Joanne B. Eicher and Barbara Sumberg in “World Fashion, Ethnic, and National Dress,” describe dress as figure adornment that represents personal and cultural identity. Unlike clothing which can be described as embellishment, the word dress encompasses a deeper connection to the body, especially within ethnic dress which includes “items, ensembles, and modifications of the body that capture the past of the members of a group, the items of tradition that are worn and displayed to signify cultural heritage” (299). These pieces form a connection with internal identity that can be displayed in an obvious manner externally. 
Similarly, Jean Hamilton in “Mass Fashion as Threat in Context and Concept,” defines dress as “an extraordinarily powerful symbolic representation of a social system” (25). Dress interacts with different “sub-cultural systems” (30) including economic organization, political organization, family and kinship organization, socialization, ideological organization, communication, and arts and aesthetics (30). She describes dress as an outward expression of “the multitude of conflicting, ambiguous, changing, and sometimes frightening symbolic meanings of the cultural system” (32). Through these expressions, an individual’s influence on society through dress can be significant. 
   These definitions show a deeper meaning to the word dress that we can draw on to inform our research. The pieces in our research encompass these elements of dress and their use in culture. More than simple clothing, dress has a drastic impact on the society and culture around us, and we similarly use these expressions and influences when we dress theatre, especially when explicitly representing culture onstage.   
   We therefore define dress as a donned textile-based expression of cultural, historical, and personal practices. Dress pieces are worn on every part of the body and display to outside observers social standing, ritual meaning, and cultural pride and values. Every people and nation use dress to convey these relationships, though each has unique rules for conformity of dress. Dress can be used on an individual scale within these cultural and national boundaries to further define one’s personal identity; i.e. qualities, beliefs, personality, gender, race, etc. Likewise, in theatre, dress is the outward expression of a character’s internal world that, like off the stage, reflect many aspects of identity. It is important to represent the dress of a character accurately to create a realistic and respectful representation of society.

   Rebecca Cunningham in “The Magic Garment: Principles of Costume Design,” defines a costume as “a garment that enables an actor to become, for a time, someone else” (1). She describes how costume, especially theatrical costume, has been a known art form since pre-historic cultures dominated the land. These cultures used “animal heads and skins as masks and costumes for ritual dances” (1). Costume has endured to modern times, and still “works by affecting the posture, walk, and presence of the actor, and by touching the store of cultural information in the collective memory of audience” (1). Costume designers draw on “broad-based cultural experience” (2) to connect audiences with recognizable and engaging characters.

            This definition is helpful in answering an important question I have come across in my research. What is the difference between costume and dress? Though similar to dress, I argue the main difference comes in the intention of the garment when it was created. Where dress can be worn every day, costume is generally worn for a specific day, celebration, or performance. Yet, I have come to understand that dress and costume are separated by few lines and become closer still when discussing cultural costume and its place in societies. Both deal with representing the internal using external textiles, and both can represent culture, people, and ideas of a nation or character.

            Therefore, for my research. I define costume as a garment that is worn by individuals to represent another person, culture, or time period for the purpose of connecting with a specific audience. It is the presence of a “specific audience” that separates costume from dress. The term has mostly been connected to actors, however costumes can be worn by many people, including politicians, teachers, activists, and individuals, in order to extend an outward message to the audiences that view them.

   Robert N. Emde, in “Culture, Diagnostic Assessment, and Identity: Defining Concepts,” explains that culture “refers to shared beliefs, attitudes, values, and practices that are more than temporary and are transmitted across generations” (606). He suggests that culture is made up of rules and behaviors that are not written out or expressly stated, but rather unconsciously transferred within groups. For Emde, “culture is transactional and dynamic. The shared meaning of a culture changes in the midst of adaptations to the influence of developing individuals, other groups, technology, and events” (pg 607). He also suggests that culture shapes the view we have on reality and how we see others.

   Emed’s definition of culture is helpful in explaining how culture can be fluid and fixed at the same time. It is a word that is often used to explain many levels of identity, but the key difference between “identity” and “culture” is offered by the suggestion that culture is cross-generational. Culture and identity are both influenced by individuals, but culture extends itself through time and is thus defined by more than current attitudes or beliefs. For this thesis, this definition of culture can help to explain how systems of dress and costume can have such large impacts on many aspects of an individual’s identity, effects that can be traced through time.   

   I will therefore define culture, for this thesis, as a fluid set of shared ideology that is transferred from individual to individual contemporarily and across generations. This ideology is heavily influenced by the time-specific environments that members of a culture are exposed to. This influence helps explain the evolving-nature of culture, and how identities who are exposed to new forms of ideology are themselves ever being reshaped. In this increasingly globalized world where cultures are continuously meeting one another, culture’s interactions with identity may be more dynamic and centerstage than ever before.

   Connected to and shaped by culture, we come to the term identity, which cannot be defined properly for this thesis without first mentioning Erick Erickson, whose definition of Identity plays a major role in the academic discussions we have today over the subject. In “Identity and the Life Cycle,” Erickson defines Identity as “something in the individual’s core” (102) that connects to “an essential aspect of a group’s inner coherence.” (102). Though we sometimes think of identity as a singular thing contained to only ourselves, Erickson suggests that identity “connotates both a persistent sameness within oneself… and a persistent sharing of some kind of essential character with others.” (102) While the concept of identity has developed further in multiple conversations that have followed Erickson’s initial concepts, this idea of defining oneself by comparison with others still forms the foundation of most definitions of identity today. 

   Alan Dundes, in “Defining Identity Through Folklore” builds upon Erickson’s work by supplying the origin of the word identity from the Latin idem, literally meaning ‘the same’. However, he goes on to point out that “it is obvious from all the scholarly discussions that ‘Identity’ depends as much upon differences as upon similarities” (149).  He presents the term Identity as a contrasting ideology, in that we use concepts of “the other” to define ourselves. He gives the example of trying to define “man” without mentioning “woman” or vice versa (149). 

He also goes on to suggest that identity is “multiple in nature; there are many personal identities and many social identities” (149) and that these identities are “dependent on an individual’s belief in his personal affiliation with certain symbols and their meaning” (150). These symbols are themselves heavily influenced by culture, location, and time.

   These definitions can help to show that identity is closely related to and shaped by culture, and though sometimes spoken of as a portrait that emerges from within, identity can be developed by contrasting oneself with others.

   For this thesis, I define “identity” as a set of beliefs, attitudes, and viewpoints that are defined by both the reflection of affiliations with an environment, cultural influences, and important symbols as well as the contrasts with them. Within theatre, it is important to research these different and influential aspects in order to more fully understand the identities of the characters who are being portrayed. If the goal is to portray a culturally sensitive design while preserving the individuality of the character, designers will benefit by focusing their research on the interplay of these affiliations and contrasts in the formulation of an identity.

   According to the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, colonialism is established when “a nation-state expands its territory as well as its social, cultural, and political structures into extent territories beyond its own national boundaries” (11). This system of expanding territory has “shaped the world-system in irreversible and deeply influential ways” (11). These structures are often purposeful projects, such as the European Enlightenment, and were meant “to spread a hegemonic structure whereby one people (‘whites’) benefit from the exploitation and subjugation of another people (‘nonwhites’)” (12). The Encyclopedia states that colonialism can be viewed in three manners; "a structure of domination subjugating one group of people to another across political entities; internal or domestic colonialism as a similar structure occurring within a given nation-state, typically against socially marked groups; and the colonialism of the mind, wherein the colonized are institutionally, pedagogically, linguistically, and cognitively conquered by the colonizer” (11). The encyclopedia asserts that “understanding the oppressive and exploitative nature of colonialism in the world-system is crucial” (12) to comprehending its place in the contemporary world where systems of economic, political, and cultural colonialism persists.
    This definition of colonialism shows the complexity that exists behind the identity of a nation or people. When we think of a country and the costumes that that country wears, we can analyze the social and political events that have developed it into what it is today. As a cultural expression, dress is highly impacted by colonialism and can be a way for historians to track where and when certain nations came into contact with one another; whether it is in asserting western style on native peoples or embellishing western dress with images of foreign lands.
    For the purposes of our research, we define colonialism as a complex system of domination and subjugation whereby the oppressive nation, most often of European origin though Japan and America can be added, asserts its cultural, political, and economic will on a less equipped people. This control has lasting effects on the population, history, and culture of the nation, forcing a new national identity that can be viewed through the lens of dress. These costumes and systems of dress can be used as symbols both by the colonized to reassert independence and by the colonizer to force conformity and control. Understanding the impact colonialism has had on dress and the people that wear them will allow for a truer story within theatre and film.

   In the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanley Benn defines nationalism in five lenses, including as “an attitude that attaches high importance to the distinctive characteristics of a nation and, therefore, a doctrine that maintains that national culture should be preserved” (481). He discusses the importance of language, culture, and history on what shapes nationalism and asserts that to “share a common history is not just to know the same historical facts; it is to identify with the same historic symbols, feel vicarious pride in the same achievements, and feel indignation at the same affronts” (482). These symbols can be developed through language, religion, art, etc and, Benn states, “where there is a group of individuals, attached in this way to a common body of symbols, who recognize one another as fellow members sharing similar attitudes to these symbols and who, because of this, feel a loyalty and concern for one another that they would not extend to outsiders” (482). This unity through symbols helps define nationalism through the lens of culture.
    This explanation delves into how elements of culture are used to form symbols of national identity, and it is useful to our writing in that sense. Using several examples such as the Mexican Jalisco Dress and the Korean Hanbok, we can discuss how dress, a most visible cultural symbol itself, often culminates through the process of a garment gradually adopting meaningful features over time. Thus, the evolution of dress can be correlated to changes in other areas of culture: religions, arts, languages, ethnic identities, etc.
    Therefore, we define nationalism as a person’s or group’s attachment to certain cultural characteristics or symbols and their use of them to invent a national identity. The story of the Jalisco dress most clearly demonstrates this, as the garment was used by the Mexican Government specifically for this purpose.