could afford them”.86 Generally, as already mentioned in the first part of this chapter, chintz was the go-to fabric when it came to make their own smock[dress]. Whilst another group, upon deeper consideration and hassle of estimating its cost in the Soviet currency, found that fabric and chintz in particular was after all very cheap, and to the same question, I got a very straightforward reply from another woman who explained that “…for about 2 roubles you could get enough fabric to make a smock!”87, the other women in the group agreeing. Adding that one single meter cost about 50-60 kopek.88 A price that none of them really seemed to object to, regarded as considerably cheap. Yet, none of them made it seem that they because of that bough fabric on a regular basis. It should also be pointed out here that during all of these interviews, in consideration of the average age of these women, most of them primarily seem to focus on the 1960s and 70s yet they jump across the timeline. Only at certain points speaking about the decades preceding themselves, the 1950s, or the post-war period in its entirety. In this context they were speaking about the fabrics they themselves bought and their appraisal of them, mainly focusing on the mid 1960s up until the early 1970s. On which they added that fabrics became slightly more expensive during Brezhnev’s rule, at times arguing what fabrics actually cost. Chernyshova writes about how the transition period from one nation leader to the other was a time when Khrushchev’s reforms were merged with the outcomes of Brezhnev’s economical and ideological policies, resulting in a prosperous time for living standards in the SU, even increasing their access and options for consumer goods. At the same time, the interest in material goods was not that great from the perspective of the new consumers as being more modernised than the previous generations. Adhering to increasement in knowledge, confidence and autonomy in their purchasing decisions. Yet, the act of buying goods was never really considered in any way a sin. Chernyshova continues to discuss how Brezhnev’s discourse around consumption was not aiming to follow the footsteps of Khrushchev’s belief in raising average living standards.

85 Aigi Viira. ”Nõukogude aja inimene pidi iga asja eest tänulik olema, mis ta selga või jalga sai [The human of the USSR had to be thankful for every single thing they could put on their body or feet]”, Õhtuleht, 2013-07-20 86 Informant from first group, 2020-02-19 87 Informant from third group, 2020-02-25 88 Ibid.; Note: 1 Soviet rouble = 100 kopek. Difficult to estimate its value today, since the exchange rate with the US dollar fluctuated in-between 1920-1990 See ‘Soviet ruble’, Wikipedia, 2020,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_ruble 34 Not being a priority, the focus came instead to be on the ideological aspects of developed socialism rather than the materialistic one. Posing as an example, she describes how focus came to be less about revolutionising the home and more about praising the technological prosperity of the nation. It was not as much about actually providing housewives with qualitative goods but rather celebrating the woman’s capability of modernising the home using the scientific innovations she had been provided with. Arguing for that the idea of modernity was replaced by rationality and functionality in Soviet society.89 As the dialogue in the above-mentioned interview group came to circle around what fabrics were actually available and which were not, many of the informants across concluded that one simply accepted the way things were. As one woman said; “You set with the conditions. Each and everyone got their own smock in the end!”.90 Altogether none of them seemed to have been struggling getting hold of what they required. However, the discussion keep on circling around what they actually wanted. None of them seemed to be overly struggling with finding some kind of fabric when needed and that it was all a question of being at the right place at the right time, even if that shifted from time to time. “When it was on sale you had to buy it” one woman claimed.91 As the quotes suggest, one conformed with the options that were and if someone didn’t like the looks of something, they recoloured or modified it. Hence becoming a matter of setting your own mind and skills at work. One woman even taking the example of, “When there was not a wide selection of tapestry, I simply put it up backwards in order to get white walls. All different kinds of things have been done”.92 Chernyshova also identifies the era of Brezhnev as introducing a reformed mindset of selectiveness with the consumer, where the longing for high quality goods increased whilst opening a flow of creativity. I hence detect that this led towards shaping a society where the use of the smock grew even deeper, as it became a good outlet for expressing both adornment and did not clash with the collective norms.

Finding the right material In this segment, I will attempt to further nuance how my informants gathered not only knowledge but all necessary means for creating all kinds of garments for themselves, the smock dress included. Seeking to understand how they managed to both construct and portray their fashions of the time.

89 Chernyshova. pp. 3-8 90 Informant from third group, 2020-02-25 91 Ibid. 92 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 35 As the previous part discusses, access did not seem correlate with the actual manufacturing of desirable goods along with the lack of shops alongside inequal distribution of goods across the SU. Which made the Soviet consumer well aware of the deficiency of goods and novelty, leading for a hunt and gathering of anything which was, or might have become, desirable. In Chernyshova’s words: “Its distinctiveness, therefore, was the result less of ideology than of a befuddling combination of shortages and windfalls.”, resulting in many social paradoxes within consumer culture, when people were not eager nor pleased with what was offered, yet spend a lot of time acquiring it.93 This, over time, lead them to get their fabrics from elsewhere. Surely, this concerned many citizens across the SU but perhaps more nearby for Estonia due to its geographical location.94 Like the women of my interviews described it, it was not rare for Estonians to have relatives abroad, in so-called capitalist nations as Canada, Sweden and Great Britain.95 According to the informants portrayal, it was not infrequent to send packages from abroad with all kinds of things not purchasable in Estonia, regularly including fabrics as well. One of the women specifying, how when the ferries between Sweden and Finland were over time introduced, it facilitated [private] import a lot. Importantly though, was that things that were obtained from abroad and considered more qualitative and reliable gained a higher potency of attraction resulting in a certain ‘exotic value’ one could claim. Particularly during one interview some women got talking about how they proceeded when receiving one of these packages. How it was immediately noticeable when strolling around town or having friends over. Something that stood out from the ‘Soviet standard’. One of the interviewed women even claimed that “If you got hold of something from abroad, you should have considered yourself lucky. And you did not make a smock out of it!”.96 Whilst that might be a very plausible argument, one fellow interviewee responded that it was all rather relative and had a lot to do with the type of fabric, leading her into recalling of how she once made a of some (western) fabric she got a hold of. After having washed it and hanged it outside in the sun to dry, only to return to discover that somebody had nicked it from the line. Upon telling the story, another woman asked her how she dared hanging it outside, to which she replied that she could not have imagined someone would so bluntly steal it. Apparently then, the fabric which sometimes was used to make a smock[dress], was very coveted but it also had to not be too good of a quality, there was simply no point.

93 Bartlett. FashionEast. p. 266; Chernyshova. p. 82-83 94 Chernyshova. p. 91 95 Note: These listed nations were the ones were many people fled and remained after fleeing the occupying forces during the II World War. See: ”The Great Escape to the West in 1944”, Estonica - Encyclopedia about Estonia, 2020 96 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 36 Appearance wise, most of them agreed that even the smock could definitely be colourful and gay - “Meaning, colourful because when you were using it at home, then it was more cheerful”, as one of the women described it.97 On this note, the group in question became nostalgic towards the fabrics they once owned, describing how there were various patterns and motifs. Intrigued, I followingly asked them if it even was allowed to somehow personalise it with details, to which they all agreed. One of them explaining that the differences in detail and preference, such would transform it into a different type of smock model. On the notion of its appearance, one could assume that obtaining a random fabric would limit the choice of consumption. Something which would affect its power of attraction, through colour and/or pattern. However, one of the interviewed women pointed out that you would after all by what you preferred by choice. Equally, in one of the other groups, all women agreed that there was never any idea of throwing anything away as you never knew when it might come in hand, adding that they to this day find bits and pieces of the old-time chintz fabric at home. As one woman explained, it did not really matter if you needed it or not, you held on to it. However, if you did find yourself in the possession of some ‘outside’ fabric or object you did not care for, you could always bring it to a consignment store and trade it in for something else. As long as what you got was the equivalent of the value of the non-Soviet product. They added, telling me that there were plenty of these shops, but whether or not those were completely legal is not as clear, one of them adding “If they got too big (successful), they got caught!”.98 These types of stores were apparently all over Estonia where one could find and trade themselves into all kinds of things. One woman remembering how Polish products were very sought after, another one filling in that “…well if there was polish shampoo, well then it was truly a party!”.99 What I wish to illustrate here, is the emergence of a trading custom which equally included fabrics, based on attractiveness and appearance. I asked a follow-up question to this phenomenon of trading fabrics and other things, whether or not all fabrics were used with the purpose of making the smock, to which some disagreement did occur, even though most of them agreed that the chintz was the most reliable and sustainable material, particularly considering its purposes. However, in the end it came down to a question of personal preference but that usually materials such as polyester, nylon, crepe etc., (mainly concerning the 1970s) were commonly used for more festive garments and what may be considered as ‘trendy’. Even if many of the women in all of my interviewed groups got into the habit of sewing the dress themselves, it is in no way implied that both the smock was not obtainable to be purchased.

97 Informant from third group, 2020-02-25 98 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 99 Ibid. 37 On the contrary, as Chernyshova explained earlier about how certain things were still produced even if the demand of, in this case smocks, was not huge. They were most certainly at hand if someone wished to buy them. Then again, she adds that every woman who had good hand for sewing would preferably do it herself. Some women did however choose to go to their seamstress or even neighbour to have something made, for various reasons. In some sense, serving as a polar opposite of western countries. Such as in the US, with their catalogues and mail-order services, as Danese mentions.100 Gronow and Zhuravlev also bring attention to the fact that it was not unusual that one could either “rely on the services of private tailors” or having to buy something they actually did not like.101 One of the women of my interviews even recall such an occupation as fitter (transl. juurdelõikaja). Explaining that “It is a type of occupation that almost doesn’t exist anymore, it has basically disappeared”102, adding that just like the tailors, they had their own ateliers (I am however not certain which precise decade she had in mind telling me this). Someone who would take your measurements as a tailor but did not however sow it together. One then took their measurements to the tailor to have the garment made. This type of occupation that I have not seen mentioned during my literature studies, opens up my interest of contrasting it to the otherwise common practice of these women sewing clothes themselves, usually with the help of the cutting templates mentioned before. What I gather from this is, that the underlying reason why some people choose to use such a service, was likely due to the fact that it was not very common for people to own their own sewing machine. Even more so, according to one woman, you were obliged to register it at the police if you had one, on which she did not explain further but clarified that it reflects the limitation of opportunities were.103 Chernyshova illustrates how shopping in a state governed retail market required not only mobility and flexible thinking besides using ‘people skills’, referring to charm, persuasiveness and persistence. In comparison to the individualistic leisure of the west, Soviet ideology regarded that as an isolationist threat. Obliging the consumer to be engaged with both state and society, making it seems as if shopping in the SU might not seem as a political engagement but was inherently so.104 According to my understanding by the interviewed women, as something that left the skilful woman to actively pursue her loyalties to herself, by finding whatever details that could distinguish her from the general mass and at least in some way express her creative self, it yet only at home.

100 Danese. pp. 24-25 101 Gronow & Zhuravlev. p. 14 102 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 103 Ibid. 104 Chernyshova. pp. 91-92, 101 38 Final remarks The women of this study have in this chapter first and foremost proven that when it comes to living in a society where all is available, it cannot sufficiently compare to living in a society where the same freedom of choice and wide range of ready-to-wear options at hand. Equally that there was no such thing as use and dispose and that creativity was a virtue, as opposed to their capitalist American counterpart during the 1960s, who at the time were increasingly struck by the idea of disposable fashion and experimenting with paper-clothes. Clothes one could simply get rid of after losing interest.105 Soviet women however, according to my interviewees, were not as privileged, as they had been taught to save and preserve every little thing that might come in hand. One woman explaining that the smock[dress] was not really treasured or maintained, usually ending up a rag when worn out. Yet one must remember the undoubted quality of the Soviet chintz which, according to one woman, for example,“…was good for cleaning cars” after it had served its purpose as a garment. 106 I find the smock/house dress to be an ideal example of finding this midway in-between and to some extent honouring the contrasting sides. The Soviet citizen, and particularly the housewife, was to set with the conditions given. Despite not having the same prerequisites as any western nations, there did not seem to be any greater obstacles for obtaining a fitted piece of clothing, receiving one from abroad or purchasing one. Nevertheless, the culture practice of making their own clothes did not seem to be a consequence of social standards but rather a question of tradition which along with shifting trends also reflected on how they appeared at home. Doing something by hand would not only serve to demonstrate a certain independency. I would equally argue that it unveils a coherence for following the changing fashions of the decades and constant development of handicraft skills. On some meta level, using their skills to create a garment to wear whilst practicing said skills. Many of these women indeed remember the trustworthiness of the cotton chintz of the old days, describing it as both resistant and reliable. I have in this chapter then attempted to answer the first research question, defining the smock’s main characteristics and the makings of it. Where the appearance was reliant of what material they obtained. The main point being that sewing their own clothes went from a necessary practice to a common culture of sharing both knowledge and skills. I am thus left with the impression that this was done with joy, since it gave them the opportunity of making something personal in a society that looked down on ego and vanity and instead promoted austerity and solidarity.

105 Jane Pavitt. Fear and fashion in the Cold War, V&A: London, 2008, pp. 38-39 106 Informant from first group, 2020-02-19 39 CHAPTER 2｜ Illustrating ideological ideals

In this second chapter, I find it important to address how the smock[dress] is perceived as something more than its mere materialistic existence, as a marker of an era, context or much more accurately identity. The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate further on the sociological adherence of this garment in an attempt of answering my second research question of how the smock/house dress was portrayed and conceptualised during the epoch of post-war S-E. Not seeing to its general description or depiction by the greater population, but rather an estimation of its societal role and understanding via my interviewees. In this attempt of interpreting the smock-dress of connotating much more that its physical and functional presence, I will additionally evaluate on its social definition. How its conceptualisation and understanding through the lens of the collective mass, rather than the individual’s perception. Additionally, to endorse their discussion and portrayal of it, I will turn to a selected amount of issues of the two previously mentioned magazines in the preceding subchapter. In doing so, I wish to accentuate the study of the ruling discourse encircling the smock/house dress and its occurrence in these magazines. Thus, trying to answer the second question of this thesis, how it was portrayed during this period – both conceptually and visually. Seeing to t what role they played out in creating a collective understanding of both the smock and Soviet fashion. Thereby, merging the object to the ideological framework that pervaded the sociological context of the garment. Susan B. Kaiser explains, when we perceive an object, a happening or just some sort of manifestation in front of us, we are likely to immediately add a greater meaning than what our vision tells us. For example, a slogan that is interconnected to a brand, a gathering of people vocalising their prerogatives or even the use of a certain thing, which in turn materialises what we symbolically affiliate ourselves with. A transmission of meaning from object to user.107 As will be further discussed in this chapter, I will argue that all of these phenomena’s are supported by their connotative inscriptions. Seeing that they manifest something more than their own existence, which is either/or supported by their charging of a certain potency and/or a visual appearance or clearly marked logotypes. As with many icons and symbolisms, I would argue that the perceiver is partially liberated from passing through the process of interpretation, by simply consuming what that object or depiction manifests with its presence. Therefore, being continually unaware of the exposure of the constantly appearing symbol or object that has come to infiltrate the everyday life to the extent of blending into the mass. In that way becoming part of ourselves and how it covers one’s identity and also fashioning ideology and uniform ideas.

107 Susan B Kaiser. The social psychology of clothing: symbolic appearances in context / Susan B. Kaiser, 2., rev. ed., Fairchild Publications: New York, 1997. pp. 48-54 40 Portraying collective concepts Fashioning ideological potency Avoiding branching out onto studying symbolism, my starting point resonates well with the similar underlying idea. Besides the apparent symbol, an object can also become symbolic for delimited time and space. For this research, I will argue that the smock dress came to be rather emblematic than symbolic of the SU. In this case adhering to the smock dress as not being an intended tool of unification nor a conscious political act of characterizing the USSR. On the contrary, I wish to show that the real-life results of using this particular garment came to be a very prominent choice of clothing amongst many women. Thus, with its connection to the social notion of fashion, the presiding ideological ideals and gendered use, the smock dress might very well be regarded as being emblematic, when getting a closer insight of how the majority of Soviet women dressed at home. With the support of Ted Polhemus, Kaiser states that it is through our bodies and perceptions that we come to represent the importance of our sociocultural heritage. That; “As we learn to have a body, we also begin to learn about our social body – our society”.108 Kaiser asserts on the one hand that it becomes evident that;

… almost anything can develop cultural significance as it comes to be regarded as meaningful […] People of all cultures modify their appearances in some way, yet the symbolic systems and codes used to decipher and interpret clothing are likely to vary.109

Oppositely, she also claims that certain appearances or material artefacts come to represent shared values within a culture, thus providing with an abstract representation of social life. Ideology, consisting of principal beliefs and values that characterise a culture, group, or movement may be reflected in ordinary objects that people do not usually question which they interpret with relative because of a shared meaning. Importantly, Kaiser makes sure to point out that this does not make it immune for cultural change or shifts in meaning, as people still have the potential to manipulate its meaning. Partly by altering its juxta positioning, it will constantly redefine over time both in matters of cultural ideals and style.110 Having at least attempted to explain my motives of the study to one group, one of the women confidently stated; “But we did have our own fashion industry! […] But there was nothing in the shops!”.111

108 Kaiser. p. 109 109 Ibid. p. 48 110 Ibid. pp. 48-53, 109-119 111 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 41 Thus, pointing out the great fashion paradox in the SU, I ponder if it might even be argued that the smock dress then is expressively symbolic for [Soviet]Estonia? As I already mentioned previously, I wish to be very careful on presenting this garment as a product of Soviet socialism, a tool of propaganda or for being purely communist. Nadezhda Soboleva argues that broadening the traditional range of sources and using data from other branches of scholarship, one can at least attempt of reconstruct the origins, development and moulding of specific symbols. As for political symbols being what we often connect to various nations, they aid us in both recognising and conceptualising their impact on society. The political emblem, Soboleva writes, is and objective expression of state power, political trends and even authority, if yet signifying sovereignty.112 As an example, also from a gendered perspective, the well- recognised hammer and sickle for communism was primarily a symbol for male strength and vigour, even though it bears no apparent connection to either gender. Yet, as she refers to philosopher Aleksei Losev, he states that the appearance of said symbol did not appear by itself but through people.113 I would thus argue that the conditions of the smock/house dress are essentially the same, only acted through applied vestiary embodiment. I would presume she was not merely speaking about the factual manufacturing of clothes, considering that the rest of the conversation diversely spoke of the house dress. What she seemed to be referring to, was that there existed no greater suppression or preventing of speaking or thinking about fashion or appearance. The mere fact that this woman, together with the rest of her group, saw a link between the fashion industry of the time and the product of the smock dress certified somehow a coherence between them two, making the object present in two parallel contexts. Kaiser, who goes on further speaking about how clothing possesses a dual role, concludes that an object can be both a sign and thing simultaneously and that it is ideology that fuses the artefact with a symbolic potency. Indeed, a piece of clothing can then signify associated meaning with the cultural context it acts within, signifying that it is not a matter of what appearance means but rather how it means. That is, its resonance with the ideological framework.114 Gronow and Zhuravlev equally add that the Soviet ideologists and theorists of fashion agreed that it was neither up to the designer nor the consumer to go along with any type of fashion favouring moderation and restraint.115 Staying within those demarcations, the smock would suggestively fit well, being both insular and practical.

112 Soboleva. pp. 59-62, 83 113 Ibid. p. 86 114 Kaiser. pp. 216-217 115 Gronow & Zhuravlev. p. 230 42 Hitting the nail on the head, one on the interviewed women straightforwardly claimed that; “The smock symbolises the home of the Soviet wife”, others in the group agreeing.116 Then again, a fellow interviewee started discussing the depiction of the smock dress/fashion within Russian society. Or more accurately, how females in Soviet-Russian movies often wore dresses rather than smocks, adding that in all honesty, one cannot seclude to the fact that the smock dress bears the same symbolics in other cultures. I found that to be both an intriguing and curious claim to make. In my rough interpretation that would indicate that the ‘fashioning’ of the smock/house dress was not a widespread phenomenon across the SU, which would contrary mean that it was so in S-E. Neither does it wish to indicate that the smock dress was undoubtedly common everywhere and thus emblematic for all Soviet women. In any case, her claim opened up a possibility to regard the smock dress as a phenomenon of S-E, hence connecting it to the fashion institutions of the time. I continued to explain myself, with a counter-question to one of the interviewed groups, asking them to what extent they considered the dress to be ‘democratic’? Followingly, one woman responded that; “In the rest of the world, if you had a nice dress, you simply put the apron on. Then we simply put the smock on, illustrating its practicality.117 Even though I found her reply somewhat complex, I accordingly interpret that the dress whit no particular spectacle of either ideology [i.e. Socialism] or emancipation. On one hand, it remains as yet another option of protective dress. Karl Marx having allegedly even historically stated that, “Democracy is the road to socialism”.118 On the other hand, the informants’ reply reveals a certain contrast to the outside world – which in this case I would assume not only alluded to Estonia but the entirety of the USSR. Gronow and Zhuravlev who also bring up the fact that the SU indeed had multiple flaws and discrepancies in their fulfilling of ideology ruled fashion. In their words, the communist party of the SU never constituted or approved any clear guidelines of design and fashion production. Neither were there any expectations from the Soviet citizen to take part of said industry, writing that, “The coming Communist society promised general abundance and the fulfilment of all the basic human needs of its members.[…]”.119 My point here being, that as much as fashion or dressing practice did or did not coincide or overlap the habits of other [western] nations. The use of the smock or smock dress in Estonia can inevitably only be representative of Estonia. Or more accurately, S-E falling under the overarching SU.

116 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 117 Ibid. 118 Karl Marx & Frederick Engels. ’Manifesto of the Communist Party’, Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One, Progress Publishers, Moscow, [Digital resource], 1969. p. 25 119 Gronow & Zhuravlev. p. 192 43 Transforming into a uniform Following up from the previous portion, I wish to expand the idea of the smock altering towards becoming a ‘uniform’ within the Soviet society. With this subchapter, I wish to dive deeper into the idea of the smock dress being a tool for organising rather than ruling with clear political intentions, marking a status of unity. In her discussion of the characteristics of uniforms, Kaiser evaluates on the complexity of uniform’s symbolism and their embedding in given context, writing that; “In this way, symbols such as uniform become metaphors for such ideologies as militarism, science or religion”.120 In an attempt to deconstruct how the garment was collectivised, I return to how Soboleva depicts the symbolic meanings of Soviet-Russian society. She in turn addresses the notion by illustrating an occurrence during the SUs first phase. She illustrates this through a letter addressed to the Sovnarkom, discussing how the new socialist state should signify themselves through the use of correct and fitting symbols, more specifically the design of the official crest of the Soviet-Russian republic.121 What is also interesting here is that the suggested design depicting a man on one side and a woman on the other is that the women, holding a sickle and the man a hammer, is dressed in a smock. What is even more intriguing is that the woman is meant to represent Russia, which would hence allude to the fact that it signifies a grouping which corresponds to actual life in Russia.122 This guides me into the idea of expectation. Meaning, how the woman was presumed to appear in the given context. Returning to the topic of the authority of the fashion institutions of the time, it reminds me of a conversation during one interview, initiated with a discussion of separating the dress and smock dress and how each dress had its place during this time. One of the women commenting on what I myself was wearing, she said; “Today you are wearing jeans but then you go to a party…[… ]During that time, there was also a huge difference”, alluding to that one (at least) should dress accordingly to the given environment.123 Another woman adding on telling about when after the first Estonian parliament was established, this etiquette of how to dress accordingly became much more fluid. She was referring to the Estonian Independence day which was broadcasted on TV the day before our interview took place. Upon her remarking of how certain women chose to dress, at the annual reception held by the Estonian president, she concluded her fashion watching with an historical lookback, arguing that they might have dressed differently if “…foreign fashion would have had rained in on us sooner. Otherwise it (fashion) was very regular over which we didn’t whine a lot about”.124

120 Kaiser. p. 362 121 ‘Sovnarkom’. Wikipedia, 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_People%27s_Commissars 122 Soboleva. p. 80 123 Informant from third group, 2020-02-25 124 Ibid. 44 Komissarov and Teeäär clarify how the inability of the Soviet fashion industry to provide goods and clothing to their population, thus leaving citizens with two prospects. Either to succumb to the ideological doctrines that prevailed in the collective body or opposing them and create an independent image for themselves. What is then at the essence here is their exploration of how the initiated modernisation in the 1950s (in S-E) continued into the 1960. At a time when also fashion came to set a social norm of how one was to appear, portrayed in both magazines and movies. They write; “In a situation where deficits prevailed, ‘things’ became symbols of social status”.125 As already discussed in the first chapter, it was not unusual for women to make their own clothing in an attempt of following these fashionable norms. One conversation during one interview, that touched upon this notion, was a discussion between two women. One of them explaining that for formal occasions one had for example a ‘theatre dress’ which one would not necessarily wear again when attending a birthday party. The other woman agreeing, that there usually was a new dress for every new occasion, typically made by her mother. As the dialogue went on, it circled around the fact that the other woman’s mother was shifting between two jobs, whilst the other ones stayed at home, the first one insistently claiming that; “During the Soviet times it was every working woman’s honourable responsibility to go to work!”126, whilst remembering how she herself paradoxically wished to become a housewife already at a very young age. “Had I actually said that, they would have sent me off. It was such a horrible answer…”.127 On the one hand then, there seems to have existed a clear limit to when one was to ‘change uniform’ depending on what occasion they were attending. On the other hand, the smock/house dress seems to have been an obvious dressing choice for women to wear at home. I would dare to claim, accumulating all my interviews, that these women felt admiration for both kinds of dresses. Each of them owning up to their own beauty, being both ugly and fine- looking at the same time. Even more so how they, as Estonian women, were able to set the smock dress apart from other nations. One woman telling me that one common trait of the Estonian smock was to put colourful edges on the fabric. Likewise, other types of personal details were allowed, just as with the ‘fancier dress’, with distinctive embroidery, cuts, sewing etc. However, they all made it very clear that any clear traits of Estonian patriotism were strictly prohibited.”… they would have put you in jail!”.128

125 Bartlett. FashionEast. p. 216; Komissarov & Teeäär. pp. 152, 167 126 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 127 Ibid. 128 Ibid. 45 With this liberty to make minimal alterations, they were to remain neutral and follow the conditions of both fashionable trends and Soviet approval.129 Now this would of course indicate that I, in this case, would consider the smock dress as an artefact of fashion rather than dress. I beg to differ, re-emphasising my viewpoint of the smock[dress] falling in-between, existing in a dress/fashion limbo. Pavitt also speaks about how dress came to be a tool for marking opposing ideological systems of the iron curtain. The dowdiness of Russian women contrasting the American glamour and lavishness.130

“It was so imprinted within you, that you had to be a part of the Soviet mass, as a Soviet human. Living up to certain standards. That was promoted already in school.”131

This is what one woman told me during one of the interviews. As mentioned already in the first chapter, the smock[dress] was not in any way restricted to a certain age group. During one interview I posed a direct question, if the smock could be labelled as a uniform, to which the response was undoubtedly assenting. One woman adding “…to a certain extent a standardisation”. I asked followingly why they wore it to which the same woman replied; “It is simple, because everyone else was.”.132 Pushing this a bit further, I contemplated if one could even regard it as ‘communist’ in that literal sense, something many women also agreed on. One important factor here is the smock’s occurrence in different context, mainly work related where most of the fabric workers were put in same work outfits, which by extension also validates to the fact that the dressing practice was similar across the USSR. “The same type of smock we had, they had”.133 Much due to the fact that much fabric, not uncommonly made at the Kreenholm Fabric Factory in Narva (See Appendix C) was shipped all across the ‘wide and beautiful nation of the SU’. Another comparison, drawing a parallel to the mass modernisation and ‘mass uniforming’ of the SU, one informant illustrated this by using the following example of how the pre-fabricated, low-cost, concrete Khrushchyovka style apartment housing.134 As the woman said “Since these five storey high houses are the same in Kaunas as in Mustamägi (a subdistrict of Tallinn), there is no difference” illustrating the standardisation in the union.135

129 Pavitt. pp. 23-29 130 Ibid. 131 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 132 Ibid. 133 Ibid. 134 ‘Khrushchyovka’. Wikipedia, 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka#cite_note-1 135 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 46 Another two women continuing; “And if you didn’t like anything, you were a…” second woman adding “Dissident!”.136 Assembling together what these women then told me, much points to how the smock[dress] indeed functioned well with the predominant, but not militaristic, values of a uniform. That it at made many women resemble each other a lot, set aside from aesthetical variations. Although, it was not a garment for passivizing women domestically. On the contrary, wearing the smock[dress] marked a clear obeisance to the occupational tasks that demanded its need. Through its use, in a way, also creating alliance with other women living under similar social conditions and norms. Hence not only collectivising the appearance but also the emblematic power of the dress.

Conforming with ideals and templates Illustrating a model woman What these previous chapters tells us, is that regardless of how one wished to dress oneself, no one wished to get on the wrong side of the law, nor to seem as someone who could potentially pose as such. In a way, avoiding conflicts with either political or fashionable ideology, which in this case would serve as an intersection between the two. As many of the interviewed women discussed, the smock/house dress did not demand any greater effort of adoption or comprehension. It essentially ‘was what it was’. I will in this part of the analysis furthermore see to how the social role of the female was portrayed culturally. Both seeing to the direct political propagating of the female, but also the advocated ideals of her physical body. In the previously mentioned style guide Figuur ja mood, Siim-Juse covers all different female ideals, according to social situation, body type, etc. which something exceptional for its time and presumably came to set the standards for how women from then on formed their ideas of how to appear accordingly.137 Providing with both illustrative and descriptive advice on how to dress and colour code accordingly to body type and social context. Myself not being familiar with precise intentions or backstory for publishing this book, I find it deserving of some attention. Since it, to the best of my knowledge, is the most prominent guide for the conceptualisation of the ‘new Soviet woman’ during the post-war years. Besides acknowledging that women indeed come in variations of body types and prerequisites, it proposes some very definite claims about appearance in order to avoid shortcomings and remain appropriate. Even going as far as portraying Venus from Milo as an ideal body of measurements.138 Even instructing how the woman was to appear at home, Siim-Juse writes that;

136 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 137 Siim-Juse. pp. 1-14; Ojavee & Puppart, pp. 93, 116 138 Ibid. pp. 1-14, 57 47 Domestic dressing should be equally correct as public dressing. All types of smock dresses and home dresses with trousers are practical, handsome and easily tidied. It is not appropriate, out of laziness, penny- pinching or sloppiness, to wear old party dresses or out of style in a domestic environment. The entire looks of a woman should be ruled by harmony which thus elevates your mood, gives you self-confidence and shows your cultivation.139

Taking a leap further into the introducing of the smock dress as phenomenon of cultural- political change, particularly in relation to Socialist ideology, I accordingly turn to one of the neighbouring countries of the former SU. Namely The Peoples Republic of China [PRC] that on their side of the border held their own epicentre of reform. Finnane writes, that it was around 1949 the Chinese government started to transform into a variation of their next-door communist nations which had a great impact on the liberation of women and how their appearance shifted from being a right and towards becoming a duty, followingly also affecting their identity and lifestyle.140 By the 1950s, she writes, there was an overall shift in the way Chinese people dressed, dithering between excitement of reunification and uncertainty what the future would bring. There being no actual regulations of how women, who previously had both a more traditional and patriarchal approach, were to present themselves in the new China. Looking at propaganda posters they appeared as solid, modest and determined. On some level, it does not bear similarities to the smock dress as its intention of being domesticated and ‘worn to pieces’ would not make it to representational of a ‘clear socialist appearance’. The great difference between these two communist nations was mainly that this Chinese reform was considerably more intentional of pushing a political agenda. The smock dress in this sense ends up at the opposite of this spectrum, as some of my informants will later tell, being entirely a common piece of clothing. Then again, both of the dresses indicated practicality and frugality as both of the garments became performative tools for carrying out the duties of the new communist era. Interestingly then, as these communist nations carried side by side, not only did the SUs political agenda operating as a blueprint for the PRC, but also for dressing ‘socialist’.141 Apparently then, the smock/smock dress was both an adored and admired item. In a dual way both practical and protective, as it not only served its apparent purpose but also asserting the woman’s significance in the domesticated sphere.

139 Siim-Juse. p. 69 140 Antonia Finnane. Changing Clothes in China, Columbia University Press, New York, 2008. pp. 201-205 141 Bartlett. FashionEast, pp. 205-211; Finnane. pp. 201-205 48 In her book, discussing the role of the uniform, Craik perceives them to be both detailed and particular. Claiming that a uniform raises certain awareness in its communicative statement, transcending from exclusively being an object. Thereby becoming more important than the garment and its ornamentation in itself. Then again, it involves certain rules and enforcements to make it a comprehendible making of the body.142 If yet concealed, this is what I seem evident throughout my interviews. That there was a coexistence between the collective and personal idea of how to appear in the smock dress as a codifier of social comprehension. In other words, there is no greater doubt about what was expected of the housewife. Danese, exemplifying the 1950s and 60s Italy, emphasises the fact of how much of the clothes was made at home using the templates and cutting patterns that supplied via fashion magazines. This aided women to increase their range of possibilities for adapting their clothing to the fluctuation of fashions. Magazines, reporting trends and norms of its time were not pushing the housedress aside, allowing it a decent amount of space next to other fashions. Presented in flower-patterned fabrics, if yet in simplified versions and cheaper materials.143 As also mentioned in the first chapter of the analysis, being one of the central motifs for this study, was the quest for collecting cutting templates and inspiration from fashion magazines. Many of my interviewees pulled much focus towards the fact that the magazines were, more or less, their only source of inspiration, as this was indeed a collective force of action, it existed almost as a tacit agreement amongst them all.144 One woman concluded that;

“We did not know anything else, so we could not want anything else! From books and some magazines yes, but we did not have all of the material accessible.”145

Komissarov and Teeäär write about how mass-media during the Soviet period had the task of mirroring life as it was expected to reflect society, its problems and most centrally the everyday life of ordinary citizens.146 The widespread, almost taken for granted, use of all kinds of fashion magazines obtainable during this time served as continual inspiration for women’s appearance and dress. Yet the Estonian magazine, Siluett, is seemingly the one held dearest. In description by Gronow and Zhuravlev, the magazine published by the Tallinn Fashion House, was one of its main reasons of success and popularity.

142 Craik. ”Uniforms, body techniques and Culture” 143 Danese. pp. 14, 38-39 144 Komissarov & Teeäär. p. 110 145 Informant from first group, 2020-02-19 146 Gronow & Zhuravlev. p. 193 49 Since it was known by the general public to be (equal to its Baltic neighbours) the ‘Internal Soviet West’ adding to these fashion/house magazines status recognition. Published parallelly in both Estonian and Russian, they saw to reach both the local and national reader. All supervised under the eye of the communist organisations and unions. The same is also confirmed by Komissarov and Teeäär, who speculate if one possible reason for the success of Tallinn’s Fashion House was that it was not integrated into the SU in the same way as the far eastern republics.147 Already during the communist party’s 20th congress in 1956, an official decision was made to start collaborating with the west in the field of fashion. In reality, however, fashion was stuck in between the two different systems, forcing it to be both a friend and foe of the western world. In that sense, Soviet fashion functioned on a rather schizophrenic basis by signalling both an extremely complex network of associations, creating a system of double standards. A noticeable happening was when the leaders in Moscow recognized the quick success of Tallinn’s Fashion House, deciding to make it the most prominent of the entire SU. Regarding their designs to be more oriented towards constructing a ‘Soviet style’, a term (coined by the system, as an ideological reflection on fashion) containing much needed “socialist content”. I lean on Olga Gurova, cited in Fashion and the cold War, who considers western scholars to deliberately find traces of depicting Soviet fashion as rather obscure. According to her, most critique is initiated by underlining its weaknesses – such as the inability to habitually progress in cycles – positioning herself in defence of Soviet fashion to rightfully call itself fashion. Claiming that Soviet fashion and taste in any way, was an ambiguous phenomenon, determined to be successful yet obeying the state-governed plan.148 To what extent national elements or symbols might have occurred in relation to the smock dress is something left unanswered. Yet, this claims its popularity and ability of keeping pace with trend, even recognized on an international scale. They continue to write that this implementing of folkloric patterns in a way gave compensation to its (Estonian) readers whilst under the dominance of Soviet insistence.149 I would thus perceive this as another type of proof that the notion of ‘nationalism’ to some extent had some space within the current fashion discourse. In its then limited ability to perform, it is on the one hand doubtful that folkloric patterns or influences – as any other type of distinctive or fashionable fabrics – were used for the smock dress. On the other hand, it is impossible to completely discard this. If anything, it proves that the folkloric inspiration could be trendy.

147 Gronow & Zhuravlev. pp. 173-177, 186, 190; Komissarov & Teeäär. pp. 121, 151-152; Värv. Berg Encyclopedia of World Dress and Fashion: East Europe, Russia, and the Caucasus 148 Komissarov & Teeäär. pp. 151-152; 210 149 Ojavee & Puppart. p. 132 50 Gazing over to another socialist context, writing about the attitude to fashion in post- war communist Hungary, Medvedev mentions how it came to be a “measure of socialist success”. As the self-concept of appearance spread its roots in society, resembling the evolution in the USSR, what she refers to as providing ”socialism with a human face”.150 Clothing and fashion seem thus to have harmonised well with maintaining an idea of the cultivated female as a state loyal partisan. Equally, keeping things within the limits of solidness and properness. Fittingly, the smock[dress] seems to have embodied this by its ordinary existence, always being an accessible option for Soviet women.

Searching for role models In search of relatable ideas of how to dress and appear, many of my informants have recurrently mentioned how they on a somewhat regular basis used to read two of the most popular fashion magazines in S-E (Siluett and Nõukogude Naine). In this subchapter, I will look closer at what authority and influence these magazines had, focusing on the smock[dress]. Kommissarov and Teeäär are also sure to point out that this “genesis” of S-En fashion happened during the years after the war as the portrayal and illustrations of women which circulated in society did not always resonate with the actuality.151 However, the smock dress possesses the position of being a direct opposite and even more so becoming its own autonomous symbol. As mentioned above, there is no apparent connection with the distinctive potency of the smock dress and the ruling political power. Yet, as Soboleva claims, political symbolism [in Russia] is relatively neglected. This would of course make the contradictory argument that the smock dress would after all be a political symbol of its own. Again, I distance myself from making such a claim and would followingly argue for its symbolic – verbal, visual and ritual- abilities, functioning as a communicative object in mass society, nevertheless Soviet [Russian] symbolism.152 Kaiser expresses it followingly, that the concept of social location does not have to entail that everything is pre-determined and predicted. Mainly due to the fact of the individual’s own impulsiveness and replication and alertness of the self.153 Meaning that no matter how much these women gazed to gain information by looking at others or searching for information through other outlets [magazines], it all boils down to the representation of self which had to correlate with the society’s cultivation of practicality, modesty and their fulfilling of a need.

150 Medvedev. p. 253 151 Komissarov & Teeäär. p. 57 152 Bartlett. FashionEast p. 22; Soboleva. p. 59 153 Kaiser. p. 154 51 Followingly, the necessary question to ask then is how, and to what extent, the smock dress was portrayed (mainly) in these two mentioned magazines? To my great surprise many of these interviewed women admit that the smock dress did not usually appear in the magazines they got a hold of. With only one woman objecting, adding that Siluett indeed did give some guidelines on how to sew it, with suggestions on embroidery, details, cuts and fabrics. Even though it varied in its looks, it was to remain simple and intelligible. It was seemingly considered as ‘common knowledge’. One of the interviewed women however nuanced this;

“It was with such a simple cut that it was not really portrayed….It was so typical, so each and every one who had it could make it themselves.”154

Combining my impressions of how all of my interviewees described and reflected upon Siluett and Nõukogude Naine, they seem to remember how both of them served as loyal sources of fashion-news and inspiration and even suggestions on smocks and smock dresses. Whilst the first claim might be very true, the second regarding the inclusion of smock[dresses] seems more absent. Starting off with having a closer look at the youngest and local magazine Siluett, as previously noted published by Tallinn Fashion House (1958-1992), it showed many different kinds of smocks and smock dresses for both men, women and children during the initial years of publishing. Many of them with an accompanying cutting template.155 Continuing further on, there appears to be less and less mentioning of it in any form, and by 1983 it is not illustrated until both the SU and the magazine dissolve by the beginning of the 1990s.156 As for the second magazine Nõukogude Naine, it had a stronger political profile, considering that it was after all distributed as an undersection of the Estonian Communist Party. Like my interviews mentioned, this magazine came to focus more on the promotion of correct rather than beautiful ideals, honouring the working Soviet woman. For that reason, the smock as both a leisured domesticised and occupational wear, fitted well into that context, depicting working women in smocks and smock dresses. To my understanding then, based on my informants, cutting templates were usually added to Nõukogude Naine but not as regularly as with Siluett. Along with some much-needed imagination and skills, many of the women would still hold on to them as they could come to be useful on a later occasions.

154 Informant from first group, 2020-02-19 155 Tallinna Moemaja [Tallinn Fashion House], Siluett, Tallinn: Tallinna Moemaja, issues: 1958-1966 156 Ibid., issues: 1967-1992 52 The smock/house dresses featuring in these magazines proved to be less common, appearing for first years 1952-58 rather regularly in similar variations, as in Siluett, with different smock variations such as aprons. Emerging usually with the spring and summer month with an average of 2-3 times in each issue, it was not at all mentioned all the way until 1988 when the magazine also stopped publishing.157 On this matter, Kaiser speaks of ‘collective selection theory’, referring to how the creation of social acceptance is interactive, in some cases excluding whatever is considered different. I find the term to be adaptable here to by the smock dress’s potential to bind together a group. Referring to sociologist Orrin Klapp, she continues to write about how fashion has the ability to provide us with something static – “an anchor enabling us to connect with time.” Thus, facilitating and authorising conformity as well as identification, not necessarily though contradicting the individuals own selection.158 The question to be answered here then, is whether or not that included non-fashion, such as the smock dress. Since it clearly is not supressed of representation and conceptualisation via the magazines circuiting amongst the Soviet[Estonian] readers. Having a closer look into how an ideal femininity was fashioned during the post-war years, Alexis Peri illustrates the magazine’s role in the spectacle of the ‘new Soviet woman’. She writes about how the task of the magazine Soviet woman [in Estonia appearing in an Estonian version] was to craft feminine ideals to inspire the domestic and foreign audiences at home and abroad. How the female was able to take upon any task given, all in the name of contributing to the USSR with her maternal instincts, avoiding conflicting personal and professional interests. The way the ideal Soviet womanhood aimed to serve as an alternative to western standards, consistent of Soviet-Marxist ideology, since they claimed that western standards not only objectified, oversexualized and enslaved women into money wasting consumption.159 Peris analysis of feminism and womanhood in relation to western depictions is both valid and correct, overlapping with my own framework. However, I would argue that she minimizes the recollection of other magazines distributed across the SU and likely also other socialist states across Europe. Although mentioning it, she continually describes her analysis of Soviet Woman as Soviet. Whilst the unmentioned notion of regional versions of Soviet Woman might be disregarded, it advocates for an understanding that the magazine she speaks about concerned the entire USSR, which in my case would not allow me to even perform this study of local Soviet dressing practises, done with the help of these magazines illustrations.

157 Eesti Kommunistliku Partei Keskkomitee [Committee of the Communist Party of Estonia], Nõukogude Naine, Tallinn: EKP Keskomitee Kirjastus, issues: 1952-1988 158 Kaiser. pp. 487-488 159 Bartlett. FashionEast. p. 40; Alexis Peri. ”New Soviet Woman: The Post-World War II Feminine Ideal at Home and Abroad”, The Russian Review, No. 77 (October 2018), pp. 622-634; Medvedev. pp. 252-256 53 Whilst this might seem very curious, I draw the two following conclusions, echoed by my interviewees. Firstly, as many of the women told me, the smock was considered a multi- purposed garment and was for that matter also depicted as such. Secondly, it seems more tendent to appear for the spring and summer issues, averaging at about 2-5 mentions per magazines. Thus, not dominating as a recurrent element in the magazine, considering that the magazine primarily focused on ‘finer’ and decorative fashions, in the words of my interviewees, whereas it served more as a guide for the future rather than the present. What I then gather from this information is that my informants retellings testify to a dichotomous relationship between the conceptualisation of the individual reader and the collective [sociological] promotor. Mainly, that the magazines generated as an inspirational source which they could share with their fellow friends and housewives. Secondly, that the magazines were not crucial for conceptualising, or for that matter, making the smock dress.

Final remarks I have in this chapter discussed how the smock/house dress essentially came to function as an emblem of female Soviet society. By studying its representation in a selected sampling of S-En magazines that my informants recurrently mentioned, I have seeked to find a coherence between their memories of it and the reality of. Thus, the two magazines are not serving as the studied material but rather as a reflection of the re-telling offered by these women. Trying to deconstruct its merits as a symbol for Soviet society, I have wished to emphasise its unintentional propagating by the political rulers and rather reflect upon it as becoming an emblem of the Soviet. Peris thoughts and studied topic do certainly coincide with mine. Yet, her neglection of other operative magazines creates a confusion, if even a passive denial, of other obtainable magazines, describing it as Soviet rather than Russian. In Kaisers words, collective management of impressions is often the goal of rigid organisations. Individuals in large organisations cannot interact personally with one another and seemingly comes to strive towards de-personalisation and collectivisation.160 Boym explains, that it is not uncommon for one to distance themselves from their own community when collective memories “enters the moment twilight.”161 My intention has also been, through descriptions and narrations, to examine the importance of said magazines in order to comprehend their importance for the woman’s ability to use the smock as a tool for shared socialization, equally proving that the habit of collecting templates added in the magazines, in itself testifies to this collective practice.

160 Kaiser. pp. 365-368 161 Boym. pp. 65-66 54 I am not necessarily claiming here that any on my interviewees are reluctant to speak about how they during the Soviet period strived to obtain news about new trends. On the contrary, with the smock dress still living on today, the look-back at an historical epoch merely offers an understanding of their conforming with the common practice of staying up to date with evolving trends. When the idea of an austere self-image also governed the domestic sphere. I asked during one interview session if the women found this everyday wear of the SU to be at all comfortable? The answer was yes, a few of them telling me how the patterns and inspirations they got were free to be mixed and matched yet staying “between the walls of home.”162 In comparing themselves to their enormous next-door nation, a sense of beauty for such a small nation created unity many agreed that; “To the Estonian, it is natural to appear nice”.163

CHAPTER 3｜ Remembering unsentimental memories

For the finishing chapter of the analysis, I will see to the third [psychological] junction of the phenomenological approach, in order to understand the interviewees. That is, their personal relationship to the smock-dress, their own adaption and fondness of it. As has been discussed in the previous chapters, the smock came to function as a reliable pillar when gaining access to the role of the working woman – either domestically or professionally. Precisely as Komissarov and Teeäär depict this situation in S-E, housework had come to be a private job for the Soviet wife whilst the husband became the breadwinner, in some sense operating as the bourgeoise, making the wife the ‘real’ proletarian.164 I bring up this point of view, namely since the focus of studying these women has come to pivot around the 1960s, stretching from the 1950s and well into the 70s. This is because the ‘concept’ of the housewife grew out of the modernising of the nation carried through by Khrushchev, resulting in the previously discussed ‘new Soviet woman’, whose job was to nurture and keep conditions at home as tidy as possible. Whilst doing this, she consequently needed something to wear. This chapter will further evaluate on the topic of how their, the participants of the interviews, own conceptualisation coincided with the social conceiving of the smock/house dress, in an attempt of deconstructing my interviewees’ individual descriptions of its use and functionality. If yet restricted to their own body, it presents the personal and embodied experience of fashioning themselves at home, with the expectation of becoming a certain role. I hence wish to distinct on the fact that it is not an evaluation on their social positioning, but rather a reflection on their [past] social role through the use of this garment.

162 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 163 Ibid. 164 Komissarov & Teeäär. p. 90 55 Followingly, in an attempt of peeling off another layer of this socially constructed idea of what expectations the female should have lived up to, I seek to combine it with their emotional perceptions of the item. By then puzzling all of this together, I pursue to create a joint understanding of how both the conceptual and material feeling of wearing the garment co- existed with the understanding of the self in a retrospective. In this chapter, I thus wish to tackle my third research question, investigating how this dress is remembered as an historical artefact, its appropriateness in pre-decided spaces, examining if there was any direct political influence for achieving this ideal representation of the Soviet woman - in this case, its applying in [Soviet]Estonia. Most prominently, these women’s individual experiences collected into one combined understanding and perceiving of the smock dress will be highlighted. That is, the sensual effect of it on both the physical and emotional body.

The Soviet housewife revisited Creating comfortable socialism In this section I will continue on the topic of political influence and the informants experience of the garment in retrospective. Attempting to deconstruct the idea of maintaining socialist ideals at home, investigating its suitability and political influence. Importantly, it is necessary then to remember that this portrayal of the ‘socialist household’ is seen through the eyes of Estonians. In its considerably western position, Estonia (then part of the greater USSR) was not bordering any of the then communist Central-European countries, also known as Soviet ‘puppet states’ during this period, belonging to the Warsaw Pact.165 One could then argue that Estonia and some other nations behind the so called ‘Iron curtain’ were fairly more tolerant in their import of western cultural influences.166 An example of this brought up by Reid, was – also emphasised by some the interviewees – the importance of handicraft knowledge. Reid writes that not all handmade objects were fitting into Khrushchev’s modernised domestic sphere but was still promoted to ‘whey up’ the increasingly standardized objects entering the home. Serving as another claim for my argument that this equally manifested how the women choose to dress, by re-using leftover bits of fabric to make their smocks after having made for example new curtains. Gronow and Zhuravlev endorse this, adding that all good Marxists knew that fashion in itself was essentially obsolete and that ‘fashion’ could never see to the consumption needs of the people.

165 The Warsaw Pact being the equivalent of NATO, which correspondingly united various Western nations, See Warsaw Pact, https://www.britannica.com/event/Warsaw-Pact 166 Bartlett. FashionEast. pp. 144, 175-177; Gronow & Zhuravlev. pp. 190-191 56 The Soviet citizen was to some extent to remain oblivious to its seasonal changes, and much rather question why perfectly descent clothes were not to be used anymore.167 Besides, the fact that the pace of fashion in the SU was considerably slow, I would prefer to see this from the perspective of Soviet women’s ability to reuse the ‘old’ in alternative ways, using their creative skills and resource poor conditions.168 Gronow and Zhuravlev equally add that contrary to the official ideals and homogenization of aesthetic standards and livings, different people in different regions and social categories of the SU likely varied more than in the West during the decades after the war. Particularly if comparing the Baltics and the Central Asian republics, which would likely result in more ethno-cultural differences than similarities.169 As mentioned by one interviewee previously, Soviet women had a duty of working and do so with “a clean conscious, and a clean smock”, suggesting that if the smock was clean, so were her loyalties towards the state.170 The topic of socialist influence, in her article about the daily life of mothering socialist society during the pre-war years, Rebecca Balmas Neary forms out a storytelling about how women maintained their position in pre-war Soviet-Russia. How the woman[wife] then balanced her public and domesticated role, as well as how the overlappingly accepted idea was that it was the woman's responsibility to nurture. Not only her own family but the 'family' of the entire socialist society. This movement of women came to be a united force of social consciousness within Russian communist society. Simultaneously fostering and being flexible in her loyalties to the nation. As well as the notion of motherhood, with the clear implication that a true socialist family should be able to avoid conflict between the two - no matter how much it disagreed with Bolshevik ideology. Neary seems to be very keen on proving in her conclusive arguments that the female, within any society, is subordinate to patriarchal structures. Even in a society that strongly promoted equality of all workers.171 Interesting here is the obvious fact that women, during pre-revolutionary times, were highly acceptant of this and through Neary's gathering of discoursal data she gives proof that they achieved this through unified ambitions. It is also in this homogeneity that I find my phenomenological inspiration. Neary shows that motherhood was something equally desirable in how it was able to provide with certain privileges of the time. Weaving together her material, both visual and textual, Neary creates an illustrating idea of the overall representation of Soviet women. By capturing not only the housewives fulfilment of loyalties to the domesticated sphere but also the public.

167 Gronow & Zhuravlev. p. 21-22 168 Reid. p. 488 169 Gronow & Zhuravlev. p. 25 170 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 171 Rebecca Balmas Neary. ”Mothering Socialist Society: The Wife-Activists' Movement and the Soviet Culture of Daily Life, 1934-41”, in The Russian Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 Jul. 1999, pp. 397-402, 408 57 It can then be argued here that the role bearing characteristics of the woman was to a high extent representational and look-based, if even superficial. Seeing that much of what Neary writes regards the woman's appearance while carrying out her 'maternal loyalties' with an ideal enthusiasm, however not being overly sexualized by her appearance.172 In Entwistle’s words, if clothes can and express human culture, then they must bear some meaning.173 This is precisely the void I wish to fill in Neary's historical depiction. Like Reid, Neary does a (historical) discourse analysis, merely looking into the doing of tasks/loyalties towards a superior idea rather than investigating the executive constructing of the female. Moreover, Reid writes about how a western perspective of the Soviet home might contrast as being a privation of their privacy, convenience and comforts. In her words, “You could have either communism or comfort, according to this model, not ‘comfortable communism’ or ‘communist comfort’.”174 Moreover questioning how the development of consumer culture until the 1980’s, under the rule of Brezhnev, was able to practice this ideal concept of socialism with the absence of a capitalist system maintaining modernity and also facilitating a flow of commodities.175 Advancing from this historical background, I return to my material, asking my informants of one group if the smock[dress] was generally worn at home, to which their answer was that at least the Estonians did. My reason for bringing up the notion of commodities and familiarising with the concept of fashion, was that I would argue that it did have some relations to the home dress. As opposed to the smock worn at home, the smock for work was “…made from a little better quality and maybe even they had edgings as well” to protect it from fringing.176 Whereas the home smock, as previously mentioned, could be sown together from bits and pieces found saved around the home. Interesting here is the fact that during my interview sessions, there seemed to be a somewhat passive understanding of the home smock as being the personal option of working apparel. As per example, both of the smocks having this protective edging sewn on them, however for domestic use, one could choose whichever colour they liked, and match it with other fabrics, thus personalising it - ”We made the kinds we liked” one woman declared.177 In that sense, with some women agreeing to my claim, the house dress/smock might be considered as a beauty element. Yet, during another interview session I got the opposite answer, dismissing it as being just practical. Without comparing these women’s answers, the second one disrupting my own argument of it being a fashion item.

172 Neary. p. 410 173 Entwistle. p. 76 174 Reid. p. 466 175 Bartlett. FashionEast. p. 266; Chernyshova. pp. 9-12 176 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 177 Informant from third group, 2020-02-25 58 That it was a garment showing off more than just its functional purpose yet restricted to the overall social role of the female in Soviet society. In the words of one interviewee;

”Back then, it was not like women would wear trousers at home. The women would wear dresses then and the home dress was the smock”.178

I would interpret this quote above as again testifying both to the fact that the dress was inherently used for the purpose of dressing suitably whilst at home. It also demarcates the smock to be a garment of women. Where the use of it coincided well with the woman’s ascribed maternal instincts, that it was up to the her to create a comfortable and communist home for everyone to feel taken care of. What concerns the smock in this case is how its commonality amongst women became so much an act of collective camaraderie, that it thus ‘dressed the housewife’ yet allowing some extent of personal creativity for fashioning her own uniform.

Inheriting the dress Following the preceding segment, this part of the chapter will centre around of the ‘genetics’ of the dress. Meaning its social inheritance and more accurately, my informants personal reflection upon this, their remembrance of growing up with this dress, its practicing and their introduction to it. How they retrospectively remember the experience and suitability of the dress, as taught by their own exposure to it from their surroundings. I wish to initiate this by referring back to the opening of one interview session where I was requested to explain my prerogative and what eventually led me to this topic. My initial assumption of it being a garment which had seemingly come to be forgotten was confirmed by one woman saying that it indeed has been “…shoved to the side”, being left with a good impression only with elderly people, whereas “…young people do not really know it”. I subsequently began to wonder at around which age these women started to wear the smock dress, to which many of179 them assured me that the smock was something also worn by children. The smock-dress, however, was more suitable for a woman, so approximately at the age of 15-16 one group told me. To me, this illustrated a picture of how the smock-dress was carried down to the following generation of women. I hence wished to know more about how they remembered their own mothers use it.

178 Informant from third group, 2020-02-25 179 Informant from first group, 2020-02-19 59 Upon asking one group about how they thought their mothers liked wearing it, I was again confronted with the fact of the garment’s commonality. “I do not know if anyone really thought about that” and a woman from another group re-asserting me that “You had to wear something!” another woman following up with, “Because you were ready at all times”.180 Notably, another group explained that not only smocks were worn, though adding that “But you do have the image of your mother working around with a smock”, with others agreeing, coming home and simply throwing it on top of their regular clothing.181 It was also adapted to the seasonal conditions, thicker in the winter and lighter in summer, as much as weather conditions ruled. The smock-dress was thus to be comfortable and adaptable, not creating too much discomfort. As well as the fact that Estonian women, according to some of my interviewees description was usually aware of how they appeared in public, her public silhouette one could say. On a separate but still associated note, in order to really understand the garments background and increasing popularity during the 1960s, one woman explained;

“We were discussing this before your arrival. Likely the smock arrived when construction of central heating houses were being built. Then thick woollen became uncomfortable when dealing with children and dirt at home”182

The above quote, speaking roughly about the 1920s and 30s (covering Estonia’s first period of independence) shows that the smock came to emerge out of practicality. The housewife could simply not carry through domestic tasks if she was obstructed of doing this. One of the senior interviewees remembering how she got used to wearing one whilst being pregnant in 1952, although resembling more of a coat rather than a smock or house dress. It was seemingly also not uncommon for their mothers to also attend sewing classes, to which I felt the need of asking if this might have been somewhat required of them, which two women asserted me that so was the case. “Before going for a husband, they had to learn different kinds of domestic skills, cooking and so forth”, I was told by a few women of one group.183 They also mentioned that already in elementary school, these skills were practiced during domestic science classes. Thus, preparing for what married life was to bring with it and the ability of making practical wear for oneself.

180 Informants from second group, 2020-02-19; Informant from third group, 2020-02-25 181 Informant from third group, 2020-02-25 182 Informant from first group, 2020-02-19 183 Ibid. 60 One woman of another group confirmed this, speaking of when she as well was pregnant and the comfortability of being able to adjust the waistline with a rope instead of buttons. One that she as a matter of fact had sewn herself.184 Interestingly however, she was also quick to add that she did not particularly like wearing it and to this day does not. In here, I find it interesting to detect some staggering opinions of how these women rate this dress-item. On the one hand most of them agree on its practicality and functionality, yet, when it comes to its appreciation this seems to be more discrepant. No deeper analysis is necessary to understand that every woman’s personal relation to it is subjective. Yet, their mere opinion shows that all of them without at one point or another had to wear it. Historically speaking, predating the Soviet annexation of Estonia, Racioppi and O’Sullivan See, explain how during the early stages of the SU and its revolutions, the matter of the woman’s emancipation became rather secondary, neither was it a priority in replacing Lenin’s working woman with Stalin’s superwoman.185 Danese even points out that the dresses’ characteristics during the period of first world war in the USA, were much that of a uniform, as it became fully comprehensible if seen as part of the ongoing modernisation of the domestic sphere. She goes on further to speak about how the general ambition was indeed to transform the previous “banal housedress” into a dress representing innovations as much as dignity and sense of solidarity to prove their civil participation as housewives.186 Likewise, Ilic states that Soviet women were assigned a certain role and were both expected to participate on all societal levels, yet fulfil their socialist loyalties, not only building the SU technically, but also morally.187 In that sense, making clothing a useful tool for understanding the ‘uniform’ of dress. I find this to be of most central importance for understanding the origins of the house/smock dress. The dress, being a ‘badge of housewife honour’, demanded not only hygiene and decorum, but also respectability and administration which would followingly cohere with the traditional idea of the loving and maternal woman, a stereotype equally depicted in magazines. An interesting example of Ilic, is how a representation of this in an American magazine show a mother and daughter that are standing next to each other wearing the same model dress, “almost an allegorical representation of the possible handing down of a role through clothing.”188 Seen from a psychological perspective of handing down a social role, Kaiser is clear on the fact that a shared usage or understanding of clothes, has the potential to cultivate a sense of interconnectedness as well as preservation of that culture through an organising of it.

184 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 185 Bartlett. FashionEast. pp. 86-94; Racioppi & Katherine O’Sullivan See, pp. 820-822 186 Danese. pp. 31-32 187 Ilic. pp. 105-107 188 Danese. pp. 38-43 61 In her evaluating of the term idioculture, she defines its characteristics to be an organisation of both knowledge, beliefs, behaviours and customs, binding together the life that appears within it. Considering its reliance on the dynamics of collective interaction, it practices both social control and constraint of the individual. Then again, there is an underlying emphasis on mutual interests or a common perspective adding to this cohesive understanding.189 The aim of this thesis is to lightly examine the level of authority that the leading Soviet institutions had. An indirect political influence is common matter, even if it becomes somewhat difficult to speak of a ‘leader’ of housewife ideals. In this subchapter I have wished to seek deeper into the more subjective inheritance of this dress, with much pointing to the fact that there existed an underlying state-ruled ideal of how the female was to appear in different contexts, including the non-public one. Although the hierarchical organisation of a commanding role-model is missing in this context, I would argue that the smock dress came to represent itself in this sense. Giving itself personality through social constructs and these group’s executive use of it, adding to its normative knowledge and influence. Being representative of human action, it equally has a profound influence on our social meanings, generalisations and concepts which on the individual scale sets down in certain objects.190 Closing this part of the chapter, I have extensively tried to explain how this dress does indeed do with its constant presence domestically, already set out from childhood stage. As one of the women exemplified to me, “We were also taught to sew dresses for our dolls” which I find demonstrated how the women already from an early age were taught how to use their feminine cunnings for dressing not only themselves, but also helping to dress others.191 Most importantly however, to maintain the tradition of being self-reliant when making something for yourself.

Emotions of the past Superficially ideological “The smock-came to be the best option!”, is something that has been a recurrent proclamation of my interviewees throughout this analysis.192 Likewise, that “What was available, that was what we used. Not to say that we did not have anything to choose from”.193 I wish to draw closer on my interviews private, if yet intimate, aspects on the smock/house dress. I will be continuing on what both the second chapter and the previous portion of the thesis has touched upon.

189 Kaiser. pp. 351-354 190 Ibid. pp. 29-41, 355-360, 369-370 191 Informant from first group, 2020-02-19 192 Ibid. 193 Ibid. 62 Namely, the dress’s connection to the Soviet ideological portrayal of the woman and its embodiment of it through the dress, or at least the intention of doing so. In accordance with Ilic, I would argue that this type of social movement of women, being its own independent phenomenon, serves as proof that women of this time united in plural ways. Housewives, workers, women of all kinds all belonged to one greater unity. This does not exclusively imply that all women were homogenous either in appearance, occupation or ideological beliefs. On the contrary, it shows that the mere idea of women as one [ideal ideological] compartment shared many other things, most importantly, common concepts and exposure to things. Ilic points out how this was promoted frequently during the post-war reconstruction, where the rebuilding work, in its essence, came to focus on reviving the great Soviet collective memory.194 Even if the smock dress indeed is very much still available and present in modern times, the object is after all ‘thrown back in time’ to adapt to this study. Suggestively, what I seem to be detecting here is that the willingness of conversating about the smock passes by uncomplicatedly. If anything, the open discussion remains flowing. I begin to wonder here if my methodology might serve as useless. Yet, the mere willingness and appeared joy of discussing this amongst the interviewees demonstrates that the smock dress has no definite timeframe but allows itself to be comprehensible in past tense within a past context. Two components all of my informants share collectively. This brings me to think, in the words of Boym, how “nothing compared to the return to the motherland believed to be the best remedy for nostalgia”.195 Somehow making it seems as if the smock allocates itself in three time-spaces simultaneously - The present time we exist in, their past, and similarly before all of our time. One could, on one hand, argue that it is I who ‘ambush’ these women to transmit a historical look-back. On the other hand, there are no objections to my intrusive curiousness, as memory after memory unveils for them, not least collectively, supplying me with much required interesting information and narration of an era beyond my own experience. To this extent, I interpret Boym’s phrase to be applied here, in the sense of these women’s cooperation by telling their stories of a bygone era. As it is also a fragment of the entirety of the SU, with the conversation at times expands into other Soviet themed related topics. The longing for the motherland in the moment might seem positive and remains mostly positive. One should then not forget that the history of the SU covers much more than just the lives of these women, nonetheless the smock dress. Perhaps surprising, there was no apparent resistance of speaking about the general topic of the former SU.

194 Ilic. pp. 104-115 195 Boym. p. 4 63 Likely because it represents a component of these women’s lives. Boym continues by saying that nostalgia is not an anxiety of the individual, but a “public threat” revealing the contradictions of modernity.196 This summarises well how the ideas of the time simmer down to each and every nook of society, in matters of how genders were separated, where they belonged and how they were anticipated to act their part, using dress which would somehow demonstrate the spirit of the age. Sticking to my intention of not examining the leading institutions of fashion during this period, Pavitt makes a significant note about how during the post-war period “the spheres of the arts, leisure and domesticity were employed as arenas of Cold War conflict or competition”, speaking of the famous ‘Kitchen debate’ between Soviet chairman Khrushchev and US president Nixon. The point here being that fashion was regularly seen as an area of ideological difference.197 I hence detect that the smock/house dress seems to have been equally supervised by the leading institutions, sticking with the indorsed ideals of modesty and refinement. I find this to be most fitting to the embedded symbolics planted within the smock dress, as it, like the , signals both a distinct reading to its surrounding as well as an intercommunicative staging of authority and obedience.198 In the chapter A uniform for the Home, Danese opens with the explanation that any historical reconstruction of the social and cultural implications of the house dress cannot ignore its tie to ideology aiming to organise the home. As per example, many of the new ideals [in fascist Italy] propagated for the fit and healthy body.199 Something which in Soviet [Russian] society was apparent, as Alice Erh-Soon Tay explains, in a decreased concerned about the ‘liberation of the proletariat’ and aimed more to maintain gender divisions, which was further enforced as soon as the female passed the threshold of home. Something which both Marx and Engels identified as one of the huge flaws of bourgeois society.200 By then ‘reliving’ the female from multiple dress choices, the smock would always come in hand.

Dressing in retrospective In this final portion of the analysis, I wish to support myself on the previous segment’s attempt of unravelling how ideology found itself present in the mindset of these women when they dressed in the smock dress. What I have wished to emphasise at this point then, is how dressing the part of the Soviet housewife not only brought with it the practical duties.

196 Boym. pp. 4-6 197 Pavitt. p. 23 198 Kaiser. pp. 362-363 199 Danese. pp. 18, 31 200 Alice Erh-Soon Tay. ”The Status of Women in the Soviet Union”, The American Journal of Comparative Law Vol. 20, No. 4 (Autumn, 1972), pp. 663-676, 689 64 Whilst wearing the dress but also the ideological imprints that came with it. In this ending part of the analysis I attempt to draw closer to the emotions attached to the dress, as told by my informants. Thus, seeing to the notions of how they separately thought of it and recall it through the lens of a post-Soviet mentality. Noticeably, there seems to be a constant presence of argumentation, creating a certain dialectic positioning of how the smock dress was actually used. Based on their collective point of view, there is no disagreement of in which context it was used. Its appropriateness, however, I perceive to be a separately discussed topic. I find it inevitable here to mention the notion of a ‘correct’ memory. A topic brought to light by the scholars of oral history and memory studies Ene Kõresaar and Kirsti Jõesalu and their article about the Estonian Life Stories Association, in which they speak about an underlying discrepancy and discuss which history bears most importance in the memory bank of post- Soviet-Estonia. Concisely put, much attention has been directed towards the restoration of a post-occupational pride and representation of suffering, resulting in many stories left in the shadows, but yet not entirely forgotten. Therefore, I would agree that this dominant topic colours much of the present discourse. History itself being something of a truth-teller of what has previously existed and occurred. Kõresaar and Jõesalu add that there is a persistent risk when looking back at introspective nostalgic memories of youth, especially in the case of Soviet history, as nostalgia might transform memory into threat.201 In matters of self-representation, cultural representations of appropriateness are subordinate to modern times expectations of appropriateness and self-presentation. Additionally, these representations of self are not created in a vacuum but are a result of reconstructions and social transactions over time where also social location has an important influence on how a group constructs itself and creates common symbolics.202 Another discovery during my interviews was how a constant presence of unanimousness in a way set the standards. Not only reflecting upon the material object but actually the context of which it served purpose in and, as I was my initial intention, assembling their individual experiences and viewpoints to grasp the greater meaning. What immediately strikes me, after gathering up my notes and material data, is how the word ‘indifferent’ recurrently appears in my mind whilst all of these women recall their memories of the smock dress or the smock. Yet contradictory, there is no lack of words whilst describing or conceptualising the dress, in many ways giving it verve as if it was a living thing.

201 Ene Kõresaar & Kirsti Jõesalu, ”Post-Soviet memories and 'memory shifts' in Estonia”, Oral History, Vol. 44, No. 2, Nordic-Baltic special issue (Autumn), 2016, pp. 49-53 202 Kaiser. pp. 42-44, 182-187 65 Like I formerly have mentioned, the presence of constant fluctuation between speaking about the dress as a bygone and present object made the object itself a bit fluent as to where it belonged. Almost making the centre of gravity whether it was either alive or dead. “What else is there to tell, some kind of emotions, there are none” another woman agreeing, “Yeah, we do not really have any greater emotions towards it”.203 Admittingly, this leaves me somewhat surprised. Yet, when considering the entirety of this analysis, I realise I was given this fact when during my stage of carrying out the interviews, asking them if they then would describe it as both regular and unproblematic, on which the entire group agreed. “We did not feel any kind of inferior complex cause, there was nothing better around us. Others were not any different.”204 None of the interviewed women describe it in any other way than a sense of practicality, comfortability and even relief of knowing what to put on when arriving home from work. Letting the breathing cotton fabric almost serve as a lighter version of an armour when fixing up around the household. Nevertheless, all memories are not as glamourous with many of them recurrently speaking of the old Soviet times as having lived through a lifetime in a time capsule. One woman sarcastically claiming; “What a horrible life we have lived! But we did not really understand that we lived such a horrid life”.205 As much as one could complain about the old times, these women’s stories about the smock dress’s role in society quickly shifts over to speak about the historical epoch and its ideological conditions rather than the artefact. Although the artefact [smock dress] serves as a lens for me to understand their stories. For example, how it was more or less frowned upon if the hostess wore it when greeting guest or using for a meet up with a friend in town. On the other side of this spectrum, one woman fondly seems to remember one particular house dress she owned, made of black chintz and a floral pattern which she used on a regular basis for greeting people in (likely speaking of closer acquaintances). Using the argument that she liked wearing it because of the rarity of the fabric, thus making it a deficit. “I really miss it actually”, one woman noted.206 It is then evident that there persists a stagnant memory of the dress in the reminiscence of these women. That they not merely remember the dress, but its situating in social interactions with others. This interesting nostalgic cue leads me on to the topic of romanticism and attractiveness of the smock/house dress. Even asking these women if the garment possibly even owned up to some factors of eroticism.

203 Informant from third group, 2020-02-25 204 Ibid. 205 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 206 Informant from third group, 2020-02-25 66 In Boym’s words, nostalgia is “dependent on the modern conception of unrepeatable and irreversible time” and its romanticising needs to be kept on a safe distance in order to be adored. How it, even if unsystematically, seduces rather than convinces us.207 It thus comes to be a matter of maintaining a border between the current self and past [Soviet] self. Additionally, separating Estonians from other cultures. Upon bringing up the question if some eroticism could be applicable to the smock dress, I got the response that it very well might be. However more likely in other cultures. In a conversation between three women they discussed followingly, “It is a straight cut after all…“ – “But if you open up the buttons, then it might become erotic – “If the buttons fall off that is!”208. If, perhaps importantly, one of them also add that, regarding it as erotic should be a question directed at the man, leading her to think about the stereotype of how the working woman was erotic but that it did not matter since the men were in a constant blur of drunkenness anyway. Having previously touched upon the topic of cultural dissimilarities between Estonians and Russians during my interview, she went telling a story about how she constantly say drunks lined up on her way home from school [referring to the late 1970s], to which one woman added “I can imagine they were Russians” to which the first one actually confirmed that they were. The centrality of the story, however, was that after having had a few beers, they were likely to go on home, finding their wife at home wearing a smock with nothing but underwear underneath. “And so, she bent over with half of her thighs uncovered. For him then it could feel a bit…”. The second one continuing to state, laughing, that “But if he did not know any better back then…”, referring to scarcity of imagination.209 What this anecdote then tells us is, firstly, that a difference was established between Estonians and Russian, to how they likely separate themselves culturally of how they perceived the smock[dress]. As mentioned previously, this opinion is likely based on the previous declaration of the Estonian woman as being much vainer and more aware of her own appearance. Secondly, it shows that the smock dress, in its characteristic of being temporary, was a garment to put on and off the carnal body. Thus, dressing and undressing it at the same time. In that way, opening up a new angle for perceiving it as a generator of emotional awakening (as well as physical excitement). Meaning that it was much more that an everyday garment/practice that many of the women described it to be. This discussion, in all fairness, only appeared during one interview so it cannot be claimed that the same feelings were mutual. However, I would argue that it testifies that even the dullest of objects as this has the ability to awake not only memories but also sentiments – perceiving the smock as if it never left.

207 Boym. p. 11 208 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 209 Ibid. 67 Final remarks According to historian Terje Hallik, the role of the Estonian woman within a national narrative has had relatively the same civil and political rights as the man. Estonian views on gender, originating from the 19th century conservative Baltic-Germanic ideals, I find are well explained by the Estonian writer and politician Carl-Robert Jakobson who at this time determined that; “The man’s objective is mostly to collect life-necessities, expanding his fortune and keep an overall good order “ whereas the woman was to “Do what she already does, keeping together and with her help decorate and adore the home and for the family”.210 About one hundred years later, during the Soviet era, the woman’s role became somewhat more complex, having shifted towards being considerably mandatory, present in both the public and the working sphere.211 Gathering what my informants have told me, they seem to agree on most things in matters of identifying the smock. What this psychological part of the analysis then tells us, is that there seems to be a removed demand for the smock. If anything, there seems to rather be an ‘exquisite pain’ and heartache of nostalgia, remembering the context it once served purpose in. As Kaiser writes, revision is accomplished through an interpretive process where redefinition is necessary and symbolism lead us to modify joint interpretations which can ongoingly be merged, thus allowing culture to reorganise established ideas on e.g. gender.212 Not only did they wear it themselves, but even remember their own mothers and grandmothers wearing it. One woman stating; “Even today my mother wears the smock”.213 Equally, they all seem to agree that the smock[dress] has a certain democracy to it. Like one of them compared it to a t-shirt, they both serve as some sort of ‘uniform’ of leisure wear, the t-shirt having perhaps even come to replace the old smock. Upon the question if they still wear it today, there is also great disagreement to whether it is preferable or not. What does stand clear, however, is their undenied loyalty to the better of cotton quality of the old days, making them choose other alternatives for home wear. Conclusively, this chapter has attempted to review and untangle these women’s recollection of the smock dress. Its preservation of it within their memory as well as a depiction of their own perception of it. As one of the elderly women told me; “You should write that people could still use it today, if they only knew its value”.214

210 C.R. Jakobson quoted in: Raili Marling & Mari-Liis Sepper, ”Eesti naise roll rahvuslikus narratiivis [The Estonian Woman’s role in a national narrative]”, 2018-02-23, Sirp [Sickle], https://www.sirp.ee/s1-artiklid/c21- teadus/eesti-naise-roll-rahvuslikus-narratiivis/ 211 Ibid. 212 Kaiser. pp. 44, 66-68, 89-92 213 Informant from second group, 2020-02-19 214 Informant from first group, 2020-02-19 68 CONCLUSION Final discussion When I first initiated researching about this topic, I was myself uncertain of what the actual intention of it was. My main concern being if this was even a researchable topic. I posed the rhetorical question of how well the ideology of the SU infiltrated the mindsets of these women and their domestic ‘uniforming’? I was then gladly surprised to see, once getting my foot passed the threshold of exploration, that the smock dress was indeed a vestiary character of its own. How it possessed many of the same characteristics as any other type of garment. What differed it however, from my subjective perspective, was its commonness. Its disability of explaining itself, being somewhat dependent on its encircling context to become comprehensible. Now the same can surely be claimed for many other types of clothing. A basic, even democratic, simple type of garment used by almost every individual on this planet. Just as with any study of a garment, it would be interesting to put it into a particular context. Thus, experimenting its resonance with the social context which furthermore would voice the experience of wearing said garment. This has been the aim of this study - to match together a rather common object with the social setting of certain [ideological] conditions. A thing which adhered not only to its physical stamina, but more so its societal as a phenomenon. My true objective with this study has been to show that the notion of fashion neither surpassed nor was incomprehensible for the rulers in the SU. The intention here has not been to provide an autobiography of these interviewed women’s past. It rather wishes to aid with a retelling of the smock dress phenomenon and its importance for women of the later 20th century Estonia collectively. By using Mauss’s conjunction of seeing to all of these three aspects of studying a topic from a phenomenological stance, I have attempted to demonstrate this by focusing on the smock dress. That is, certain objects/artefacts overall stamina in defined space and time. When studying the SU, it has been challenging to not take into account its political prerogative and, moreover its implementation into the practical lives of its citizens, which in itself requires a steady demarcation. As also shown in my analysis, there is no sharp evidence of the smock/house dress to be restricted to either the political ‘east’, the USSR or the lives of all women. I will in this closing part of this study try to sort out this study’s findings, by revising the outlining questions one by one, finishing with some last remarks of its successfulness of doing so. What might not have been stressed enough and what possible doors it could open for further research within the fields of material studies within the history of fashion. How an object has relative meaning, generating an alternative value or version of it.

69 What was the dress? Being a cotton fabric home dress made and worn by these women, I detect the general notion to be that the adoption of it was rather based on habits. Better for some, worse for others. Upon the question how the women themselves reflected on it, it in fact being worn frequently by women, in some way indeed making it a standard or uniform. They re-state the fact that it was made for the home and still is today. Both now and then, functioning as a bodily cover, used by women when they performed their household loyalties at home. Amongst those tasks also making sure they had on the proper and long-lasting attire. Domestic undertakings which during this time, both in the SU and abroad, often fell on the shoulders of women such as; childcare, cooking, cleaning and overall nurturing. As already established in the analysis, it was in the end a bodily cover, functioning as a protective dress. In my comparison of it to a uniform then, I have not wished to prove that it is an equivalent of a body armour or military uniform, but rather owning up too many of the same similarities of it. Yet unintentionally, organise, structure and perhaps most importantly characterise the so-called ‘new Soviet woman’ which was in constant development from the dawn to the dusk of the USSR. Parallelly to this evolution of the female's role in Soviet society, the smock[dress] seemed to be a constant element of the Soviet housewife, told from the experience of my informants. In that sense, its colourfulness and commonness functioned as a continuous tool for the woman to take on the role of the housewife in a more colourful way. With its very simple cuts and modest ornaments and patterns it functioned as an ideal garment which simultaneously came to set with both sides of the societal depiction of women. It on the one hand demonstrated uniformity and similarity to other women but also solidarity and companionship with others. As my interviewees emphasised, the Soviet woman was to be both practical and loyal to the given standards and conditions that the SU was able to offer. Whilst that might not have been a major issue during the initial post-war years, the following political reforms forced them to set with new and other standards of accessing both material and inspiration in order to keep on track with the new standards. Applying this to Estonia then, it shows how the smock dress’s practicality was primarily universal. Yet, it also had to coincide with the Estonian standards of beauty and adornment which were based on a much longer previous history than that of Soviet rule. Secondly, their use of skills combined with the willingness of maintaining some awareness of fashion whilst at home. Which, if yet in a minor way, worked towards creating some independence in how the [Soviet]Estonian woman wished to keep up with evolving trends whilst at once setting their own creativity and handicraft knowledge to the test. Thus, crafting a smock/house dress was not really a challenge but seems rather to have been a truism.

70 Where was the dress? In Soviet [Estonian] society the dress was not only restricted to the domestic sphere. It came to be a recurrent garment, appearing both professionally and domestically. In the analysis, quoting one of the interviewed women, every citizen of the SU had the obligation of working in the unified effort of building the true and equal communist society. What the second chapter then tells, is that the separating line between home and work was almost non-existent for the female. Whilst this does not imply that the use of the smock or smock dress was crucial or homogenous for all Soviet[Estonian] women. I develop this assumption out of my interviewees’ homogenous response that each and every one of them had used it, also remembering that many in their surrounding did the same. Followingly, I wish to point out that the smock was socially constructed and collectively comprehended as an immortal ‘uniform’ the female never really got rid of. Nevertheless, if her occupation demanded wearing one. I therefore see how its coinciding with the socialist rule and promoting of ideology created a fundament for the ideal working woman and more centrally, how she was to appear. As discussed in the first chapter, there were certain liberties of making their own dress, apart from the one bought in stores or supplied by the employer. However, making their own required not only skills in handicraft but also general support and inspirational sources. In order to provide with the sociological and overhauling perception of the smock, I additionally decided to seek support in the two most mentioned fashion magazines that they used. By studying those, I could confirm that their experience of both sharing and conceptualizing was indeed supported by a greater discourse rather than just emerging out of pure evolution. Even more so, the smock dress was represented in the magazines, thus adding it to the same melting pot of promoted (socialist) fashions. Bearing in mind that it was not uncommon for the state to [indirectly] hand out guidelines of proper dressing. Although there exist some empirical discrepancies between what the magazines and women told me, its common representation shows me that the collective use of it did not come from thin air but was rather an already established garment. Meaning that there were no political norms of dressing but rather recommendations, set aside from smocks used in profession. I would thus argue that its standing imprint, remaining as an obvious dress option for these women, along with the smock’s functional purpose, created a symbiosis with their knowledge and the magazines' supply of templates. Something that in the end allowed women to keep up with their demand of fashion trends and shifts. Although with the caution of not conflicting with Soviet ideology and norms. Hence, with its high familiarity amongst these women, it became an emblem of post-war Soviet females at least in Estonia, however not a party-political symbol.

71 How was the dress? “Practical” being the main word used to describe this dress. I thus ask myself what this sampling of 15 Estonian women can tell us about the experience of this dress and if wearing it substantiated a shared experience? A garment which seemingly went by unnoticed as a granted dressing practice, primarily used as a protective garment. Yet, alongside other variations of the same object, they conjointly shape a larger meaning, physically, filling a space. Sharing something larger than themselves without really paying any attention to it. Seemingly, it holds home to a certain je-ne-sais-quoi, with essentially no exceptions amongst the interviewees considering it to be a dress forced upon them by a higher authority. Although without any direct political ulterior motive, it seemed to have been incredibly common for depicting the working woman, both in theory and in practice. I thus see that the conditions set on the fashion industry via political reforms had a hard time disregarding the will of these women to maintain a personal adaption of the dress. At the same time also coinciding well with the dress’s non-ambition of advancing to a higher level of beauty. I consequently see how they set themselves up with the wearing of this dress, simply because it was neither dismissed by the political side nor their own personal historical relation to it. In a certain way providing them with a historical look-back on their own life. It is also vital to mention that they, likely because of this reason, were not too focused on creating a nostalgic emotional bond to it as the garment was ‘just there’. I would still argue though, that it at least testifies to the fact that even the most mundane of objects, as this, has the ability to awake not only memories but also lived feelings. The way that the dress not only remembers them of the ideological conditions set but how they in turn coincided with their replication from their own mothers. The dress in itself was thus not symbolic of Soviet [Estonian] values, but its practice came to function as such as it was one of few garments that could pose a ‘vanity threat’ towards the leading institutions. How it rather functioned as a characteriser, which through the pre-established use, continued to be both a practical, comfortable and obvious option at home. Paradoxically, being so common that it did not earn any greater reconsideration. This is equally something that my interviewees have shown me, that the retrospective flashbacks of it do not only capture the object but the awoken memories of their own lives. More accurately, previous life, since the factor of space has been demolished (the dissolvement of the SU) only giving these women the time which no longer is able to exist. As leisurely, mundane and democratic as it might have been, it clearly got a conversation going. Yet, being so blatant in itself, it still demonstrated a high purpose value during the post-war years making it into an attractive garment. Managing to combine the two spheres of collective abstention and personal style.

72 Final remarks As a result of this study I find that the smock in S-Ean society was indeed a pushing force, not striving for social change but rather ensuing its cyclical shifts. Even though it was limited to the more ‘Soviet’ aspect of portraying a working woman, it was done so with the help of the fashion industry. My point here is that the smock dress might never have been considered to glorify the female body or socialist ideology. Yet, its covering of the [female] body gave expression for something more leaning towards making it into more than just a working garment. That it in some way marked a reassurance that whatever development might strike their way, it was a dress which could and would always be accessible to all women. Hence becoming a marker of democracy, both unifying, comforting and accommodating the women’s need for leisurely wear. I have with this thesis wished to show the clashing and contradictory relationship of a fashion practice in a Soviet society. Moreover, emphasised the ambivalence of reading the smock as a fashionable object of its time. I have equally wished to prove that even though its function has remined the same, its purpose will for ever more never serve the same meaning as it did in this particular context and unique circumstance. Thereby stretching the states concern of how she was to appear even at home and doing so with set standards. This all leads me to reminisce of a haste interaction with a woman working at the Museum of Applied Art. There, she showed me a particular fabric she had once had in 1976, depicting various Estonian names in the colour scheme of blue, black and white – the colours of the current national flag. Like also my informants mentioned, this was a sneaky integration of patriotism, which (by law) was not allowed. What this really tells us, is that the fabrics produced (regionally) came to be well known amongst the generation exposed to it but also belonging to the epoch of the past. As the woman recalled the trousers, somewhat pensive; “…now they belong to the trashcan of history.”215 In the end, it is always a challenge to evoke certain memories. With the brain’s ability to recreate and post-create memories deep within us, one can never be certain one person’s retelling is real. However, when a larger group mentions similar things or simply agrees, there must be a deeper well of knowledge where a researcher can only detect the tension of the surface. Conclusively, in Lenin’s words written in 1919,

The real emancipation of women, real communism, will begin only where and when an all-out struggle begins (led by the proletariat wielding the state power) against this petty housekeeping [...].216

215 Interaction with employee at the Museum of Applied Art and Design in Estonia, Tallinn, 2020-02-27 216 V.I. Lenin. Collected works 29 March-August 1919, (2 ed.) Progress, Moscow, 1974. p. 429 73 BIBLIOGRAPHY Published material

Bartlett, Djurdja.

- FashionEast: the spectre that haunted socialism, MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass., 2010

- Fashion and politics, (red.), Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, 2019

Bartlett, Djurdja and Smith, Pamela, (eds.). Berg Encyclopedia of World Dress and Fashion: East Europe, Russia, and the Caucasus [Digital resource], Oxford: Berg, 2010

Barthes, Roland. The fashion system, Univ. of California Press: Berkeley, 1983[1990]

Boym, Svetlana. The future of nostalgia, Basic Books: New York, 2001

Blaszczyk, Regina Lee (red.). Producing fashion: commerce, culture, and consumers, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, Penn, 2007

Chernyshova, Natalya. Soviet consumer culture in the Brezhnev era [Digital resource], 2013

Craik, Jennifer., Uniforms Exposed [Digital resource], Berg, 2005

Danese, Elda. The house dress: a story of eroticism and fashion, 1. ed., Marsilio: Venezia, 2008

Entwistle, Joanne. The Fashioned Body [Digital resource], Wiley: Hoboken, 2015

ERR. “Marit Ilison kogub mälestusi kitlikandmisest [Marit Ilison collects memories of smock- wearing]”, 2019-06-30, Eesti Rahvusringhääling [Estonian Public Broadcasting], https://kultuur.err.ee/957278/marit-ilison-kogub-malestusi-kitlikandmisest [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Finnane, Antonia, Changing Clothes in China, Columbia University Press: New York, 2008

Galletta, Anne. Mastering the Semi-structured Interview and Beyond: From Research Design to Analysis and Publication (Qualitative Studies in Psychology) [Digital resource], New York University Press, 2012

Gronow, Jukka and Zhuravlev, Sergey Ivanovič. Fashion meets socialism: Fashion industry in the Soviet Union after the Second World War, [Digital resource], Finnish Literature Society: Helsinki, 2015

Harvey, Karen. (red.) History and material culture: a student's guide to approaching alternative sources, [Digital resource], 2017

Hoskins, Tansy E. Stitched up: the anti-capitalist book of fashion, Fernwood Publishing: Halifax, 2014

Howell, Kerry E. An introduction to the philosophy of methodology, [Digital resource.] SAGE: Los Angeles, 2016

74 Ilic, Melanie & Smith, Jeremy (red.). Soviet State and Society Under Nikita Khrushchev [Digital resource], 2009

Kaiser, Susan B. The social psychology of clothing: symbolic appearances in context / Susan B. Kaiser, 2., rev. ed., Fairchild Publications: New York, 1997

Kluge, Friedrich. (Trans. Davis, John Francis), An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language, 4 ed., G. Bell: University of Michigan, 1891 [Accessed through: Wikisource, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Etymological_Dictionary_of_the_German_Language [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Komissarov, Eha. “Eha Komissarov: nõukogude moest [Eha Komissarov: about Soviet fashion]”, Postimees, 2012-11-12, https://arvamus.postimees.ee/1046966/eha-komissarov- noukogude-moest [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Komissarov, Eha and Teeäär, Berit (red.). Mood ja külm sõda [Fashion and the cold war], Eesti Kunstimuuseum, Kumu: Tallinn, 2012

Kumu. Sots art ja mood - Kontseptuaalsed rõivad Ida-Euroopast [Sots art and fashion - Conceptual clothes from Eastern Europe], 2020, [Exhibition], https://kumu.ekm.ee/syndmus/sots-art-ja-mood-kontseptuaalsed-roivad-ida-euroopast/ [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Kõresaar, Ene and Jõesalu, Kirsti. “Post-Soviet memories and 'memory shifts' in Estonia”, Oral History, Vol. 44, No. 2, Nordic-Baltic special issue (Autumn), 2016, pp. 47-58

Küchler, Susanne and Miller, Daniel (red.). Clothing as Material Culture [Digital source], Oxford: Berg, 2005

Lenin, Vladimir Ilʹič. Collected works 29 March-August 1919, (2 ed.) Progress Publishers: Moscow, 1974

Lobjakas, Kai. Mustriline Elu [Patterned life], KesKus [WhoWhere / Centre], February 2020, pp. 14-15

Marling, Raili and Sepper, Mari-Liis. “Eesti naise roll rahvuslikus narratiivis [The Estonian Woman’s role in a national narrative]”, 2018-02-23, Sirp [Sickle], https://www.sirp.ee/s1- artiklid/c21-teadus/eesti-naise-roll-rahvuslikus-narratiivis/ [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Marx, Karl, and Engels, Frederick. Manifesto of the Communist Party in Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One, Progress Publishers: Moscow, [Digital resource], 1969

Mauss, Marcel (1935). “Techniques of the body”. Reprint, Economy and Society, 2:1, 1973, pp. 70-88

Metsis, Anne. “Moedisainer Marit Ilison/ mind ei köida glamuur ja hoian sellest nii kaugele kui võimalik [Fashion designer Marit Ilison/ I’m not fascinated by glamour and stay as far away from it as possible]”, Eesti Naine [Estonian Woman], 2019-06-07, https://lood.delfi.ee/eestinaine/ajakirjalood/moedisainer-marit-ilison-mind-ei-koida-glamuur- ja-hoian-sellest-nii-kaugele-kui-voimalik?id=86297021 [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

75 Mihkelson, Helen. ”Kuhu Eesti kuulub? [Where does Estonia belong?]”, Postimees, 2018-10- 20, https://leht.postimees.ee/6433805/eesti-kuulub-laande [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Neary, Rebecca Balmas. “Mothering Socialist Society: The Wife-Activists' Movement and the Soviet Culture of Daily Life, 1934-41”, in The Russian Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 Jul., 1999, pp. 396-412

Ojavee, Anu and Puppart, Piret. Eesti Moe 100 aastat [100 years of Estonian fashion], Post Factum: Tallinn, 2019

Paju, Kristina. “Valgest tumelillani – Intervjuu Marit Ilisoniga [From white to dark purple – an Interview with Marit Ilison]”, Müürileht, 2011-12-07, https://www.muurileht.ee/valgest- tumelillani-intervjuu-marit-ilisoniga/ [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Pavitt, Jane. Fear and fashion in the Cold War, V&A: London, 2008

Peri, Alexis. “New Soviet Woman: The Post-World War II Feminine Ideal at Home and Abroad”, The Russian Review, No. 77 (October), 2018, pp. 621–644

Premiyak, Lisa. “Help unravelled the untold stories of sisterhood at the former Soviet textile mill in Estonia”, The Calvert Journal, 2020-03.13, https://www.calvertjournal.com/features/show/11687/S-E-textile-mill-kreenholm-sisterhood- photobook-maria-kapajeva [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Racioppi, Linda & See, Katherine O’Sullivan. “Organizing Women before and after the Fall: Women’s Politics in the SU and Post-Soviet Russia”, Journal of Women in Culture & Society, Summer 1995, pp. 818-850

Reid, Susan E.

- “Communist Comfort: Socialist Modernism and the Making of Cosy Homes in the Khrushchev Era”, Gender & History, Vol.21 No.3 November, 2009, pp. 465–498

- “Cold War binaries and the culture of consumption in the late Soviet home”, Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, 2016, pp. 17-43

Schmemann, Serge, “END OF THE SOVIET UNION; The Soviet State, Born of a Dream, Dies, The New York Times”, 1991-12-26, https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/26/world/end- of-the-Soviet-union-the-Soviet-state-born-of-a-dream-dies.html [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Siim-Juse, Karin. Figuur ja mood [Figure and fashion], Punane täht: Tallinn, 1959

Simionescu-Panait, Andrei. “Husserl, Fashion and Its Clothes: Introducing the Phenomenological Project of the Vestiary Object”, ANNALS of the University of Bucharest Philosophy Series, Vol. LXIII, no. 2, 2014, pp. 27 – 38

Soboleva, Nadezhda Aleksandrovna (2006). “From the History of Soviet Political Symbolism”, Russian Studies in History, vol. 47, no. 2, Fall 2008, pp. 59–91

Tay, Alice Erh-Soon. “The Status of Women in the Soviet Union”, The American Journal of Comparative Law Vol. 20, No. 4 (Autumn, 1972), pp. 662-692

76 Veenre, Tanel. “Mood kui kultuuri narrimüts [Fashion as the fool’s of culture]”, Sirp, 2019- 06. 21, https://sirp.ee/s1-artiklid/c6-kunst/mood-kui-kultuuri-narrimuts/ [Last accessed: 2020- 06-10]

Vetik, Anne. “Haute couture kohtub kittelkleidiga [Haute couture meets the smock dress]”, 2012-09-15, Eesti Express, https://ekspress.delfi.ee/areen/haute-couture-kohtub- kittelkleidiga?id=64962952 [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Viira, Aigi. “Nõukogude aja inimene pidi iga asja eest tänulik olema, mis ta selga või jalga sai [The human of the USSR had to be thankful for every single thing they could put on their body or feet]”, Õhtuleht, 2013-07-20, https://elu.ohtuleht.ee/534302/noukogude-aja-inimene-pidi- iga-asja-eest-tanulik-olema-mis-ta-selga-voi-jalga-sai [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Internet sources

Encyclopædia Britannica.

- Estonia – Independence, 2020, Encyclopædia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/place/Estonia/History#ref37293 [Last accessed: 2020-06- 10] - - Kolkhoz, 2020, Encyclopædia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/kolkhoz, [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

- Warsaw Pact, 2020, Encyclopædia Britannica https://www.britannica.com/event/Warsaw-Pact, [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Estonica - Encyclopedia about Estonia. The Great Escape to the West in 1944, Estonica - Encyclopedia about Estonia, 2020, http://www.estonica.org/en/The_Great_Escape_to_the_West_in_1944/ [Last accessed: 2020- 06-10]

The Cambridge Dictionary. Uniform, Cambridge University Press, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/uniform, 2020 [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

ERM. Kirjasaatjate võrk ja küsimuslehed [Correspondents network and questionnaires], Eesti Rahva Muuseum [National Museum of Estonia], 2020, https://erm.ee/et/content/kirjasaatjate- võrk-ja-küsimuslehed [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Harper, Douglas. Smock (n.), Online Etymology Dictionary, 2020, https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=smock&source=ds_search [Last accessed: 2020-06- 10] Ilison, Marit.

- About, 2020, https://maritilison.com/pages/about-mi [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

- 70 Cotton Smocks, 2020, https://maritilison.com/blogs/portfolio/70-cotton-smocks [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

77 Tallinna Teletorn. Nõukogude naise kitlid ja põlled [The smocks and aprons of Soviet women], Tallinna Teletorn [Tallinn TV-tower], 2017, https://www.teletorn.ee/event/naeitus-noukogude- naise-kitlid-ja-polled/ [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Värv, Ellen. Kittel – nägus või näotu? [Smock- handsome or hideous?], Eesti Rahva Muuseum, 2019- 09-05, https://blog.erm.ee/?p=12849, [Blog] [Last accessed: 2020-06-10] [Cover photo: Vello Västrik (private collection), approx. 1975]

Wikipedia,

- ‘Khrushchyovka’, 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchyovka#cite_note-1 [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

- ‘Soviet ruble’, 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_ruble [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

- ‘Sovnarkom’, 2020,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_People%27s_Commissars [Last accessed: 2020-06-10]

Archival material

Eesti Kommunistliku Partei Keskkomitee [Committee of the Communist Party of Estonia], Nõukogude Naine, Tallinn: EKP Keskomitee Kirjastus;

- 1952 January (nr.1) - 1953 February (nr.2) - 1954 March (nr.3) - 1955 April (nr.4) - 1956 May (nr.5) - 1957 June (nr.6) - 1958 July (nr.7) - 1959 August (nr.8) - 1960 September (nr.9) - 1961 October (nr.10) - 1962 November (nr.11) - 1963 December (nr.12) - 1964 January (nr.1) - 1965 February (nr.2) - 1966 March (nr.3) - 1967 April (nr.4) - 1968 May (nr.5) - 1969 June (nr.6) - 1970 July (nr.7) - 1971 August (nr.8) - 1972 September (nr.9) - 1973 October (nr.10) - 1974 November (nr.11) - 1975 December (nr.12) - 1976 January (nr.1) - 1977 February (nr.2)

78 - 1978 March (nr.3) - 1979 April (nr.4) - 1980 May (nr.5) - 1981 June (nr.6) - 1982 July (nr.7) - 1983 August (nr.8) - 1984 September (nr.9) - 1985 October (nr.10) - 1986 November (nr.11) - 1987 December (nr.12) - 1988 January (nr.1)

Tallinna Moemaja, Siluett, Tallinn: Tallinna Moemaja;

- 1958 summer (nr.1) - 1959 autumn/winter (nr.2) - 1960 spring/summer (nr.1) - 1961 autumn/winter (nr.2) - 1962 spring/summer (nr.1) - 1963 autumn/winter (nr.2) - 1964 spring/summer (nr.1) - 1965 autumn/winter (nr.2) - 1966 summer (nr.1) - 1967 Autumn (nr.2) - 1968 Winter (nr.3) - 1969 Spring (nr.4) - 1970 Summer (nr.1) - 1971 Autumn (nr.2) - 1972 Winter (nr. 3) - 1973 Spring (nr.4) - 1974 Summer (nr.1) - 1975 Autumn (nr.2) - 1976 Winter (nr. 3) - 1977 Spring (nr.4) - 1978 Summer (nr.1) - 1979 Autumn (nr.2) - 1980 Winter (nr. 3) - 1981 Spring (nr.4) - 1982 Summer (nr.1) - 1983 Autumn (nr.2) - 1984 Winter (nr. 3) - 1985 Spring (nr.4) - 1986 Summer (nr.1) - 1987 Autumn (nr.2) - 1988 Winter (nr. 3) - 1989 Spring (nr.4) - 1990 Summer (nr.1) - 1991 Summer (nr.1)

79 APPENDIX Designer Marit Ilison After having graduated in Fashion Design from the Estonian Academy of Arts in 2008, Ilison has come to be a renowned Estonian designer, exploring her creativity in many fashion hubs across Europe, installing herself with her atelier in Tallinn in 2013, dedicating herself on connecting luxury with sustainability. In an interview with the magazine Eesti Naine [Estonian Woman] 1, she contemplates her own creativity and how her brand sprouted from a conceptual idea to a full-on luxury brand. On the initial question, regarding how and why fashion captures her, she replies that it in fact does not really. She was nevertheless intrigued of conceptual fashion after being introduced to the designs of Dutch fashion designer Martin Margiela while studying at the Danish Design School in Copenhagen. She states that; “content and meaning along with a simple and beautiful shape overpowers me everywhere”.2 In her dismissal of lavish glamour, being preoccupied by the sparkle and modesty of the individual, she concerns herself of how often people get stuck in an X-body shape, even catching herself sometimes approaching strangers suggesting them to loosen it up for a more complimenting fit. Fashion as such does not particularly intrigue her in her creative process. I perceive this as somewhat translucent in her way of not dismissing any garment from her personal . In a way, proving that as long as it makes corresponds with the wearer, it harmoniously transforms into something flattering. While Ilison indeed seems to emphasise a positivistic and almost a pacifist attitude towards fashion, her portraying revolves much around the individual and one’s own way of making sense by exterior elements. As she claims herself, one of her inspirational powers is positive jealousy. Hence, the communication seems to be person to person or something very particular that allows her to perceive it as a larger concept. With every person expressing themselves in their own way, her underlying philosophy seems to be that this adds to all the beauty surrounding her.3 Then again, they all seem belong to the same melting pot of artistic stimulus.4 What Ilison seems to dedicate herself to then, is mirroring two forces against each other - the power of the dress and the power of the wearer.

1 Note: Previously published as Nõukogude Naine [Soviet Woman], published by the Estonian Communist Party between the years 1952-1989 2 Anne Metsis. Moedisainer Marit Ilison/ mind ei köida glamuur ja hoian sellest nii kaugele kui võimalik [Fashion designer Marit Ilison/ I’m not fascinated by glamour and stay as far away from it as possible], Eesti Naine, 2019- 06-07, https://lood.delfi.ee/eestinaine/ajakirjalood/moedisainer-marit-ilison-mind-ei-koida-glamuur-ja-hoian- sellest-nii-kaugele-kui-voimalik?id=86297021; Marit Ilison, About, 2020, https://maritilison.com/pages/about-mi 3 Ibid. 4 Kumu; Kristina Paju. Valgest tumelillani – Intervjuu Marit Ilisoniga [From white to dark purple – an Interview with Marit Ilison], Müürileht, 2011-12-07, https://www.muurileht.ee/valgest-tumelillani-intervjuu-marit- ilisoniga/ 80 A - 70 Cotton Smocks In the digital and published magazine Müürileht, a publication describing itself as the carrier voice of current culture and idea flows of Estonia, Ilison explains how the idea of shedding light on the smock first struck her. Already while conducting hers studies in Denmark, she describes observing a feeling of seclusion in her everyday life. Comparing with various news outlets of her home country (Estonia), she describes how even random information merely passing her by still being comprehensible. This not being the case living in a foreign society.

[…] - even if we do not directly monitor it, the information somehow finds a way to reach us. […] so much base energy is lost that could be useful somewhere else.5

Saying she had much time to herself and her own thoughts, realising how much it information affects us even if one does not really pay attention to it. What result would then be when such a factor is removed? She continues on to how much of her thoughts and homesickness made her think about her grandmother and her regular use of the smock, remembering how she always wore it. “I suppose it was the uniform of the Soviet Woman”, she says. Then again, she is clear about that the smock had other wearers as well. Here she makes a solid point which adds to my entry to this topic –putting on a smock asserting a role to its wearer. Simultaneously liberating us from our thoughts and values we base our reality on, the smock is after all a basic piece of clothing one should remember not go get to stuck in. She describes the smock as an object to symbolise thought forms, values and information. Both everyday ones and also those spread through surroundings which over a longer period of time seep in to influence us, either intentionally or unintentionally.6 Through Ilison’s perception of life, she ended up with these 70 hand-dyed cotton smocks. Gradually shifting from plain bright white to deep and mellow purple, signifying individual consciousness and thoughts and how they mutually create an ego-presence. Yet they manifest a resistance towards the rapidly moving catwalk [fashion industry] of today, demonstrating that the models of the show, along with the smock, have the power to create a mesmerising and expressive show.7 It is equally interesting to observe Ilison’s connection between smock and singularity resonating well, while simultaneously signalling uniformity.

5 Paju 6 Ibid. 7 Marit Ilison. 70 Cotton Smocks, Performance by Marit Ilison at the Estonian Museum of Applied Art and Design, 2012, https://maritilison.com/blogs/portfolio/70-cotton-smocks 81 82 83 Pictures by Johanna Eenma, 2012, https://maritilison.com/blogs/portfolio/70-cotton-smocks

84 B - 77 chintzes Ilison’s second contribution to the previously mentioned exhibition at the Art Museum of Estonia, was a line-up of smock dresses in various colourful and amusing combinations (See appendix B). This installation is, as the name suggests, a line-up of 77 shape wise identical smock dresses but appearance-wise completely unique. Unanimously the dresses, lined up like a bodyless army of women, somehow comes to life through the vivid colours and patterns. Jointly they take up space in a striking way with no risk of discretely passing by the observer. Not consisting of various dull insignia, the unique patterns of every dress add up to the storytelling of the installation but equally the underlying history. All of these patterns are not really taken from the imagination of Ilison but are as a matter of fact, a re-presentation of what has once already been produced during previous decades. She also mentions that her first and foremost intention whilst being a design student was that of shaping a certain form and as previously mentioned, it is a matter of conceptualising that each and every object owns its own gist. Presuming this framework of hers set the agenda for her addition to named exhibition, displaying the monotonous shape of a smock dress with its many vibrant variations. It was a way to show individualism in something as uniform and wearisome as a smock. A so-called ‘common’ piece of clothing that even in its anonymity maintains the power to make a statement as any other garment. Perhaps even more so displayed side by side, facing the same way. Fellow Estonian designer Tanel Veenre confronts her in his article for the cultural magazine Sirp [Sickle], of how “fashion becomes the fool’s cap of culture” when it is allowed to naively play with and exhibit different kinds of symbolisms. According to him, the more recent exhibition Sots art ja mood falls under a shadow of Russian constructivism. While this likely more concerns the other more ‘eastern’ designers (originating from Russia and Ukraine), Ilison’s association to it is not that far-fetched. Veenre credits the curator Liisa Kaljula for the compact positioning of the exhibited items sharing the same space, although pointing out that they regardless still fall under the impression of being constructed and “pressuring the social nerve“. The influence and display of Russian or Soviet aesthetics, according to him, is a topic in need of delicate handling. Since there, fundamentally, is a need to separate the ‘Estonian’ from ‘Soviet’ and equally what is considered ‘Russian’ influence. Moreover, this is also confirmed by both the interviewees and personal correspondence with the previously mentioned fashion scholars who all underlined the fact that the smock in no way derives from either Soviet politics or initiated with Russian rule. The acknowledged designer Veenre, being one of few critics, praises the display to be very fitting. Both in its line-up but also its prosaic character recalling the ceremonial May-day parades in the USSR.

85 While many of the dresses merely show floral patterns or abstract patterns, some of them are more illustrative, carrying both deeper and evident connotations (See appendix B). What Veenre is pointing at is presumably one of the dresses, deriving from the 80s, pattern of the hammer and sickle. The issues of this particular symbol being an expansive topic to vast for a more investigative analysis in this thesis, it plays a role. Both in matters of its not so humble symbolism and its meaning within the exhibition venue.8 Being relatively discrete amongst the crowd of mannequins, it nevertheless, again, affirms its relation to the historic past and theme of the exhibition. Namely, that socialism did influence the fashion, not only in its silhouette but also its visual appearance. In preparation for her fashionable collection of 77 chintzes, Ilison carefully worked through the archives of the prominent and recognised textile factory Kreenholm, situated in the city of Narva, right on the border of the Russian Federation. Unable to find full pieces of fabrics, she gathered and digitalised new prints out of old segments moving on into manufacturing full on fabrics for the dresses. In an attempt of bringing back some nostalgia, she seemingly wishes to channel some of her own memories as well – remembering the patterns of her grandmother’s dresses. Commenting herself, that “pieces of common memories of the past are deserving of attention“. Hence urging people to visit the exhibition along with their parents and grandparent to let them tell stories of the past, that otherwise would never be told.9

8 Tanel Veenre. Mood kui kultuuri narrimüts [Fashion as the fool’s cap of culture], Sirp, 2019-06-21, https://sirp.ee/s1-artiklid/c6-kunst/mood-kui-kultuuri-narrimuts/ 9 ERR. Marit Ilison kogub mälestusi kitlikandmisest [Marit Ilison collects memories of smock-wearing], 2019-06-30, Eesti Rahvusringhääling, https://kultuur.err.ee/957278/marit-ilison-kogub-malestusi-kitlikandmisest 86 87

88 89

Private collection (2019)

90 C - Patterns: Kreenholm’s textile design 1953-2005 In the magazine KesKus [WhoWhere / Centre], covering cultural events and happenings in Estonia, the curator, and also Museum director, Kai Lobjakas writes about the exhibition in an article named Patterned life. Amongst talking about life in the Kreenholm Textile Factory, the women working there, and the fabrics/patterns produced, she draws parallels to daily life. Besides many things, she asserts that the greater part of Estonians have at least once in their life happened to interact with fabrics from Kreenholm, either clothing, bed linen, curtains or towels. The exhibition’s intention is not solely to showcase the production-line but have also made the great effort of digging up the names of the commonly anonymous designers employed. A profession that during the 1950s came to be more recognised. All done with then attempt of describing both the societal and social conditions of workers through the decades. An example of this, showing the long process of development for a pattern, was when once every trimester a gathering of artists at the Estonian Ministry of Light Industry. In addition to this, also fair like gatherings in Moscow, gathering and showing distribution from all over the SU.10 This exhibition shown at the Museum of Design and Applied Arts not only focuses on the patterns, its designers and fabrication but does so with the implied undertone of Kreenholm belonging a female sphere.11 In a side-article she briefly shines light on the women working in the factory. Amongst many things mentions regarding the working conditions, she brings up two important things. Firstly, that during the pre-war period, there was no greater trend of staying at home since the salaries were considerably low. Also, having to combine their daily and nightly work hours with not only childcare but parents or parents-in-law all residing under the same apartment. Interestingly enough, Lobjakas describes the living arrangements in Narva to be relatively matriarchal, having to focus on upholding order and routine. As she writes, the women were recognised by their muscles and loud voice, needed amongst the boisterous machinery to have conversations. According to her, a voice that was probably needed right after the husband got a hold of his salary.12

10 Kai Lobjakas. Mustriline Elu [Patterned life], KesKus, February 2020, pp. 14-15 11 Lisa Premiyak. Help unravelled the untold stories of sisterhood at the former Soviet textile mill in Estonia, The Calvert Journal, 2020-03-13, https://www.calvertjournal.com/features/show/11687/Soviet-estonia-textile-mill- kreenholm-sisterhood-photobook-maria-kapajeva 12 Lobjakas 91

92

93

94

Private collection (2020)

95 Interview questions

How do you remember and widely associate to the smock-dress? -Appearance - Use - Appropriateness

What are the great differences between smock and smock dress?

To who and where did it belong?

Did you share it?

How much could it have cost?

What did it mean to you personally?

How many did you own?

How and why did you buy it?

Do you still use the smock[dress] today? - Or do you wear something similar?

Is it connected to age? - At what age did you start wearing them approx.?

Do you consider it to be a beautiful garment? - Was it attractive?

Do/did you like wearing it?

What feelings awoke within you?

Did the smock appear in magazines?

Do you remember the smock as a common garment - across the USSR?

How do you think your own mothers related to and used the smock-dress?

96

Stockholms universitet/Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm Telefon/Phone: 08 – 16 20 00 www.su.se