Tight knit? Evolving Relationships in a Consumption Community
Contemporary consumers manifest a need for affirmation and social validation of
identity in multiple ways. Such validation can be sought via participation in energetic,
noisy contexts such as rave (Goulding, Shankar and Elliot 2002) but is also
increasingly sought through more calm and contemplative pursuits such as craft
consumption. Goulding, Shankar and Elliot (2002) found that membership of a
subculture is a way of seeking liberation from society while also countering feelings
of alienation, validating identity, and finding solidarity with the like-minded. There is
increasing evidence to suggest that the pursuit of different forms of craft
consumption, including knitting, is seen by young female consumers as a means to
achieve these goals (Campbell 2005). This may help to account for the current
“explosion in the popularity of knitting” (Wills 2007), particularly among younger
women. In the last decade, there has been a 51% increase in women who know how
to knit in the U.S. (Minahan & Cox, 2006), with participation in knitting and crochet
in the US increasing by more than 150% in the 25–34 age category (Craft Yarn
Council of America, 2005). In particular, the worldwide Stitch ‘n’ Bitch movement is
credited with repositioning knitting as “cool, as well as quiet, comforting and
communal” (Parkins 2004), while Stitch’n’Bitch groups are also collectively
understood to be predominantly female, ‘third place’, social spaces (Minahan and Cox
2006). The study explores one Stitch’n’Bitch group from the theoretical perspective
of knitting group membership as affirmation of (feminine) identity, and counter-actor
to feelings of alienation, and this paper focuses evolving relationships in the
knitting group over time.
Consumer Craft Communities:
The stereotypical image of a crafting circle is of a warm, nurturing environment
where women support each other through thick and thin. This expectation of a “caring
community” is reflected in the literature (Piercy & Cheek, 2004; Prigoda &
McKenzie, 2007; Schofield-Tomschin & Littrell, 2001; Green 1998; Minahan & Cox,
2006). Piercy and Check (2004) found that while the purpose of the quilting guild was
to educate women in the traditions of quilting, many emphasised the importance of
the social aspects of their membership, describing workshops as a way to make
friends and relax. Similarly Prigoda and McKenzie’s (2007) study of the knitting
circle as learning environment found that information transfer was secondary to the
group’s function as a “women’s support group.” Schofield-Tomschin and Littrell
(2001) found that the shared activity in the context of a textile guild created an
“immediate sisterhood” through which the women received validation for their craft
and identities. Green (1998) theorises that sharing leisure with other women is an
“empowering source of identity and personal growth.” Even women’s speech
amoungst themselves is viewed as more cooperative, with the warmth of what Green
terms “talk-as-play” reflecting its’ fundamentally affirmative and supportive nature.
Minahan and Cox’s (2006) study of a Stitch ‘n’ Bitch group in Melbourne, Australia.
suggested five possible reasons for membership of the group, including remedial,
progressive, resistance, nostalgic and ironic. While the relationship of the other four
motives to affirmation is not clear, the authors suggest that through the remedial
function, the group counters alienation and “meets the need for social connection.”
This overall theme of affirmation in the literature is frequently reflected in popular
culture. In the 1996 movie How to make an American Quilt, the protagonist is in a
liminal zone, awaiting her wedding, and joins her grandmother’s quilting circle who
are making her a wedding quilt. Through the stories of the women in the group she
earns “lessons in love, pain, and emotional growth.”
There is little discussion in the literature of how participation in craft groups brings
about this affirmation of (feminine) identity, and even less of a discussion on the
absence of affirmation, or the presence of discord in such groups. For instance
Prigoda & McKenzie (2007) demonstrate that some groups are not as “tight knit” as
the cosy stereotype implies;
“There’s a whole lot of things I wouldn’t share with the this group ... I’m
not at at a knitting circle for that kind of in-depth relationship”
Furthermore, Guendouzi (2001) suggests that women’s speech might be “stylistically
cooperative” but that this should not be mistaken for a lack of competitiveness.
Women’s conversions can still be “underpinned by a need to discursively claim social
capital” which can result in “competition for socially acceptable images of
femininity” among women in a group.
This suggests that not all shared discourse is mutually affirming. It also raises the
question of how affirmation of identity takes place. By which process or processes is
alienation countered, identity mutually affirmed, and solidarity achieved? Do
circumstances ever arise where mutual affirmation and solidarity fail to take place, or
where they break down?
We propose that an experience of shared flow (Turner 1979) can play a pivotal role in
group affirmation of identity. Belk, Wallendorf, and Sherry (1989) explain that
“(f)low experiences include a centering of attention, a loss of self, a feeling of being
in control of self and environment, and an autotelic aspect such that the activity is its
own reward”. Thus the experience of shared flow through participation in the shared
activity of knitting may act as a source of communitas for participants, leading to
mutual affirmation of identity. This sense of flow may be further affected by the
meditative, contemplative nature of knitting (Minahan and Cox 2006). We now
explore the lived experience of a local Stitch’n’Bitch group, in an effort to scrutinise
processes leading to affirmation, causes of conflict, and the role of knitting as an
activity conducive to the resolution of conflict and the restoration of group harmony.
The Current Study:
The research site for this study is a knitting circle, Cork Stitch ‘n’ Bitch. The women
in the Cork group range in age from 26 to 37, and include students, employed, selfemployed, unemployed and housewives. There is no formal structure to the group.
In implementing an ethnographic method (Stewart 1998), the lead author has attended
the regular weekly meeting of the knitting circle, as well as social events organized
for the members. In this study, the lead author was already a member of the
community prior to beginning the study, and had forged friendships within the group.
Tillmann-Healy (2006) coined the term “friendship as method”, detailing how
ethnography has moved from the fieldwork study of far-flung “others” to work with
the writer’s own peer group. Thus “total immersion of both our academic and
personal selves can foster multi-faceted bonds.” Browne (2003) also discusses how in
her fieldwork “research can be incorporated into relationships rather than
relationships being developed ‘in the field’”. In this study, the lead author was
already a member of the community prior to beginning the study, and had
forged friendships within the group, thus the friendship as method approach
appears particularly appropriate. Ethnographic data collected from
participation in the group, and reflection on how group activity enhances the
multifaceted bonds between members has thus been analysed using the constant
comparative method as described by Spiggle (1994).
Pilot Phase: A Tight Knit Group:
The pilot phase of data gathering was undertaken in Spring 2010. At this time, the
group studied were very warm and open with each other. The personal was
interspersed with the knitting, and we see conversations weave between the craft
specific and the mundane. “Women’s talk” was seen where “the main goal ... is not
the exchange of information but the the construction and maintenance of friendship
through enjoyment of how things are said as well as what is being said” (Green,
1998);
MK :Where do you get your wool?
B: Asia, China, India mostly.
MK: I would love to have my own business, but I just don’t know what to do.
EG (interrupting): Cupcakes?
MOS: what about the cupcakes? (MK does sell cupcakes and she made COL’s son’s
birthday cake)
MK: yes, I’m still trying to perfect the recipe though. I have my perfect carrot cake
but I tried to make caramel last night and I ended up throwing them out. I want to try
a red velvet cupcake, its an American thing.
EG : oh, those are good.
B: Are they actually red?
MK: well, you can put as much or as little red colouring as you want, but the coconut
will make it slightly pink anyway.
MOS: (noting B’s confusion, reverts to earlier subject) B do you sell more tops or
yarn?
B (made a thinking face) - Yarn I think? Yarn now.
Mk: what are tops.
MOS: unspun yarn
EG: Fibre for spinning.
MOS: I noticed it seems to be about 50/50 in your store right now (reference to B’s
online business).
B:That’s because I was out of yarn! But now I have run out of tops.
(We all laughed at that).
Affirmation/Reassurance:
The above verbatim is typical of group discourse. The conversation moves from one
topic to the next, with occasional references to knitting reminding the women of their
current shared activity. The group sense of humour at this point also included very
gentle mocking (at one point, B made fun of COL for having a book stand to hold her
book open... COL took it as gentle ragging, and self deprecation;
“Not much makes me feel like a giant” B [B is extremely petite]
The group were frequently very supportive of each other, sharing compliments about
knitting, work and appearance;
“Those socks for your mom are so cute” EB to EG
“That photo of you in the window is beautiful” COL to EB
“I love the new colour way…” MOS to BJ
The group was also very at ease with each other, sharing embarrassment without
shame,
E; “I nearly told someone they had something on their head today [Ash
Wednesday]”
E; “You were fabulous” E referring to MOS’s drunken behaviour at a cocktail
party.
The women regularly socialized as a group, holding Thanksgiving dinners, cocktail
parties, housewarmings and clothing swaps. In a very real way, our lives were knitted
together.
It was also acceptable to be vulnerable in front of the group and at times there was a
deep level of intimacy;
“When we were little….” (MK)
“Mom brought a hot jar and I brought fuzzy PJs and extra socks but after a
few minutes into the first night we were throwing our clothes out of the side of
the bed” (MOS)
“If you need to pee, it’s torture to get out of the bed” (MM)
This intimacy extended to openness relating to our sex lives, “I’ve never been so
frustrated in my life” vs. “Do you know what I would do for a night off” (someone
trying for a baby), although in these cases, as per Green (1998), we generally see the
heavier topic being dealt with in a light-hearted way, with the use of humour to
introduce and develop topics which would otherwise be taboo (Green, 1998)
Second Phase of Study: Identity Unravelled:
Due to personal and situational changes the group has undergone major change since
the pilot phase. For example, two members received their doctorates and moved to the
UK to continue their careers, a founding member has seperated from her Irish
husband and is currently in the US, and two other members have broken off their
engagements. There have been house moves, pregnancies, and career changes. New
members include two new American expats, one of whom is now a recent mother and
an Indian woman who is also expecting. Friendships have also waxed and waned
across the group, with pregnancy being a particular catalyst for this, leading to some
members feeling increased alienation. As a consequence of these changes some of
the close bonds within the group have unravelled.
Disruption to Affirmation:
The group seems very divided between those who have (or are expecting) children
and those who do not. The group who do not have children are further divided into
those who are having difficulty conceiving – and who feel there is some insensitivity
in the discussions of motherhood- and the ‘non-breeders’ –as some of the younger
women have begun calling themselves in private jokes. This divide has resulted in
feelings of alienation from the larger group, for individuals and these subgroups.
“I couldn’t sit there, (between RV [pregnant], LL [recent mother] and COL
[pregnant]) and listen to that.” (Anon. member who has been trying for a
baby for several years).
“I can’t believe I have to knit more baby crap” [MOS: To another ‘nonbreeder’ on being shown an ultrasound]
The jokes have clearly become a little more cutting, pointing to Guendouzi’s (2001)
suggestion of women’s conversation as competitive rather than cooperative,
particularly in relation to “socially acceptable images of femininity” (ibid):
MJ: I went out with this guy because I would buy me stuff, and he had a car and
a house...”
MM: “So you were a prostitute?” laughing
MJ: [Becomes defensive] “No! I didn’t have sex with him!”
MOS: “So you’re a tease!”
MM: “A bad prostitute!”
This is not the unconditional affirmation seen earlier; only a specific
“acceptable” femininity is affirmed. It could perhaps be that the women in this
example are affirming their feminine identities by co-operating to alienate
someone who they see as different to themselves.
Stitching Shared Identity Back Together:
Recently it seems that some bonds are being reformed, that the group is reestablishing its equilibrium. This has been partly triggered by ongoing contact with
the members who have left, and are struggling to find a similar support structure in
their new locations. NN attended an SnB group in Seattle but felt that the connections
and conversations within that group were “very shallow”. SME has said she doesn’t
know if she can “face” joining a new group in Edinburgh. Also, topics of discussion
have become more personal. Previously, when asked how she met her husband, RV
had said “Through family.” She has now explained with some embarrassment that her
marriage was arranged. However the group were quick to re-assure her that although
they are from ‘Western’ cultures, they know other people whose marriages had been
arranged, thus countering feelings of cultural alienation.
Conclusion:
This paper sought to explore knitting group membership as a source of
affirmation, solidarity and as a means to counter feelings of alienation. It posited
that a sense of shared flow could be pivotal to the ongoing reproduction of a
dynamic of mutual affirmation among the group. We found that the shared flow
experience is central to an ongoing affirmation of identity and that it helps
members to reconcile disruptions to affirmation when they occur. For example,
the ‘non-breeders’ reaffirm their connection to the ‘breeders’ by investing time
and emotion and psychic energy (Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998) in knitting
gifts for the newborn babies. However, we also found that what was being
knitted together was not unconditional; the Cork Stitch’n’Bitch group have not
manifested a consistent mutual affirmation of each other over time. Mutual validation
has ebbed and flowed, and at one point the group seemed to divide into cliques. Thus
the “restorative power” (Willis, 2007) of knitting is not an omnipotent panacea for
contemporary alienation. We see from the ‘unravelled’ group and the group in Seattle,
as well as the literature, that just being a knitting circle is no guarantee of a cosy
sharing of feminine identity and support. However by persisting with the meditative,
shared flow of knitting, the group gradually revert to a mutual sharing of their lives.
Perhaps the “shared flow” (Belk, Wallendorf, Sherry, 1989) of the stitching, has led to
“.... the abolition of difference and the creation of a sense of communion” (O Connor,
1994) or communitas (Turner, 1979), thus eventually (re)creating a feminine identity
of mutual support.
References:
Belk, R., Wallendorf, M., Sherry, J. (1989). The sacred and the profane in consumer
behavior: Theodicy on the odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 1-38.
Brewis, J. (2010, August). Confessions of a Non-Ethnographer: The Ethics and
Emotions of Fieldwork with Friends. Paper presented to the Ethnography Symposium,
London.
Browne, K. (2003). Negotiations and Fieldworkings: Friendship and Feminist
Research. Acme: An international e-journal for critical geographies, 2(2), 132-146.
Campbell, C. (2005). The Craft Consumer: Culture, Craft and Consumption in a
Postmodern Society. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(1)
Craft Yarn Council of America (2005). Retrieved from
http://www.craftyarncouncil.com/know.html
Elliott, R. and K. Wattanasuwan (1998). Consumption and the Symbolic Project
of the Self. European Advances in Consumer Research (3), 17-20.
Goulding, C., Shankar, A., Elliot, R. (2002). Working weeks, rave weekends: identity
fragmentation and the emergence of new communities. Consumption Markets &
Culture, 5(4), 261-284.
Green, E. (1998). ‘Women Doing Friendship’: an Analysis of Women’s Leisure as a
Site of Identity Construction, Empowerment and Resistance. Journal of Leisure, 17,
171-185. doi: 0261-4367
Guendouzi, J. (2001) ‘You’ll think we’re always bitching’: The Functions of
Cooperativity and Competition in Women’s Gossip. Discourse Studies, (3)1, 29-51
Kozinets, R. (2001). Utopian enterprise: Articulating the meanings of Star Trek's culture of
consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 67-88.
Leigh, T., Peters, C., Shelton, J. (2006). The consumer quest for authenticity: the
multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 481-494.
MacCracken, G. (1996). The Long Interview, London: Sage.
Martin, D.M., Schouten, J., McAlexander, J.H. (2006). Claiming the throttle: Multiple
femininities in a hyper-masculine subculture. Consumption Markets & Culture, 9(3),
171-205.
Minahan, S., Cox, J. (2006, December). Making up (for) society? Stitch, bitch and
organisation. Paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand Academy of
Management (ANZAM), Yeppon, Australia.
O'Connor, B. (1997). 9 Safe Sets: Women, Dance and ‘Communitas’. In H. Thomas
(Ed.), Dance in the City, (149-197). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Parkins, W. (2004). Celebrity knitting and the temporality of postmodernity. Fashion
Theory: The Journal of Dress, Body & Culture, 8(4), 425-441.
Piercy, K.W., Cheek, C. (2004). Tending and Befriending: The Intertwined
Relationships of Quilters. Journal of Women & Aging, 16, 17-33.
Pilsbury, S., Sanford, M. (Producers), & Moorhouse, J. (Director). (1995). How to
make an American Quilt [Motion picture]. USA: Universal.
Prigoda, E., & McKenzie, P.J. (2007). Purls of Wisdom: A Collectivist Study of
Human Information Behaviour in a Public Library Knitting Group. Journal of
Documentation, 63, 90-114. doi: 10.1108/00220410710723902
Schofield-Tomschin, S., Littrell, M.A. (2001). Textile handcraft guild participation: a
conduit to successful aging. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 19(2), 41-51.
Sherry, J., Kozinets, R., Storm, D., Duhachek, A., Nuttavuthisit, K., DeBerry-Spence,
B. (2001). Being In the Zone. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 30(4), 465-510.
Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research 21(3), 491-503.
Stewart, A., (1998) The Ethnographer’s Method. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA
Tillmann-Healy, L. (2006). Friendship as method. Emergent methods in social
research, 273, 729-749. doi: 10.1177/1077800403254894
Thompson, C., Holt, D. (2004). How Do Men Grab the Phallus?: Gender tourism in
everyday consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 4(3), 313-338. doi:
10.1177/1469540504046578
Turner, V. (1979). Frame, flow and reflection: Ritual and drama as public liminality.
Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 6(4), 465-499.
Wills, K. (2007). The close-knit circle: American knitters today, CT: Praeger Pub
Text.