Public Displays of Adornment: The New ‘PDA’ and its Place Within the Bridal Club

Marriage is an institution that I have always found intriguing and fascinating in its values, symbols and practices. I have questioned the effects of many aspects of marriage, but none more so than the engagement ring. The fundamental steps of purchase, betrothal, and adornment make the engagement ring the most curious element of marriage in my eyes. Few men would ordinarily jump at the chance to spend thousands of dollars on a piece of jewelry, but as recently as 2007 more than 80% of women in America receive one upon their engagement. Women all over the world wish to own a diamond ring to symbolize their engagement to family, friends and strangers, but underneath the sparkling rock what are some of the darker symbolic interpretations? Does the emphasis women put on the symbolic engagement ring highlight a greater appreciation for the sanctity of marriage, or merely their distraction with consumer goods when facing the severity of a lifelong partnership?

Either way, marriage semiotics and engagement rings in particular clearly invoke different reactions from the men who purchase them, the women who wear them and the rest of the world that lays eyes on these signs every day. Rings, dresses and conspicuous weddings are context specific in their interpretations; some view them as religious, others view them as fantasy come to life and still others see them as a reminder that perhaps gender roles are not as advanced as we may have thought. Have women allowed their role as the sole wearers to empower them, or are they hiding meekly behind the “no trespassing” sign otherwise known as a Tiffany’s princess–cut ring? Does the club-like nature of fiancée circles reflect the power they hold or their insecurity and the weakness they embody when standing alone? The engagement ring has the ability to symbolize power, status and visibility for the fiancée in public spheres, but to the inquisitive eye it highlights the one-sided control bestowed upon men through the powerful acts of purchase and bestowal.

To further complicate this issue, what does it say when a woman breaks the mold of a quintessential fiancée and refuses to wear an engagement ring? In the harsh, modern days of divorce, pre-nuptial agreements and failing economies how has the role of the engagement ring changed? Stepping into the powerful, public sphere of life how do other men and women react to the sight of an engagement ring? In 1949 the rising popularity of the engagement ring was emphasized by the inclusion of the song “Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend” in the new Broadway musical, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. More than sixty years later, in a society plagued by ageism, rising divorce rates and a failing economy, Jule Styne’s lyrics seem more pertinent than ever: “but square-cut or pear-shaped/these rocks won’t lose their shape”. How do brides today use the visibility of their engagement rings to their advantage? From these questions I could see in whose hands the power lay, if power and gender roles have changed in the slightest over the past fifty years, or if like diamonds, certain things are “forever”.

In The Human Condition Hannah Arendt describes the importance of publicity, visibility and the group dynamic in crafting a space for oneself in the world, “Power springs up between men when they act together and vanishes the moment they disperse” (Arendt 201). The most significant finding in my fieldwork pointed to the existence of a sort of “bridal club”, even an army. When acting together fiancées can claim visibility and attention from the external world as well as one another. The type of protection given by this group is inherent in it’s status and symbolism, especially that of the engagement ring. As Erving Goffman explains in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life “Society is organized on the principle that any individual who possesses certain social characteristic has a moral right to expect that others will value and treat him in an appropriate way” (Goffman 13). Troops of fiancées, armed with diamond engagement rings demand respect, status and authority through their public visibility. Any strong army exudes a measure of sameness throughout their troops, whether it is country of origin, motivating purpose or a multitude of other factors. If one does not fit into the mold, it is not unlikely that one would be seen as the enemy. I found such to be true as I carried out my mediated fieldwork on popular bridal website, Brides.com. Although I made every attempt to fit in, my lack of experience both on the site and with my own engagement period caused me to be seen as an outsider:

“I began to see that perhaps my lack of experience and

establishment on the site was creating a divide between the

brides and myself… Public as the realm may be, its level of

exclusivity and the specific nature of topics with which its

members must be familiar, makes it just as private as any elite

group” (Fauxfiancee, 20 July 2011).

I began to see that in another way, the “bridal club” might be seen as a type of sorority in which a potential member must establish them self through various rights of passage in order to belong.

To become initiated in the “bridal club” one must succumb to the public displays of adornment otherwise known in American culture to embody the “dream wedding”: a sparkling ring, lavish wedding and other symbols of conspicuous consumption. What happens if a fiancée breaks the mold? They are not regarded as a member, and are seen through the eyes of the educated as the enemy, no matter if this is a fair judgment. Power begins with public appearance, and one must keep up appearances; fiancées are not the exception, they are the rule (Arendt 202). Throughout my experiences in the mediated world and the dress-up world – in which I pretended to be a fiancée to conduct ethnographic fieldwork – I gained insight that has led me to believe that those initiated into the “club” enjoy lifetime access. This is the only explanation I could find for women who returned to discuss engagement trivialities on the website or gush over my faux ring in public, despite having already been married for decades. Whether one is active in the sisterhood or an alumnus, the allure of the engagement period and the fantasy that revolves around can be indulged.

One might ask, why the desire for a married woman to return to (at least the ideals of) a period of engagement? It is clear, through the extensions of popular culture and fairytales that the period of being a bride realizes many women’s childhood fantasies. At last the ideal of Cinderella is attainable, if only for a day. It is here that I raise concern with these seemingly harmless fantasies. A woman’s wedding day should certainly be special, but should also be taken for what it is, an exciting introduction to a – hopefully – even more exciting period of life spent as a married woman. Unfortunately, many concerns rest upon that ‘hopefully’. The splendor and fairytale of a wedding is in fact a one-time occurrence – the fantasy will not be sustained everyday. Does the distraction and glamour of a fantasy wedding perhaps mask the fears and concerns fiancées have with the reality of marriage? Not surprisingly, the sparkle extends to re-attract wives as well as fiancées. In my mediated experiment I interacted with women who were married for up to 50 years, who created a profile online in order to give advice to women regarding their own weddings. These women seem to focus on the idea of another’s engagement period perhaps to relive their own, when their idealized self was more reality than fantasy. Years ago they were the best version of themselves: younger, more beautiful and thus more desirable, traits today that are mutually exclusive with age. Wouldn’t you then assume that this signifies some sort of dissatisfaction with married life? Perhaps the wedding was as anti-climactic as would be assumed with all the pressure resting on its perfection. Maybe a bride is treated as Cinderella for a day during her wedding, but by the rest of the public and not her groom. As I witnessed in my dress-up fieldwork, it is not only already married women who have an obsession with this intermediary engagement period, single women do as well. Through the marketing of “Fashion Rings” at stores like Nordstrom Rack, the idea and symbolism inherent in being a bride can be yours for the reasonable price of $14.12 (Fauxfiancee, 3 August 2011). Today it is seen as trendy, fashionable and yes, desirable to pretend one is experiencing this Cinderella moment for themselves. While perhaps women used to dream of the day in which they would be married, now the pageantry of merely wearing an engagement ring will suffice.

The tradition of bridal adornment was by no means recently established, yet it only reached its peak in the twentieth century. For centuries dowries and bride prices changed hands before a proposal was agreed upon; the groom would claim a dowry from the bride’s family, and in return the bride’s family would receive a “bride price” – to be clear, this went to her family and not her in particular. Although in the early days these exchanges consisted of livestock and land, they were later driven to become consumption heavy and reliant on adornment. Throughout the history of the engagement ring, many variations were utilized before settling on the popular diamond ring of today. Betrothal rings became popular in the 13^th century Holy Roman Empire, and years later “regards” rings were given to a man’s fiancée adorned with her birthstone. The first appearance of a diamond engagement ring was in 1477 when Mary of Burgundy was asked to marry her Austrian beau. Despite this introduction, diamond rings were not commonplace until the 19^th century when miners discovered diamonds in South Africa (O’Rourke 1). The diamond engagement ring popularized in the 19^th century symbolized innocence and durability (of marriage) when worn by a woman (Chesser 205). Ever since the Ancient Egyptians and Romans women “generally wore the ring on the left hand. Since most people were right-handed, they considered the left hand inferior. Wearing the ring on the left hand was thought to denote submission and obedience” (Chesser 205). Today, many of these murkier semiotic interpretations have been forgotten in exchange for ones of value and worth.

It wasn’t until the famed DeBeers diamond campaign of 1938 that the current image of the diamond ring we are familiar with emerged. In an effort to climb out of twenty years of low diamond numbers, the company hired advertising firm N.W. Ayer & Son to create a campaign. The firm reached out to Hollywood actresses and fashion designers to increase the visibility of the diamond engagement ring and combined those efforts with national advertisements. Between 1938 and 1941 DeBeers saw a 55% raise in sales, which was highlighted by the creation of the phrase “a diamond is forever” by N.W. Ayer & Son’s Frances Gerety. In 2007 it was recorded that 80% of American brides wear an engagement ring, a figure that because of this campaign has remained constant since 1965 (O’Rourke 2). In the midst of the diamond boom, religious wedding tradition changed as well. In “A Real Man’s Ring: Gender and the Invention of Tradition,” Vicki Howard traces the transition into the double ring ceremony that was popularized in the 1940s:

“Among Catholics and others prior to World War II, most

marriage vows took place with one wedding band. The Roman

Ritual called only for the blessing of the bride’s ring. [In 1944]

The Catholic journal concluded that as the groom’s ring was a

matter of custom and not legislation, “it is custom which will

govern the manner in which it is to be carried out”

(Howard 837).

This movement at its core makes the inequality of men and women fundamental to the institution of marriage. Its greater effect was defining the role of the ring as “custom”, which opened the doors for it to be interpreted as an economic opportunity.

Central to my curiosity with marriage is the emphasis placed upon costly symbols of love that seem to represent the economy of marriage instead of what it is supposed to be – an expression of love. It is important to note that these symbols are dependant upon their cost and would cease to hold power without knowledge of it. As Meghan O’Rourke states in “Diamond’s Are a Girl’s Worst Friend”, “Women are collectively attached to the status a ring bestows on them; otherwise more would demand some equal sign of commitment from their husbands” (O’Rourke 3). Through my ethnographic fieldwork it became clear that engagement rings reflect a woman’s self-worth and value, whether just to herself, or to the world. As Eric V. Copage noted from an interviewee in “Without This Ring, I Thee Wed”, the unequal distribution of engagement rings serves to highlight the fundamental message of an exchange that leans heavily to one side: “Just the symbolism of it is uncomfortable, because it’s almost like a down payment,” she said. “Or I guess it’s a way of proving that a man can be a provider”” (Copage 2). What is the necessity for conspicuous consumption in the field of marriage, or is it just that this concept has overflowed into every realm of modern life? Veblen would argue that indeed yes, it has. In modern day society, consumption has spread to effect our entire concept of “choice”, including those that we are told exemplify our individuality, but that in fact prove that we are forced to make a choice that was never ours to begin with (Ransome). It is important to note that money was not always given such a place in the proposal of marriage. Why then, have rings become just as adorned as the people who wear them? And why are these symbols given more of a voice than actions in the display of love? As Barbara Jo Chesser so aptly comments, “Lovers have not always given rings with valuable stones. Perhaps they feared that a monetary value would be places on the ring” (Chesser 205). My own dress up experiment showed me the social nature of visible consumption and proved that as Arendt says, the private (where feelings and emotions begins) is only preparation for and an extension of, the public stage.

This public stage however, seems to only allot space for female actresses. Without question, the engagement ring’s existence is dependant on men. They are both the purchasers and adorners of such rings, yet for ages have adamantly refused to wear them. While this has not always been the case, the oldest and most widely used symbol of the ring is not something that has caught on as universally with men as with women. Clearly there must be a reason for this? Here Chesser further analyzes the finding of one of her colleagues:

“Lacey (1969) found that except among medieval Jews of

Greece and Turkey, the man wore the engagement ring, not the

woman. Perhaps the man continued to wear the ring as long as

it symbolized power and authority. But when it became a

visible sign of bondage, and took on the meaning of obedience,

then the woman began wearing it (Thompson 1932)”

(Chesser 205).

I found a similar reaction brewing in myself when I wore my faux diamond ring on the streets of New York, ““Was the emergence of this opinion just a case of Stockholm syndrome, or some other unusual phenomenon strong enough to overtake even those who don’t wish to wear a ring? In some ways I did feel like a hostage to the ring, allowing it to modify my own image, personality and opinions to speak for itself” (Fauxfiancee, 3 August 2011). In fact many women agree that the engagement ring has a voice of it’s own, even though it may tell a different story to different individuals. The engagement ring does not act merely as a symbol and as Arendt concludes, meaning is not inherent in the object – it is always context specific. One requires an educated audience. But when the audience cannot be controlled, who is to say what education they have had? As a result, what reaction will it instill in them? O’Rourke states her own interpretation, which is shared by many “It’s a big, shiny NO TRESPASSING sign, stating that the woman wearing it has been bought and paid for, while her beau is out there sign-free and all too easily trespassable, until the wedding” (O’Rourke 2). Other than the unfair truth she states that men are free to act unhindered by this weighty symbol, engagement rings in everyday life do not seem to have much effect on men. Throughout the day of my dress-up experiment, I did not notice additional attention from any men; in fact I received less than I normally would. Perhaps this would not stand out as peculiar if not for the fact that women indeed noticed my ring time and time again.

Weaving in and out of these separate elements is one elemental idea within marriage symbolism, the clear dichotomy between the private nature of relationships and the objects that make them visibly public. Today the commodification of weddings and engagements does not only highlight the use of actual objects, it makes brides objects to adorn in themselves. Richard Sennett begs the question in The Fall of Public Man “Is there a difference in the expression appropriate for public relations and that appropriate for intimate relations?” (Sennett 6). Weddings have always needed to include an element of publicity to be made legal, even if it was only the presentation of a witness, but now this phenomenon has extended to affect the publicity of engagements as well. Through my experience on Brides.com and posing as a fiancée in the three-dimensional world, a proposal is perhaps the most widely shared story between fiancées. A fiancée’s storytelling and the questioning of her audience place the emphasis on the presentation of the engagement ring. Weddings and engagement rings are by no means the only methods of publicizing marriage. In The Meaning of Wife Anne Kingston argues, “The fact that power and wife are antithetical concepts extends more broadly to how women are seen in the public realm” (Kingston 21). So it can be observed that this lack of power is not contingent upon a woman’s status as a wife, but more her greater role of visibility in society.

Women are there to be seen, and keep up this appearance themselves, as John Berger notes. Much of the responsibility then can be placed on the shoulders of the woman, or fiancée who in my fieldwork I have noticed does not fight to break out of this mold. In my experience, even when brides make the conscious effort to embody what they are saying instead of their appearance, some still revert to speaking through “signatures” that proclaim the date of when she will or did marry and not a name, quote or other item of personal importance that is suggested on the site. As I have explained previously, my lack of experience and education in these matters served as a barricade to understanding them fully, but the widespread awareness of weddings makes nearly everyone part of the knowledgeable audience. Conspicuous rings and lavish weddings are commonplace in America today, so practically everyone is a knowledgeable audience, and publicity can in fact be gained without seeking the particular attention of the “bridal club”. Notably, the fact that rings are placed on a person’s hand – one of the most interactive parts of the body – only serves to heighten awareness of these adorned symbols. Brides experience life – whether it be collecting their change as I did, or grasping someone’s hand – through the eyes of their ring, so it is not absurd to assume that outsiders view them through the lens of their ring as well.

A woman’s presence communicates what she represents and from my experience delving into the online world of fiancées on the website, I interpreted that many fiancées wish to portray themselves first as part of a couple, second as a bride and somewhere near the end of the list as their own woman. Joanne Entwistle claims that the disembodied or mediated version of the self is just as important as the three-dimensional self, but what happens to a woman’s self-perception when her visible body is clearly absent? Aren’t engagement rings yet another way of disembodying and objectifying women? Upon a second glance these weapons may look strong, but in fact carry a powerless, subservient message. The focus and distraction on materialistic items throughout an engagement and ceremony cause one of Copage’s interviewees to wonder, “Without a ring, she reasoned, isn’t an engagement “just a conversation?” And when sharing news of her marriage plans with friends, she wondered, “What would I squeal over?”” (Copage 2). Not that you are getting married?

To many fiancées today it seems that consumption and objects are used to evaluate success and happiness, not an evaluation of one’s feelings of actual success and happiness. For others, however the clear distraction in the bridal world has caused them to return to a focus on relationships through a different lens, “”But then you take a step back and ask, ‘Why is this important to me?’“ she continued. “It’s a symbol that shows he is devoted to me.” Stepping even further back, she concluded: “He stood up in front of family and friends and a priest on a beach and exchanged vows with me. So, do I need the ring?”” (Copage 1). While these questions certainly lessen the necessity of an engagement ring, they can in exchange place all emphasis on the publicity of every other element. These symbols show that a woman’s fiancée is devoted to her, but whom does it show this to? More importantly, why does it matter? A separate force may be emphasizing the importance of these elements that is not in the couple’s control. For many years there has been an implied connection in religious circles between the observance of marriage rituals (and goods) and the longevity of a marriage (Chesser 207). There is clearly not one set of hands controlling the balance of power, the meaning or the expression of marriage symbolism.

Public displays of adornment have replaced public displays of affection, but more important than the word that’s changed, is the one that has not. Today publicity is more important than ever, and although the meaning of role women hold in society may be disputed, the fact that they must claim this role in public is not argued. As Sennett hypothesizes, today people are known through being seen (Sennett 11). I have found the constant most intriguing throughout my ethnography, that individuals do and should differ, but the way they make a space to be seen has stayed the same throughout history. More than sixty years ago, the claim was made tongue in check that diamonds are a girl’s best friend. This is not because diamonds are pretty and shiny when men are misogynistic and aging, it is because they act as insurance. If love, beauty and attraction can fade a woman needs something in her arsenal that cannot; here the engagement ring steps in. A diamond ring will not fade and neither will the multitude of ideas it symbolizes, whether they are insurance, worth or value. Jule Styne’s lyrics continue to say “time rolls on/and youth is gone/and you can’t straighten up when you bend/but stiff back/or stiff knees/you stand straight at Tiffany’s!” Ageism is relevant in both a woman’s career and personal life, and with the rising divorce rates some are as concerned with being traded in for a new model at home as they are at work. Again, the diamond engagement ring gives a woman power and insurance years after she says ‘I do’. Diamond rings are upgraded to reflect current trends when perhaps a woman cannot make her appearance relevant in other ways.

Vicki Howard discusses how “the groom’s ring only became “tradition” in the United States when weddings, marriage, and “masculine domesticity” became synonymous with prosperity, capitalism, and national stability” and this is certainly true (Howard 837). Everyone wants to stay relevant, and now equality is just as “trendy” as engagement rings. While inequality between men and women in relationships still runs rampant, a savvy woman can use the fact that she is the sole wearer of an engagement ring to her advantage; the publicity of the ring shares her message, whatever it may be. Men would be smart to embrace the engagement ring if they wish to extend their own space of visibility and power.

My ponderings on the topic changed over six weeks from ‘what does the engagement ring say?’ to ‘how does it say it?’ Throughout my ethnographic fieldwork online and in person certain findings caused this change, and there are still some questions that remain. What is the symbolism of a woman’s engagement ring to herself? What does size signify? What does the ring mean in private vs. in public to the rest of society? What does it mean within your own relationship? What is gained and what is lost through the wearing of an engagement ring? Although the importance of the diamond engagement ring may be a 20^th century construction, its symbolism is ancient. Throughout the years its message has changed, but in some ways that too is as ancient as ever. Unfortunately the voice given by the engagement ring does not often share a positive symbolic message, but it is indisputable that the publicity an engagement ring gives the wearer bestows power upon them – and today they are women.

Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958. 199-208.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting, 1977. 8-36. Print.

Chesser, Barbara Jo. “Analysis of Wedding Rituals: An Attempt to Make Weddings More Meaningful”. Family Relations. Vol. 29, No. 2, National Council on Family Relations, 1980. 204-9.

Copage, Eric V. “Without This Ring, I Thee Wed”. New York Times. April 2011. 20 July 2011.<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/fashion/weddings/17FIELD.html?scp=1&sq=engagement%20ring%20wedding&st=cse>.

Entwistle, Joanne. The Dressed Body. Oxford, New York. 2007. 93-104.

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books. 1959. 4-47. Print.

Gordon, Alexa. “Stand Still, Look Pretty: Letting Your Engagement Ring Speak For You”. Fauxfiancee. 3 August 2011. <https://fauxfiancee.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/stand-still-look-pretty-let-your-engagement-ring-speak-for-you/&gt;.

Gordon, Alexa. “Into the Fiancée’s Den: Investigating the Digital World of Engaged Women”. Fauxfiancee. 20 July 2011. <https://fauxfiancee.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/into-the-fiancees-den-investigating-engaged-women-as-an-engaged-woman/&gt;.

Howard, Vicki. “A Real Man’s Ring: Gender and the Invention of Tradition”. Journal of Social History. Vol. 36, No. 4, George Mason University Press, 2003. 837-856.

Kingston, Anne. The Meaning of Wife. Toronto: Harper Collins, 2004.

O’Rourke, Meghan. “Diamonds Are a Girl’s Worst Friend”. Slate Magazine. June 2007. 20 July 2011. <http://www.slate.com/id/2167870/>.

Ransome, Paul. Work, Consumption and Culture: Affluence and Social Change in the Twenty-First Century. Sage, 2005.

Sennett, Richard. The Fall of Public Man. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 1976. 8-15. Print.

Styne, Jule. “Diamonds Are A Girl’s Best Friend”. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. 1949.

Stand Still, Look Pretty: Letting Your Engagement Ring Speak for You

To begin the dress up portion of my field work, I first crafted a few questions that remained through the continuation of my research and my original mediated experiment. Although I observed a tremendous amount about interactions and reactions within a group of engaged or married women, I had not delved outside of that exclusive circle. With this new opportunity to observe reactions from the rest of the world, I armed myself with a newfound curiosity. How do men interact with engaged women? How do married women react with engaged women? How would people react to a person of my age supposedly being engaged? How will women react? Do those who are single react differently than those who are in a committed relationship, or married themselves?

PREPARING FOR MY ROLE

Although I don’t desire to get married and thus wear an engagement ring, I was still anxiously excited while planning my dress-up experiment. In fact, the thought that this may be my one opportunity to don such a ring made me exponentially more curious in the dress up portion of my sociological fieldwork. Before setting out, I created a detailed background story for myself in order to be prepared for potential questioning. Later I realized just how helpful this was because while interacting with others I could focus on my show of emotion instead of the specifics I had fabricated. My fiancé’s name would be Jacob Platt, a name I plucked from thin air, and at 22 he had just graduated from NYU where I still attended. We had been dating for three years and were engaged for the past month. I chose a recent engagement date to cover for the slight discomfort I suspected I would feel while wearing the ring; with this story it would be plausible that I hadn’t yet become used to wearing it. The two of us were planning for a winter 2012 wedding so that we could have a long engagement and I would be finished with college.

I knew that perhaps the most important part of my preparation would be crafting a proposal story, but this was the part with which I had the most difficulty. From what I have learned about weddings through my research, and observed through my short life, a proposal of marriage is a very personal occasion but can often be very public in nature. In my opinion the entire importance of marriage rests on Hannah Arendt’s idea that visibility allows a person to claim power, and that such a person must create a space of appearance for themselves in which they claim said power. As she stated in The Human Condition “For us, appearance – something that is seen and heard by others as well as by ourselves – constitutes reality.” (Arendt 50). The visibility (public nature) of a proposal and engagement ring, combined with the later performance of the wedding ritual, actualize the institution of marriage. Without these visible, public displays, it would be powerless. This is why I had trouble formulating something, because I knew that I would not be able to convincingly tell the tale of a Jumbo Tron engagement, or another equally theatrical proposal. I made the decision to wait and see if anyone questioned me about it, and hope that something would come to me in the moment if they did.

Vital to this experiment was my main “prop”, around which my research has been centered – The Engagement Ring. My roommate, Kelly, told me that Nordstrom Rack, located in Union Square sells inexpensive faux engagement rings that look fairly real. I had no desire to spend more than $20 on something I knew I would never be wearing again, so I decided to check it out. At 10:00 that night we walked just one block from our dorm room to inspect their selection, choosing such a late hour in the hopes that no one we knew would see us shopping for an item as embarrassing as a fake engagement ring. The shopping area of Nordstrom Rack is located an escalator ride downstairs into the basement where deeply discounted designer merchandise is displayed for the masses. Jewelry is located near the bottom of the escalator, with the nicer items in glass cases and costume jewelry occupying one vertical revolving stand. Of that particular spinning display, three of six racks showed fake diamond rings, or what they call “Fashion Rings”. Some of these were even a faux diamond ring paired with an equally fake wedding band design. I am familiar with costume jewelry, because at my age it is essentially all that I own and wear. The main premise is that you are able to pay significantly less money for reasonably quality pieces that are considered “trendy”. Armed with this knowledge I was able to assume that Nordstrom Rack had found through their sales that fake engagement rings are “fashionable”, “trendy” and hot selling items. If this assessment on their part was incorrect, I doubt they would have devoted most of their costume jewelry space to them.  Both my roommate and I found this circumstance odd and wondered ‘what could possibly be “fashionable” about pretending to be engaged or married?’ If this jewelry were meant as an affordable option for brides who want a fashionable ring without the price tag, then I doubt the rest of the selection and surrounding merchandise would be aimed at 15-25 year-old young women.

"Fashion Rings" as displayed at Nordstrom Rack.

After about fifteen minutes of eliminating rings that were too showy (My faux fiancé is only 22 years old and I’m still in school), didn’t fit (we had been engaged for a month, so I would have presumably had it fitted), I found one that seemed to fit my qualifications. It was an integral aspect of my plan that I would be engaged, but not married because of my age and the fact that I am already told quite frequently how young I look. Although I planned to wear only the engagement ring, I chose a ring that was part of a double-ring (engagement ring-wedding band) set because it looked the most real, and was the perfect carat size and fit for my finger. I was charged $14.12 for the main piece of my costume and wasn’t given a second glance by the cashier for what I guessed must now be a commonplace purchase at Nordstrom Rack.

The final ring set I chose as my prop.

DRESSING UP

The next morning, Kelly and I awoke at 7:30 to begin my experiment. Normally on days that I do not have work I sleep late, but I decided that my engaged persona would be more responsible and make a more productive use of her day. Since it was the weekend, I wore nice jeans, a collared sleeveless, button-down top, fake pearl studs and expensive shoes. I had painted my nails clear, and moved my large gold watch to my other hand in an effort to keep the focus of my left hand on the engagement ring. My outfit was more preppy than I normally dress, but it seemed to fit my imagined persona and after all I wasn’t dressing for myself I was putting on an act. As Anne Hollander discussed in Sex and Suits, most people dress to look right, not fashionable, and that is exactly what I tried to do. My faux fiancée persona seemed to fit with this outfit and my chosen ring, and while either may have been fashionable, they were most importantly right for this occasion. Kelly dressed nicely as well, since she would be accompanying me as my pseudo maid of honor and photographer. Throughout the day I wore dark sunglasses over my eyes, and a large designer handbag. The dichotomy of the privacy the sunglasses implied combined with the obvious nature of the ring intrigued me, and I found myself using the barrier of my glasses as a reprieve from the looks and discomfort I felt from the responses of those around me. Arendt argues that the private is only a preparation for, or extension of the public stage, and as such I used it to regain my composure many times (52).

The outfit I wore, complete with engagement ring, on the day of my experiment.

For the starting point of my experiment I chose to venture to the Starbucks at East 17^th Street and Union Square West. The set-up inside is more wide open and conducive to inviting conversation than other locations of the chain in the area. As we walked to pick up the bridal magazine at Walgreens, the glaring sun and the purposeful waving of my hand allowed the ring to sparkle and reflect off the buildings and sidewalk. I began to notice passersby looking for the origin of the sparkle and staring at me on the street. One woman, who appeared to be in her mid-thirties, seemed to glare at me as she walked by, alone. Another woman, who looked to be in her mid-twenties, saw me and immediately grasped the hand of the man whom I assumed to be her boyfriend walking next to her. Not only did these looks make me uncomfortable, but I also noticed the differing reactions from a single woman (didn’t have a ring on) walking alone and a young woman clearly in a relationship. Although the single woman did express a type of distaste, it was the other woman who felt it necessary to assert her possession of her boyfriend and remind onlookers that although she may not be engaged, she is not alone. Interestingly, I must have passed two-dozen men, but not one of me gave my ring or me a second glance. Perhaps, just as engaged women are off my radar, they are off the radar of men as well.

The August 2011 Brides magazine that I browsed during part of my experiment.

As we entered Walgreens, it was immediately clear which wedding magazine I would choose, since ‘Brides’ was the only bridal magazine of the 30 on display. I found it ironic, but also telling that is was on brides.com (the online companion site) that I created my fiancée profile weeks before. The magazine and website both declare that ‘Brides’ is “The World’s No. 1 Bridal Magazine”. While I paid an absurd $5.99 for the magazine, Kelly waited off to the side and when I presented my credit card to pay for it – with my showy left hand – I was asked for identification. Not only was I surprised that a six dollar purchase required license verification, but I have also shopped many times at that particular Walgreens and never been asked to show my license. I wondered if maybe she was set off by the oddity of a person my age wearing an engagement ring.

Sitting in Starbucks at East 17th Street & Union Square West.

Entering Starbucks at the top of the square, Kelly and I stood in line again to order beverages. When I stepped up to order my iced coffee (a bride has to watch her figure in order to fit into her dress), a barista helped me and offered me my change at the end of my transaction. As usual I struggled with the pile of bills, coins and receipt and as a result my ring was in her face for about ten seconds. She took notice and as I walked away I could feel her gaze on me as she paused for a moment before asking for the next customer. Once this exchange was over, Kelly and I selected a long table in the center of the room in between a group of women meeting over coffee and two older ladies chatting. I had told Kelly that once we got there, we would browse through the magazine loudly and obnoxiously, discussing dresses, flowers and what friends were in the bridal party.

Before we even got the chance to begin our act, one of the older women caught sight of my ring and let out an exclamation. She introduced herself as Theresa and her friend as Carol, and immediately asked me how long I had been engaged. I responded with all the details of my story as she prompted, and her final remark was how nice it was that he had still managed to get me an engagement ring when he was fresh out of school. During our chat, I had to come up with an engagement story and on the spot I decided that Jacob Platt had proposed to me at an intimate dinner in a nice restaurant with a simple, personal proposal. Later what stuck out to me was our new friend Carol’s immediate response which was “But how did he give you the ring?!” I responded that Jacob had gotten down on one knee, and they all agreed (with Kelly playing along beautifully) that such a classic proposal was truly the best presentation of an engagement ring.

Reflecting on the conversation I noticed that while the expected had happened – they commented on my age and asked exactly how young I was – so had the unexpected – that the engagement ring took center stage even in a conversation. I had expected, perhaps naively, that the engagement ring would act as an opener, but would eventually lead to a discussion of ourselves and our own views on married life. This may have been too great an expectation of complete strangers. One thing that seemed perfectly clear was the sheer joy Theresa and Carol felt at discussing an engagement and wedding with young people although their own weddings were both more than 40 years prior. It seems that in the bridal club – much like in a sorority – you are a member for life. A wife may always return to old fond memories and reminisce about “the happiest day of her life” with alumni and  current brides alike. A few moments later our new “friends” finished their drinks, said goodbye and left to continue the rest of their day.

At this point we commenced our original plan and spoke giddily and in a high volume about the pros and cons of children in one’s wedding party and how to avoid sending out a tacky invitation. For an hour and a half we continued this discussion, until all magazine topics were exhausted and we were tired of speaking about weddings. Not one additional person spoke to us. It became very clear that the starter of conversation was not actually conversing, but the demanding appearance of my engagement ring. As Jean Baudrillard theorized, objects identify our relationships and ourselves, and the consumption of objects is in fact a social behavior. In The Consumer Society he said “Consumption is an active, collective behaviour: it is something enforces, a morality, an institution. It is a whole system of values, with all that expression implies in terms of group integration and social control functions.” (Baudrillard 81).

CONCLUSIONS

Throughout the day I unconsciously fidgeted with this new extension of myself, my ring, and twice Kelly had to remind me to stop holding my hand out of view. Does the “second skin” nature of an engagement ring that many women speak of, not occur until later, or was I merely a bad actress? I was becoming more ill at ease by the moment, because while this may have been a “dress up” scenario for me, it is very real for many women. I was trying on a dramatic lifestyle decision in the same way that I would try on a piece of jewelry, but shouldn’t it be so much greater than that? In addition, I noticed myself come to admire the $14 fake diamond that adorned my finger, at one point even mentioning to Kelly that I thought it looked nice with my outfit. Was the emergence of this opinion just a case of Stockholm syndrome, or some other unusual phenomenon strong enough to overtake even those who don’t wish to wear a ring? In some ways I did feel like a hostage to the ring, allowing it to modify my own image, personality and opinions to speak for itself. Throughout the day although I received attention from more people than usual, they did not show any interest in me personally, only the symbolism that my ring represented. John Berger concluded in Ways of Seeing that a woman’s presence communicates her visibility and that she is aware of herself as an image, thus she represents it. I have to agree. The fact that I was constantly using my hands as I always do – to receive change, grab a coffee, touch another person – allowed the ring to be on display. Unlike other pieces of jewelry, the fact that a ring adorns your hand means that it is in the midst of many of your daily interactions. Necklaces, earrings, even bracelets don’t have the same front row seat to your daily encounters.

When I walked home that day through the park and throngs of crowds, not another person took notice of my ring. In fact, nothing else happened whatsoever. I thought to myself, ‘Do I not notice these women as I pass by them everyday unless they show off their rings?’ It wasn’t until I got home that I noticed the back of the magazine, which had a message from Cartier advertising personalized settings for engagement rings. Called “Set By You”, the rings are a combination of a self-selected diamond and a Cartier setting. What could be more personal than an engagement ring worn by 80% of American women from a company that sells thousands of them a year? What would Georg Simmel think about this phenomenon in terms of the balance between acceptance and self-expression? What happens when brides do choose to step out of their given mold? Perhaps women like my faux fiancee are not on my daily radar because while today bride-dom is wildly different and exciting to me, sightings of brides everyday seem ordinary and static.

A close-up of the Cartier advertisement on the back of Brides magazine.

Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958. pp. 50-2, 199-208.

Baudrillard, Jean. The Consumer Society. California: Sage Publications, 1998. pp. 78-98

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books, 1972.

Hollander, Anne. Sex and Suits. New York: Kodansha International, 1994. Sections 1 & 11. pp. 3-62

Simmel, Georg. “Fashion.” In On Individuality and Social Forms. Edited by Donald N. Levine. Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1901 (1971). pp. 294-323

Into the Fianceé’s Den: Investigating the Digital World of Engaged Women

The basis of my investigation into the agenda of the engagement ring is my curiosity with the entire institution of marriage. Symbolism within marriage revolves around the ring and during the months pre-wedding the focus is on the engagement ring. Yet this was not always the case. For many years betrothal gifts, dowries and for a short period male engagement rings, were given to celebrate the initial stages of marriage. However none of these have shown the persistence or longevity displayed by the engagement ring, which is now offered more than 80% of American women. My mediated experiment allowed me to cross into the world of fiancés and fiancées, floral arrangements and carat sizes to explore the reaction given to this symbol.

MEDIATED PERSONA

To examine the symbolic, authentic, and intended meanings of the engagement ring I began by creating a personal profile on Brides.com. I believe that the best place to begin learning about this symbol is to immerse myself in their world and pretend to be an engaged woman in their digital community. As the online counterpart of the Condè Nast publication, Brides.com incorporates digital magazine articles and supplementary information with a community forum where soon-to-be brides, current brides and experienced wives can post and respond to questions from their peers. Profiles are created by these women (as well as a few curious and overwhelmed men), and may include a personal photograph, plus ‘About Me’ and ‘About My Wedding’ information. Brides are able to share the date of their wedding, their age, and the length of time they have been registered on the site. Visitors to Brides.com can view this information without signing up, and are also able to post questions as a non-registered guest.

PUBLICIZING PRIVATE CONCERNS

In facilitation of this experiment I unknowingly entered into an online community that blurs the lines between the public and private spheres of life. The website I chose allows brides to pose questions publicly online which, before the rise of the digital age, they might have reserved for a more private setting. Here though, there is a meshing of the naturally public world wide web and the exclusive nature of a site catered to this particular group. Brides seek advice on personal problems with fiancés and family members, and even their sex lives. These women understand themselves to be social, which Richard Sennett says in The Fall of Public Man may lead to the blurring of public and private lives. He asks, “Is there a difference in the expression appropriate for public relations and that appropriate for intimate relations?” (Sennett 6). Although I observed behavior that would suggest the brides are not making themselves vulnerable, other clues suggest that this forum is in fact a publicly exclusive setting, so a certain sense of privacy is taken for granted. In essence, public action leads to visibility, which leads to power; so by publicizing their questions the members of Brides.com are constantly evolving, making both front and back stages effective because both are socially enacted. These women create visibility for themselves both on the site and in their normal public lives through the social nature of their condition as brides.

My Brides.com profile

My Brides.com profile depicts a recently engaged working woman of twenty-six who lives in New York City with her fiancé. To facilitate this persona I uploaded an image taken by my aunt as an April fools joke of her boyfriend’s hand intertwined with her own that is wearing an engagement ring. This image is fitting with the others posted by members of the site portraying flower arrangements, rings, pets, children or couples. Originally I abstained from including an ‘About Me’ and ‘About My Wedding’ section, but I added them when I saw that while I was getting a number of views, I wasn’t receiving actual feedback on any of my questions.

For the past week I have been posting potential questions a newly engaged woman might have, and gauging the reactions I get from other members through their responses. I have tested out different lengths and levels of description in my questions, as well as various titles of my posts. Some of the questions have included:

• Do men get an engagement ring because they feel it’s what their fiance wants? Would they rather skip the ring? Has anyone ever asked their male friends, husbands or fiances about this? (Men & Engagement Rings)
• Has anyone else experienced [men hitting on you while you are wearing an engagement ring]? Is it easier to abstain from wearing it just so I don’t receive this extra unwanted attention? How do others deal with this situation? (Going out on the town with girlfriends)
• Is it better to go ring or no ring? How important is it? Does it say something if you don’t have/wear one? (Ring or no ring?)

Throughout this process my goal has been to get a sense of the concerns engaged women may have with marriage, engagement and particularly the engagement ring. What I have come to find is that while these women are eager to ask their peers about superficial wedding questions, such as cake flavors and unbalanced guest lists, they are much more reluctant to request advice and counsel regarding life as an engaged or married woman.

OBSERVATIONS

The categories of information on the site exemplify the superficial nature of these questions, and surely play a part in guiding them. Visitors may browse ‘Ideas’, ‘Dresses & Style’, ‘Photo Galleries’, ‘Local Vendors’, ‘Honeymoons’, ‘Home & Registry’, ‘Engagement’, ‘Community’, ‘Shop’, ‘Win’ and ‘Our Magazines’. Even within the community forum the only relationship questions revolve around sex and lust in marital relationships. Topics with the most frequent activity include ‘All the Style Details’ with nearly two million views, and categories like ‘Married Life’ are dwarfed in comparison with almost half a million views. The tag-line for ‘Married Life’ may even shift the focus away from its potential as a place to seek marital guidance: “You’ve sealed the deal, now share your tips on how you got there and talk to fellow newlyweds about life as a Mrs.”

Various forum categories and the number of views they have from the Brides.com community

While certain aspects of the site such as forum topics and categories are monitored by the website, members have full control over their own username, profile image and end-of-post signature. Astoundingly, very few women choose to post their own name – or part of it – as their username. Some use a nickname or catchphrase, but the one clear trend was to stray from their given first name. At first I assumed this must be in order to insure privacy, but upon further exploration it became clear that one of the most popular username choices is “FutureMrsFiancé’sFirst&LastName”. Instead of insuring privacy, these women merely wish to allude to their future selves, or perhaps in their eyes the best version of themselves. As John Berger argues in Ways of Seeing, a woman’s presence communicates what she represents, and from these online self-presentations I interpreted that these women wish to be seen first as a part of a couple, second as a bride and somewhere near the end of the list as their own woman.

Another element of the member profile is the personal profile picture. As I surveyed the images chosen by brides to represent themselves, an overwhelming number of couples, families, children, dogs, diamond rings and floral arrangements greeted me. Very rarely was the face of a profile the actual face of a woman. If a member chooses to abstain from posting a personal picture, a generic bridal gown on a headless mannequin serves as her avatar. Joanne Entwistle argues that the disembodied or mediated version of self-representation is just as important as the three-dimensional self, but what happens to a woman’s self-perception when her visible body is clearly absent?

The image that represents photo-less members

Perhaps the most interesting type of visitor to the community forum is the guest. Those who post questions on the forum without pre-registering appear as a guest, and receive no representational image whatsoever. Hannah Arendt proclaims in The Human Condition, “Power springs up between men when they act together and vanishes the moment they disperse” (Arendt 201). As such, the men and women who post questions as a guest are not represented by an image, profile or description and are viewed as outsiders who do not belong to the community and thus, do not wield power. Guests more often than not were the authors of seldom-answered questions whereas questions posted by members could see up to ten responses. From my own experience it became clear to me that it was vital to create an image, persona and personal space within the community in which you could wield power by gaining trust and admiration through your responses, and eager followers through your posts.

A member of Brides.com leaves her final mark on a post with her personal signature, which can be any appropriate text she chooses. Suggestions are given when you create your profile of what you might select, such as your name, an inspirational quote or a countdown showing how long until – or since – your wedding. The majority of guests who create a signature choose the latter option, which makes it possible to countdown to the very second at which time she will be finally become “Mrs.Fiancé’sFirst&LastName”. During my time posting, one woman who called herself ‘Aunt’ responded to one of my questions with a lengthy, thoughtful answer. Just when I thought I had found a “normal” woman in the community, I was stunned to find out that she was 57 years old and although she had been married for years, she kept returning to the site and had posted more than 600 times in a year. In fact, from then on it was not uncommon for me to notice that the personal signatures were reading “6 years, 5 months and ten days since my wedding”.

Quite a few members of the site are long-since married women who return to answer or post questions and revisit the days of their own wedding. By maintaining the image of a bride and not a wife, these women remain in the spotlight and as Arendt says, “Each individual in his unique distinctness, appears and confirms himself in speech and action, and that these activities, despite their material futility, possess an enduring quality of their own because they create their own remembrance” (Arendt 207). They clearly wish to maintain hold of their power, and to do so they must remain visible within this digital world.

PERSONAL EXPERIMENTS

Once I established my new persona in this mediated world, I began to ask the brides questions. Posing as an unsure and overwhelmed new fiancée, I asked for advice on a variety of topics including the necessity of engagement rings, responses to unwanted male attention, and self-worth as seen through a four-figured piece of jewelry. Unlike many of the other members I did not ask questions about potentially disastrous drunk uncles, or how many flowers were too many flowers but I did make an attempt to adapt to their environment. For each one I introduced myself as a struggling soon-to-be-bride and explained that I loved my fiancé very much but still had some lingering concerns pre-wedding. In a few instances I used a fictitious friend as the asking me questions in order to gauge their response while maintaining my newly established image.

The most in-depth of my four posts

Most of my posts were carried out within the realm of the ‘Just Engaged’ forum, which featured the tagline, “Recently received the ring? Don’t get overwhelmed, get started here”. The website’s immediate association of engagement with diamond ring in multiple fields is not even the most interesting aspect of this particular category. Inside the forum I found a multitude of questions concerning minute wedding details, but few regarding the overwhelming nature of marriage itself. For many of these women it seemed that being a bride must be meticulously planned and thought out in terms of wearing the ring and throwing the party, but that the day-to-day hurdles of engagement and marriage were better left unspoken – perhaps to keep up their image. In one question I asked how newly engaged women handle unwanted male attention when out with girlfriends, and the response I received seemed to be argumentative and also avoid my actual question.

The response I received to a question I posted

CONCLUSIONS

Relationships seem fundamentally dependent on being a private experience shared by two people, but through this site and through engagements themselves, this system is turned upside down. On the site, fiancees request advice about guest lists, floral arrangements and locations from complete and total strangers. The only thing these women have in common is that the current focus of their lives is marriage. I wonder, why not ask the man you plan to marry some of these questions? He surely must have a stronger opinion than a stranger from halfway across the country. In some cases an entire year is spent in the planning period deemed “pre-wedding”, when the focus is on rings, dresses and other public signs. I’m not even speaking of of public displays of affections, only publicized encounters that are intended to be experienced privately. The symbols that have become attached to engagements, weddings and married life have also become inextricably intertwined with publicity.

In another post I broached the topic of rings and self-worth, but one respondent deemed my question “snobby and stuck up” since I was concerned with my fiance or others potentially judging me by the ring on my hand. I found that the answers I received were argumentative, guarded, impersonal and sometimes hostile; overall nothing like what I had expected. I observed that long-time contributors were less sensitive to my questioning, and I began to see that perhaps my lack of experience and establishment on the site was creating a divide between the brides and myself. Perhaps I was experiencing what it felt like to be an outsider, or a guest? Public as the realm may be, its level of exclusivity and the specific nature of topics with which its members must be familiar, makes it just as private as any elite group. Meaning is clearly not inherent in an object such as an engagement ring, as Arendt explains, meaning is based upon context and you must have an educated audience. It appeared that I was not educated in these matters, at least in the same school as the brides.

The response and signature from another member on the site regarding one of my questions

Were these responses natural when you take into account that they came from women who make being a bride their way of life? Or is it perhaps as Erving Goffman said in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, “Society is organized on the principle that any individual who possesses certain social characteristic has a moral right to expect that others will value and treat him in an appropriate way” (Goffman 13). Maybe in this circumstance it is valuable to refer to Berger’s view of visual self-representation, that meaning and perspective are dependent upon the gaze of the viewer, “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe” (Berger 8). Within the confines of this website I experienced conversations and viewpoints that displayed a desire for a particular self-representation and very few exceptions were allowed for those who stepped outside the realms of this representation. With my next experiment I will continue to develop these theories and explore the reactions of those outside the realm of mediated married life.

Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958. 199-208.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting, 1977. 8-36. Print.

Entwistle, Joanne. The Dressed Body. Oxford, New York. 2007. 93-104.

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books. 1959. 4-47. Print.

Sennett, Richard. The Fall of Public Man. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 1976. 8-15. Print.