Justify This

The "Ewens" state towards the end of "The Ends Justify The Jeans" that, "Our ability to interpret a specific fashion - the current one of jeans, for example - shows us that as we try to make sense of it, our confusion intensifies. It is a fashion whose very essence is contradiction and confusion. (90)" With this the Ewens prove that their ending doesn't justify their jeans. The only confusion to be had was on the part of the author. The authors attempt to explain the vague statement above by saying that by looking at a specific fashion, the light is turned on many larger aspects. How could looking at the history of jeans or fashion be confusing? If the exploration of jeans becomes a great question of fashion and then politics, than we move beyond understanding the jeans themselves. Questions are ask on page 90 and 91 which seem to be meant to be confusing. Questions such as, "In what ways have fashion and sexuality coincided, particularly in the context of palpable transformation in the structure, ceremony, and economy of family life?" are actually enlightening, rather than confusing. These questions are posed academically (they wouldn't be posed by the jean-wearing average public) and can be discussed and answered. Finally, the authors attempt to bring home the point that fashion is essential in American democracy and capitalism. That's what this paper is about? I already knew that. The authors pose the final question on page 91 attempting to fuse images of rebellion and social change. What is this mean? And what do the Ewens mean by "meaningful"? Everything is meaningful. I couldn't make the connection with the rest of the essay and this last line because it's talking about something else other than the topic of the essay. The 'ultimate question' is whether it was Stuart or Elizabeth that wrote the last line.