# data[].attributes.body
1. more sources (book, costumographer)

2. finish outfit analysis (write one sample analysis)

3. revised chapter /structure of the essay

# data[].attributes.body
To what extent does Serena van der Woodsen’s fashion style act as a non-verbal language that communicates identity and status in Gossip Girl?"

# data[].attributes.body
1. Introduction

• Gossip Girl jako kulturowy fenomen – pokazuje świat amerykańskiej elity.

• Serena van der Woodsen jako ikona mody i reprezentacja pewnego typu kobiecości.

• Definicja kluczowych pojęć.

• Pytanie badawcze i cel pracy.

2. Serena as a Cultural Character

• golden girl, naturalna, piękna

• Kontrast wobec Blair (kontrola vs. spontaniczność)

4. Main Analysis: Fashion as Non-Verbal Characterization

Case Study 1 – Serena’s casual style as freedom

Case Study 2 – Transformations & crises

Case Study 3 – Brands, luxury, and cultural status

5. . Conclusion

• Odpowiedź na pytanie badawcze.

• Co analiza Sereny mówi o roli mody w komunikowaniu tożsamości i statusu w kulturze amerykańskiej.

# data[].attributes.body
1. general structure (chapter ideas, remember about having an introduction and a conclusion)

2. come up with your conclusion, what will your research show

3. secondary sources: specific episodes, specific outfits, aritcles, youtube vidoes, anything you find relevant

4. NOTE EVERYTHING THAT YOU THINK IS RELEVANT

5. outline (what outfits will be in which chapters, what will you discuss in them)

# data[].attributes.body
The aim of this essay is to explore how Serena’s fashion communicates both her character and her social standing. By analysing fifteen selected outfits, the essay will show how her casual looks highlight her free-spirited nature, how her formal wear reflects her cultural status as an Upper East Side “it girl,” and how her transformational outfits mirror her crises and personal growth. The analysis will also place these fashion choices in a wider cultural context, showing how Gossip Girl uses fashion to represent ideas of wealth, femininity, and identity in American society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Fantasy of Serena van der Woodsen — Chrisinda Lynch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Originally published on Substack 4/22-4/23/2021 [This profile contains discussion of suicide and sexual assault.] From the moment she walks through Grand Central Terminal, Serena van der Woodsen becomes a mythic figure: beautiful, charismatic, effortless in her style. She “picks up whatever [cl

# data[].attributes.body
1. Introduction ( 350 words)

Overview of Gossip Girl as a series showing the life of wealthy young people in New York. Introduction of Serena van der Woodsen as a character whose fashion expresses her personality, emotions, and social position. Presentation of the research question and aim of the essay.

2. Serena van der Woodsen as a Cultural Character ( 300 words)

2.1 Analysis of Serena as the “golden girl” — attractive, charming, and emotionally complex. (Bardziej do stylu)

2.2 Comparison with Blair Waldorf to show differences in style: control and planning versus natural charm and unpredictability. Jak personality wykazane stylem

3. Fashion as Non-Verbal Characterization

Analysis of how Serena’s clothes reflect her inner world and social role. (czy może jeszcze jakiś inny koncept analizy)

• 3.1 Change and emotion: how fashion mirrors her unstable feelings and personal growth. (co wakacje np inny styl)

4. Conclusion

Summary of how Serena’s fashion acts as a visual language showing who she is and her place in society. Reflection on how style communicates identity and status in American popular culture.

5. Bibliography

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you ever wonder why flowers have such a powerful presence in the world of fashion? They say, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” but when it comes to floral designs, there’s something more. In this article, we will explore the influence of flowers in fashion and delve into their symbolic meanings, historical […]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The best thing about the new installment is knowing who she is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Irresistible Urge to Fall for Dramione FanFic - Harper's Bazaar * Ana Huang Is Ready to Rule Over Romance - Marie Claire * Brianna LaPaglia Is Not Asking for Anyone's Permission - SI Swimsuit cover story * How Samantha Hurley Created a Play About Kidnapping Tobey Maguire & Parasocial

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2012/04/03/what-your-clothes-say-about-you/

# data[].attributes.body
1. Napisz draft wstępu i zakończenia

# data[].attributes.body
Fashion is one of the most powerful forms of non-verbal communication in modern culture. Through clothing, people express who they are, where they belong, and how they wish to be seen. Television, as a visual media, often uses fashion to create meaning and to build characters that feel real and memorable. One of the clearest examples of this is the American TV series Gossip Girl (2007–2012), which became a global cultural phenomenon. Set in New York City’s Upper East Side, the show presents the lives of wealthy young people whose identities are closely tied to appearance, privilege, and style. In Gossip Girl, fashion is not just decoration — it is a language that communicates status, personality, and social power. Among all the characters, Serena van der Woodsen stands out as one of the show’s most iconic figures. Her style — elegant, spontaneous, and often effortlessly glamorous — becomes a visual portray of her as complex character. Through her clothing, Serena expresses emotions, confidence, freedom, and at times, vulnerability. In this sense, her fashion choices speak to the viewer long before she says a word. This essay explores the research question: To what extent does Serena van der Woodsen’s fashion style act as a non-verbal language that communicates identity and status in Gossip Girl? The aim of this essay is to explore how Serena’s fashion communicates both her character and her social standing. By analysing fifteen selected outfits, the essay will show how her transformational outfits mirror her crises and personal growth. The analysis will also place these fashion choices in a wider cultural context, showing how Gossip Girl uses fashion to represent ideas of wealth, femininity, and identity in American society.

# data[].attributes.body
This essay has explored how Serena van der Woodsen’s fashion style in Gossip Girl functions as a form of non-verbal communication that reflects her identity and social status. Through the analysis of fifteen selected outfits, it has become clear that Serena’s clothing choices are carefully designed to express aspects of her personality, emotions, and role within the Upper East Side elite. At the same time, the changes in her style across the series mirror her personal development and emotional struggles, suggesting that fashion in Gossip Girl operates as a narrative tool as much as a visual one. More broadly, Serena’s fashion demonstrates how clothing can communicate meaning beyond words. It shows that what people wear can express confidence, belonging, and individuality, but also reveal vulnerability and social pressure. In this way, Gossip Girl presents fashion as a social language, series connects appearance with power, showing how style becomes part of the performance of success in American culture. Ultimately, this study highlights that Serena’s iconic fashion is not just a symbol of luxury, but a reflection of how identity is constructed and communicated in a television society. Serena’s wardrobe, therefore, becomes more than a collection of clothes — it becomes a mirror of the cultural moment that created her.

# data[].attributes.body
http://silk-n-spice.blogspot.com/2011/11/get-look-gossip-girl-style-serena-van.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Samochody elektryczne i spalinowe w Częstochowie  (Odpowiedzi)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
XOXO, Conspicuous Consumption: How the Economy Killed ‘Gossip Girl’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The teen drama will end its six-season run this week, but its over-the-top decadence went out of style after the recession hit in 2008.

# data[].attributes.body
1. kryzys finansowy 2008

2. Percepcja z tego miejsca w tym czasie 2007-2012

3. rozpisac co gdzie bedzie i zrodla do akapitu. jak slaby akapit to temat do przemyslenia. czy aby napewno?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The notion of capitals has a long history inside political economy (today termed "economic science"), within which it takes on different meanings, according to the diverse theoretical orientations into which it is inserted. It can be a good which allows the production of other goods; it can be an invested patrimony which allows profits to be made and wealth to be accumulated, but it can also be analyzed as a social relationship of domination and exploitation of the workers by the holders of the means of production, as Marx's Capital points out. It is also one of the many economic notions (such as interest, investment, market, profit...) which were reworked by the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu in the context of his personal research and theoretical proposals. Bourdieu declines the notion of capital into different "species" (the word is his) and makes it one of his main concepts, alongside those of field (or social space) and habitus, from which it is inseparable. The latter two concepts can be defined respectively (and very approximately) as a system of objective positions and a system of subjective dispositions, both posited as social constructions. That said, defining capitals is a delicate task. On the one hand, Bourdieu is quite critical of 'scholastic' definitions, which he uses only rarely and always with precautions. On the other hand, the notions he uses and the meanings given to them may have changed in the light of the research in which they were used and of his more theoretical reflections.

Bourdieu first breaks down capital into three or four major 'fundamental species' (Bourdieu, 1986, 2016):
-Economic capital. The expression refers to nothing more than 'simply' capital. Bourdieu invented a new expression by adding an adjective because it had become necessary to differentiate this species (thus constituted as such) from the other species he was inventing but the semantic content is the same, with its classic variants: land-capital, industrial capital, financial capital, and so on. It should be noted, however, that Bourdieu also uses the term to designate sums of money and other goods with some exchange value, which can be mobilized by anyone, regardless of the amount, on different markets or in different fields.

-Cultural capital. In its oldest and most common uses, this notion designates the ensemble of knowledge and know-how, informations and skills, practical sense and theoretical mastery, embodied and durable dispositions, which together constitute the habitus, and are recognized as having a differential value in the social world and thus conferring a relative advantage on the person who can mobilize them. Bourdieu goes on to distinguish three potential forms for this capital: the primary meaning refers to the embodied state but cultural capital also exists in an objectified state form (materialized in objects such as books, paintings, computers...) as well as in an institutionalized state f (diplomas, school qualifications and other forms of certification of learning). Directly derived from the work of Bourdieu and his colleagues on educational inequalities, the notion refers first of all to inherited cultural capital, acquired in and transmitted by the family through socialization (a learning process that cannot be reduced to conscious and voluntary inculcation, but includes leisure activities, outings, etc.); this socialization gives an advantage to the children of the bourgeoisie as well as to those of teachers within educational competition. As this competition becomes increasingly crucial in contemporary societies, these heirs have every chance of succeeding at longer and, above all, at more highly valued studies for the 'job market', and thus of acquiring higher social positions, and of passing on this capital to their children. In this way is favoured a process of social reproduction that is never identical, but which calls into question the belief in a liberatory and/or meritocratic school. It should be noted, however, that contrary to a frequently made error, cultural capital cannot be reduced to school capital, given that knowledge and know-how can be useful and valued at certain times and in certain sectors of society without always requiring training in school (whether it be a matter of permaculture or singing, activism or computing). It might mean knowing how to speak in public, how to speak a foreign language, how to not get lost in a large metropolis or in 'remote' areas...

-Social capital. This notion refers to all the capital (of different forms that an individual can benefit from as a result of his or her acquaintance relationships, which may be more or less durable and institutionalized and will be of various kinds (family, friends, schoolmates, colleagues, activist networks, etc.). From a certain point of view, it is less a capital of a different nature and more a mode of mobilization, interpersonal or even collective, of economic, cultural or symbolic capital. This notion does not designate 'relations' as is all too often said and written, but rather the capital that the latter hold and that they can mobilize for the benefit of a third party. Strictly speaking, knowing people is not sufficient in order to have social capital. When ordinary language refers to 'having connections', 'a long arm' or declares 'it's not what you know, it's who you know', it is clear that the people who can be mobilized are not just anyone, but are people who count, and who count because they have resources or power. 'String-pulling' is the classic form of this mobilization, a form which is typically frowned upon in social circles since it contravenes the meritocratic principle associated with the possession of some skill. Social capital can therefore be a substitute for being oneself disadvantaged, but for Bourdieu, it has, above all, a 'multiplier effect', meaning that it increases the return on capital held in one's own name.

-Symbolic capital. This is one of Bourdieu's most important and delicate notions (as well as the other categories referring to the "symbolic" to which it is linked: symbolic power, symbolic violence, etc.). It appeared under his pen as early as The Outline of a Theory of Practice, (1972 for the first French edition)and was still present in his last works. It has been continuously reworked according to research and theoretical developments. It would therefore be imprudent to claim to give THE definitive definition or even to master all its facets. A simplified way of defining it is to make it a synonym of good image or reputation, prestige, credit, honour, authority, charisma, etc., such as some people enjoy, while thers are stigmatized and discriminated against because they lack it. But far from being a gift of nature, symbolic capital is as much a social construction and a form of inequality as the other types of capital, and it owes its own effectiveness to the fact that it combines this symbolic recognition with a lack of awareness of the social arbitrariness that is at its origin. Bourdieu even generally presents it as a capital in the second degree, derived from the other species on which its existence depends, and in Pascalian Meditations he goes so far as to say that symbolic capital is not really capital (!):

" Every kind of capital (economic, cultural, social) tends (to different degrees) to function as symbolic capital (so that it might be better to speak, in rigorous terms, of the symbolic effects of capital) when it obtains an explicit or practical recognition, that of a habitus structured according to the very structures of the space in which it been engendered. In other words, symbolic capital (male honour in Mediterranean societies, the honourability of the notable or the Chinese mandarin, the prestige of the celebrated writer, etc.) is not a particular kind of capital but what every kind of capital becomes when it is misrecognized as capital, that is, as force, a power or capacity for (actual or potential) exploitation, and therefore recognized as legitimate." ( Bourdieu, 2000, p. 242, Standford university Press, 2000))

That said, Bourdieu does not go so far as to forbid the expression, in this book as in his later publications. And besides, this principle of a dependence or even an inseparability of symbolic capital vis-à-vis other kinds of capital is debatable: could we not consider that there is a possible 'autonomisation' of the symbolic, of representations and beliefs relating to the value of people in relation to the objective reality of the capitals they can actually mobilize?

For Bourdieu it is (mainly) the unequal distribution of these four fundamental types of capital, and in particular the first two, that forms the foundation of the objective social structures of the social world in countries like France. Within a society, one can thus draw a ('global') social space where each position is defined, on a vertical axis, by the overall volume of capital owned, but also, on a horizontal axis, by the relative importance of the economic and cultural capitals held (Bourdieu, 1979). This structuring principle also works for what Bourdieu calls 'fields', that is sectors of activity resulting from a process of differentiation and division of labour, which are also relatively autonomous microcosms or social universes, in the sense that they are distinguished by specific issues and rules of the game. Each field is a domain of practices, but is also a system of social relations, a field of force and a field of struggles structured by the unequal distribution of the weapons or assets that can be brought to bear, including forms of capital. This is how Bourdieu describes a whole series of capitals specific to the different fields: political capital, media capital, legal, artistic, religious or scientific capital, and so on. But contrary to what one might think, since these expressions are built on the same model as the four fundamental species, these specific capitals are not added to them but rather constitute (combinations of) variants, or 'subspecies'. Thus, controversies and competitions within the scientific field (Bourdieu, 1976, 2001) are certainly settled by means of more or less important funding (and political support), but also by specific cultural and symbolic capitals that are specifically scientific (and even disciplinary, thematic, etc.).

What is valid in one field is therefore not necessarily valid in another. More generally, it is impossible to isolate/autonomise a capital from the social space or field, or more broadly from the configuration of social relations in which it acquires not only value but also its existence as such. It makes no sense to isolate an individual and his capital from what his competitors and possible allies hold within the framework of a common context and issue. Outside of competition and social domination, for which it is a weapon and an issue, the term 'capital' is no longer relevant and should be replaced by another, such as 'resource', 'heritage' or 'attribute'. Not all resources function as capital in all circumstances, and conversely, being deprived of capital does not mean being deprived of all resources. If we avoid substantialist or essentialist thinking, we define capital as a contextual or relational concept.

While these species and variants differ in nature, in the ways in which they are produced, appropriated and used, a common semantic core can be identified. To be able to speak of capital, these resources must not be entirely consumed for survival or enjoyment, or even in pure loss, but invested in a field or sector of activity that yields profits that can be appropriated: this is the principle of profitability. At least part of these profits increases the volume of resources held, which can then be reinvested, in a circular process of investment and accumulation, the limits of which are not given by its internal characteristics, because capital is both a means and an end. The fact that capital is a mean and an end is the objective condition of a possible.... This capacity to be accumulated at the same time as invested is undoubtedly a general property, the very foundation of the category, and is preserved by Bourdieu. This is not the case for other properties, which are certainly socially important, and therefore to be analysed, but which are not both specific to this category and not always realised or feasible, and therefore cannot be put on the same level. This is the case of the principle of convertibility or fungibility: the capacity of a type of capital to be exchanged or transformed into another. This principle if often proposed although it is far from evident, due to the very heterogeneity of species and variants and of their contextual character. Similar considerations should be applied to the principle of transmissibility from one person to another (by inheritance, alliance, exchange, or by other means...), and to the principle of transferability, from one field or socio-geographical context to another. All these properties, have possibilities and effective modalities which vary greatly depending on the species and subspecies, but also on the circumstances... and the power relations themselves.

The present and potential uses of this conceptual battery in geography are obviously unlimited. Thinking in terms of capital makes it possible to move from a geography of inequality in living conditions to a geography of social trajectories and positions And the spaces of possibilities that these outline, even if their spatial dimension is not systematically taken into account in sociological analyses -(Blanchard, Estebanez, Ripoll, 2021). A first approach has been to try to identify and isolate 'spatial capital' in order to make it a new fundamental species, but everything indicates that this appears to be a good idea, but is not. That said, there are many other ways to cross-reference space and capitals. For example, we can study the competition and dissymmetries around issues such as the planning and production of space, but also the straightforward uses of space, which are inseparable from its appropriation. Conversely, analysing the forms and struggles of appropriation of space makes it possible to work on the spatial dimension of capitals, since capitals cannot be separated from actual uses of space. Similarly, it is possible to take into account all the inequalities linked to 'mobility', including the capacity to move or conversely not to move, as well as the unequal profitability of moving. This questions the spaces and scales of validity of capitals and the conditions and unequal possibilities of their movement in the sense of their transferability from one place to another.
Fabrice Ripoll

translated by John Mullen (university of Rouen)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Capital(s) according to Pierre Bourdieu - HyperGeo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The notion of capitals has a long history inside political economy , within which it takes on different meanings, according to the diverse theoretical orientations into which it is inserted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Theory of the Leisure Class - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.body
1. bullet points co będzie konkretnie w danym rozdziale

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Związek między świadomością biologicznych mechanizmów gojenia a gotowością do poddania się zabiegom kosmetycznym  (Odpowiedzi)

# data[].attributes.body
poprawić co omówione dopracować podpunkty akapity.