Pockets - An Intimate History of How We Keep Things Close by Hannah Carlson was an interesting read. I listened to the audiobook read by Stephanie Cannon and while I have a passing and somewhat shallow interest in the history of pockets, I was reasonably entertained here.

According to her bio, Hannah Carlson teaches dress history and is a conservator with a PhD in material culture, so she knows her subject matter.

After the medieval period when the purse was a separate item, men wore their purse hanging from their belt, while women wore theirs hanging around mid thigh, meaning that it swung when the wearer walked. In addition, the placement of one's purse could be provocative, and held a surprising (to me) amount of erotic appeal.

"How you wore your purse distinguished between masculine and feminine dress, but the purse itself did not belong to a single gender." Chapter 5

Carlson tells us the word 'pocket' is a borrowing of the French word for bag, and moves through history touching on the fashion for cod pieces, the dagger purse and the dangers of men carrying hidden weapons and pistols in their newly concealed pockets.

What about women's fashion? In Chapter 8, the author tells us that pockets for women have never been as popular in women's clothing as in men's. I was surprised to learn that in the 1800s, some dressmakers created hidden pockets in the bustle of ladies skirts. Located in the middle of the lower back in an early form of bum bag, women would turn themselves in circles trying to twist and retrieve items impractically stored in their bustle pocket.

I enjoyed the commentary about men and courtiers standing and walking with their hands in their pockets and the uproar and claims of indecency made by fellow citizens at the time. I couldn't help but smile in recognition here, as I recall ranting about the trend in the 1990s that saw baggy pants worn low enough to display the wearer's briefs/boxers/g-string and in some cases so low as to cause the wearer to adopt a ridiculous style of walking to prevent their pants from falling down.

The gender politics of pockets and fashion inequality don't really interest me, but the introduction 500 years ago of pockets sewn into men's pants had an unexpected impact on the way men walked and even the way that they stood, some choosing to put a hand inside their pocket or their waistcoat.

"In a pose promulgated by fashionable people, and upheld by professionals, the aristocrat standing at his ease appeared as if he had wrapped himself in a loose embrace. In Britain, painters seized on the hand in waistcoat gesture as a popular portrait formula, believing it depicted qualities of modesty and reserve." Chapter 7

It's interesting to see this pose now and not wonder what the 'portrait pose' is for our time; perhaps it's the flamingo pose or the bambi pose. (Both legitimate poses trending on Instagram right now, but that's 30 mins of valuable reading time I'll never get back after searching 'portrait poses over time').

Back to the book, and Carlson swiftly moves towards the present day, describing the shift from pockets to purses and handbags and the endless battle between functionality versus fashion.

I enjoyed the author's assessment of the explosion in pocket popularity in the 1990s with the resurgence of cargo pants, but perhaps my favourite line from the book was the optimism in going out without pockets or a handbag to carry necessities like keys, tissues, phone, lip balm etc.

"In pared down designs, the person announces their unconcern; their belief that nothing is required and that nothing will go wrong." Chapter 11

That's it exactly! I'm never that optimistic and always take more than I end up needing.

Pockets - An Intimate History of How We Keep Things Close by Hannah Carlson is recommended for readers with an interest in micro history, fashion and gender politics. This 3 star rating is largely reflective of my interest level in the topic and not representative of the author's knowledge of the subject, which is deep.

I still have The Pocket - A Hidden History of Women's Lives, 1660–1900 by Barbara Burman on my virtual TBR pile but I think I might have well and truly scratched that itch here. ( )

An exhaustive, academic work which shows that pockets have been controversial for hundreds of years. And, apparently, the battle rages on. (No-fault divorce happened before pocket equality!)

Quotes/notes

...readily available tools allowed women to maneuver successfully in a world that was constantly trying to limit their movement. (70)

While women's tie-on pockets faced a degree of ridicule, any attempt by women to usurp masculine integrated pockets was met with outright hostility, most strikingly when women donned riding habits. (70)

...at the turn of the twentieth century - the way that people collectively decided to ignore one another in public....putting hands in pockets....helped to shape an imaginary "sphere of indifference." (105)

That housewives did not [wear protective aprons or cloaks] shored up the fiction of happy domesticity while it denied that women were performing actual work. (Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 116)

...several social traditions were being reconceived as natural by conservative forces opposed to change....[Conservative voices] felt acute anxiety about maintaining traditional gender roles. (118)

Here, then, is the crux of the pocket problem. Only one sex requires functional clothing because only one sex is truly expected to use and demand it. Very old ideas about women's place, about the more limited social and economic contributions they are expected to make, remain with us and are reflected in the clothing we create and agree to wear. (133)

[Delilah Dawson's tweet about what women want in fashion: Pockets!] (136)

[In the case Wyoming v. Houghton, a man's pockets were not searched, while a woman's purse was] (140)

[Christian Dior's 1954 quip, "men have pockets to keep things in, women for decoration"] condenses what we sense to be generally true: that men's clothes are made for utility and women's for beauty. (173-174)

"What people really want....is to be free of any attachments. We don't want to bother with tools at all. We don't want to fly in an aircraft, we want to fly like a bird..." (Stefano Marzano, 1999, 221) ( )

well written and illustrated; would have like more photos less text ( )

I knew about the tie-on pockets that women wore under their skirts in the 17th and 18th c. And, how men’s clothing had pockets, but women needed reticules and later handbags. How often have I seen young women carrying their cell phone, setting it down to do anything, because they couldn’t carry a purse into the gym, and those tight pants didn’t have any pockets? Still, I never thought about the social implications behind who gets pockets.

It was interesting to read about the history of pockets, and the lack thereof in women’s fashions. I was so pleased that this book included illustrations so I didn’t have to search online to see examples.

Pockets were originally bags worn under clothing. They could carry things one needed in daily life, like a handkerchief or sewing kit, or hide a gun or knife. When coats, vests, and trousers became the norm under Charles II, they were filled with pockets. Women had to string one around their waist and reach under their dress to access it.

Society didn’t see that women needed the expense of pockets; men were out and about in the world, and needed their stuff, while women didn’t lead an active outside life. When women DID get pockets, they were smaller than those in men’s clothing. Fashion designers, mostly men, ignored women’s demand for pockets. They would interfere with the silhouette of dress. In the bustle skirt era, women had to reach into the bustle’s secret pocket–if they could reach it themselves.

One particularly interesting tidbit was quite revealing: The uniforms for WAC had no pockets in the skirts, and the pockets on the coat were for show only! So, they had to design a shoulder purse for the women to carry anything!

For most of the 19th c, putting one’s hands in one’s pockets was considered the mark of a ‘loafer,’ a low life, someone with an attitude. Soon, slouching with a hand in one’s pockets became the stance of ‘cool’.

Carlson looks at H. G. Well’s fashion predictions. He imagined a world where people would wear simple, unisex clothes and sport devices that consolidated everything they would need: flashlight, telephone, radio, notebook. He also imagined a credit card basis economy and an automatic lock replacing keys! So, no pockets were needed. Still, when I watch Star Trek shows, I note the unisex, close fitting clothes and wonder if they are reduced to wiping their nose on their sleeves while on away missions!

I enjoyed this entertaining, informative book.

Thanks to the publisher for a free book. ( )