Fashion as a Reflection of Time, Place, and Selfhood
By Sierra Cameron ‘25
Photo by Savannah Love from Parent’s Weekend Fall ‘24
Fashion is all-encompassing. At its most basic level, each individual’s knowledge of, and relationship to, fashion is apparent in how they dress every day. However, understanding this system in its entirety extends far beyond physical garments; it is rather a matter of considering clothes in the context of the wearer, the culture, and the historical moment. Often considered a nonverbal language, fashion possesses the unique ability to guide our initial impressions of one another, interpret cultural events through a visual lens, and inform our unique sense of self.
However, despite its global prevalence in everyday life, it’s nearly impossible to distill a concise definition of fashion. But whether you consider it an industry, a social phenomnon, a cultural boundary, or something else entirely, it is imperative to note the rich dualities that permeate all facets of fashion. Its firmly ambiguous nature is arguably its only consistency.
First and foremost, fashion lies at the intersection of individuality and integration. To be fashionable means to not just be up to date on the trends, but ahead of them, all the while maintaining a strong sense of personal style that scoffs at trend culture all together. Fashion writer Marta Kosowska-Slusarczyk describes, “Fashion provokes a sense of ambivalence between what is socially acceptable, generally accepted as the norm, and the desire to stand out from the crowd.” (1) Since fashion plays such a big role in how we perceive one another, it is critical to understand this balance and the ways it shifts based on context. For example, in professional spheres, integration is far more important than individuality. Kosowska-Slusarczyk explains, “Current evidence suggests that if you want to succeed, you must follow a certain set of rules and dress codes. Suitable colors, accessories and fashion elements are the key to success. Every industry has its own standards.” (2) Evidently, one’s ability to conform to corporate fashion standards may have direct effects on their success. In this setting, and in many others, fashion has incredible influence that precedes any indivudal strengths one might offer. So while to be truly fashionable you must display some air of avant-garde individuality, it is critical to consider the context—it could cost you your career.
Furthermore, it has become difficult to determine what is actually “individual” because the fashion industry inconspicuously infiltrates their agenda into mass culture. Writer George B. Sproles explains, “The very survival of the fashion industry depends on regular style changes. Annually or seasonally a substantial proportion of consumers must be persuaded or must freely choose to replace older fashions neither worn out nor functionally obsolete.” (3) The global fashion industry, worth nearly two trillion USD, writes the rules and our instinct to integrate compels us to oblige. The industry’s interventions are carefully crafted and elusive to convince us we’re deciding the fate of trends ourselves.
Within the fashion industry are several key characters, each of which play a critical role in determining trend cycles. During bi-annual “fashion weeks”, renowned designers present their haute-couture collections to the world. The shows typically take place in each of the four fashion capitals: New York, London, Paris, and Milan. Among the spectators are fashion editors, stylists, celebrities, buyers, influencers and models. Once these cohorts have contemplated the trends proposed by designers, they pass their opinions on to us, the general public. Fashion editors write articles about what’s “in” for the next season and what’s “out” from the last. Celebrities, influencers, and models flaunt the hottest new items, and buyers fill their retail stores with affordable equivalents. We are likely given the illusion of choice with a color option or slight variation in decorative details, but the products we encounter online and in stores are direct manifestations of the industry’s process.
At this point, we’ve certainly evolved beyond understanding fashion as a matter of clothes on hangers. However, in order to grasp the full scope of this system, we must discuss how physical form influences fashion. In a study called “The aesthetics of luxury fashion, body, and identity formation,” researchers explain, “It has become a truism in studies of fashion that garments cannot signify without a body, real or imagined, and that even an unworn garment refers to the materiality of an eventual wearer.” (4) Simply put, one’s figure is an integral part of the fashion system. Clothes can completely transform one’s silhouette; they allow us to play with proportion and accentuate the aspects of our bodies we love while simultaneously obscuring our insecurities. This dual nature of revealing and concealing gives clothes the unique ability to affect a woman’s sense of confidence, sex appeal, professionalism, and for better or worse, overall worth.
However, unfortunately many women are burdened by the unrealistic body type the fashion industry glorifies. The perpetuation of such an unattainable standard severely harms women’s satisfaction with their bodies and furthermore, the modeling industry spreads the message that a woman’s body is her only trait of significant value. The same study writes that on the runway, in editorial magazines, and as part of marketing campaigns, “The fashion model’s body is divested of anything that is functional—so that the body refers only to the garment.” (5) In the span of just a few paragraphs the author transitions from ‘even an unworn garment refers to the materiality of an eventual wearer’ to ‘the [model’s] body only refers to the garment.’
Maintaining her slender figure, poreless skin, and shiny hair is a model’s full-time job, and oftentimes, she takes unhealthy measures in this pursuit. It is preposterous to associate the epitome of femininity and beauty with a trope that disregards the realities of motherhood and aging. Most women don’t have the time or financial means to invest in a body that “only refers to [a] garment.” Along the same lines, Kosowska-Slusarczyk writes, “The suit is a part of the human interior, and represents him, but the human is an element of clothes that he represents.” (6) These impressions that our clothes, and bodies by association, are such defining factors of our identities leads me to wonder: do clothes exist in reference to us, us to them, or both?
Evidently, fashion is an interdisciplinary system that takes into account oneself, but I don’t think fashion is necessarily a reflection of one’s identity. It certainly can be, but its largely external nature also enables it to be a catalyst of deception. I like to think of fashion as a second self—one that the wearer has full control over determining. We have our internal selves—our minds and our character—but we protect these as private commodities which we selectively share with others. Our fashion choices, on the other hand, are intended to be perceived and interpreted by strangers as a means of superficially understanding us. Toby Fisher-Mirkin writes in his book, Dress Code: Understanding the Hidden Meanings of Women’s Clothes, “Informative function of one’s dress plays a very important role in building social relations. It is undeniable that all forms of dress communicate messages about the person who wears them - some are intentional, others are not.” (7) It seems clothes have the ability to create a narrative about a person in ways that words may not. In this way, fashion is understood as a visual language which encompasses and accepts all interpretations.
Anna Wintour, Editor-in-Chief of American Vogue and arguably the most influential fashion editor in the world, often says, “Fashion does not exist in a vacuum.” In this statement, she is essentially claiming that fashion will always closely relate to the broader social and cultural landscape. For example, in the 60’s, “hippie fashion”—think tie dye patterns, loose skirts, and peace sign motifs—was a direct response and resistance to the ongoing Vietnam War. The protesters’ clothing was a tangible representation of their desire for peace and liberation. Kosowska-Slusarczyk sums up this phenomena nicely: “Fashion is a universal principle that shapes the culture; able to embrace and transform not only the whole body, but all forms of human expression.” (8) Here it is apparent that fashion is a force with the ability to become something more than the sum of its parts.
Finally, we’re brought back to our initial question: what is fashion? Here’s my best attempt at defining it concisely: fashion is a visual language we each interpret in relation to our own experiences, gender, class, race, age, and locale. The conclusions I make about a person based on their outfit may be different from yours, but we all certainly use fashion as a means to “know” someone, albeit superficially. Despite focusing only on Western notions of dress in this essay, it is a universal truth that fashion always encompasses more than the materiality of garments. While clothes are dependent upon a body, the body is equally dependent upon the clothes. And although fashion is a matter of individuality, one must not stand out too far from the rest. Understanding fashion isn’t by any means a straightforward process; rather, it’s cyclical, ironic, ambiguous, and ever-evolving.
Footnotes:
1. Marta Kosowska-Ślusarczyk, “The Language of Fashion As a Carrier of Personal Information,” Journal of Education Culture and Society, p. 175.
2. Ibid., p. 170
3. George Sproles, “Analyzing Fashion Life Cycles: Principles and Perspectives,” JSTOR, p. 118.
4. Alladi Venkatesh, Annamma Joy, John F. Sherry, & Jonathan Deschenes, “The Aesthetics of Luxury Fashion, Body and Identity For- mation,” Project Muse, p. 461.
5. Ibid., p. 466
6. Kosowska-Ślusarczyk, “The Language of Fashion As a Carrier of Personal Information,” p. 177.
7. Toby Fisher-Mirkin, Dress Code: Understanding the Hidden Meanings of Women’s Clothes, p. 14.
8. Potęga König, R., i urok mody [The power and charm of fashion], (Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna OMEGA, 1979), p. 30, quoted in Kosowska-Ślusarczyk, “The Language of Fashion As a Carrier of Personal Information,” p. 170.