The small details of the everyday,
including dress, play an important role in members" level of satisfaction,
especially the female members., probably indicating a regrettable
waning of ideological and spiritual pursuits. However, adults cannot
be changed and therefore their needs should be satisfied by a clothing
personal allowance, not as a revolutionary act but merely as another
"step in our natural development." Another member disagreed and
described tbe Kibbutz as being torn between two poles: "the aspiration
to change the world and build it upon new principles, and the aspiration
for normalization." He determined that the Kibbutz should not give in
to total normalization. The whole world, he wrote, has been losing its
values during the last thirty years, and it is the duty of the Kibbutz to
uphold higher standards, even on tbe expense of a supposedly "natural
development" such as a personal clothing allowance. A third member
stressed that the Kibbutz was still in the making. Collectivism should
not reacb absurdities and constrain the members within a rigid system
of committees and communal institutions, and hence a personal clothing
allowance would be merely an organizational change, but not a betrayal
of Kibbutz original principles.'^
Kibbutz ideology promoted material ascetic values and early Kibbutzim
took pride in their poverty. Pioneering entailed sacrifice of
personal material comfort for tbe sake of the community and the whole
nation, but Kibbutz secular asceticism was never bleak, nor did it sanctify
pain, sorrow or suffering. It was not about denying pleasure as much
as it was about identifying with collective values. Moreover, austerity
was not merely a personal sacrifice but also a means of guaranteeing the
members' spiritual freedom and their peace of mind. Still, as the Kibbutz
grew and changed, equality was moderated and members expressed new
and increasing material demands (Talmon-Gerber 2006: 401-6).
Supporters of the personal clothing allowance in different Kibbutzim
wrote that, "From each according to his ability, to each according to
his needs" was part of a socialist revolution and an attempt to eradicate
extreme capitalist inequality, but the intention was not to create a group
of paupers; on the contrary, achieving a universal higher standard
of living was part of the revolutionary target, as long as wealth was
distributed fairly. The "essential minimum" keeps changing through
time and fulfilling increasing needs does not entail inequality. As long
as the allowance is distributed equally, its various uses by the members
pose no threat to Kibbutz life.'" Champions of the personal allowance
also claimed that collectivity and equality were only means for achieving
socialist justice, not ends by themselves. Uniformity was the result of the
pioneering age, not an inherent part of socialism. People have inevitably
different needs and cannot be squeezed into one norm. Assuring that
all members will receive their various needs might prevent them from
324 Anat Heiman
seeking these needs through unauthorized external sources and hinder
them from bitterly leaving the Kibbutz and attaining their unfulfilled
wishes elsewhere."
While the personal allowance could potentially increase diversity,
another factor was markedly threatening sartorial equality in the
Kibbutz: gifts. Storehouse keepers, especially in older and more established
Kibbutzim, complained that presents, received and worn by
Kibbutz members (in particular by female members and young female
natives of the Kibbutz) were violating the intended equality set by
the norm.^" Clothes distributed by the storehouse within the limits of
the norm were not the members' private property: their wearers were
holders rather than owners. Clothes purchased or sown within the
limits of the personal allowance were semi-private: they belonged to
the members but were bought under an equal and agreed budget.
http://www.teenloveme.com/tencel-ball-dresses-one-shoulder-corset-prom-dress.html#.UWUFox3vtc1