Is Fashion Political?
Yasmine Ben Abdessalem
The answer is… Yes. As consumers of fashion trends and tastes, we often do not realise the implications that this business hides behind the curtains. From fashion agendas, to cultural controversies, it appears that there is more we should be aware of before copping a new pair of sneakers or piece of clothing.
After all, it seems like we indeed are fashion victims.
When I was 8, I watched the Devil Wears Prada for the first time. I developed, very unconsciously, an obsession for that movie. Not only for its representation of fashion but also for how it glamorizes workaholics, for Andrea’s passion and determination career-wise. I am now 21 years old, and I watch this movie from a very different angle; yet every time, one specific scene gets me. It is the monologue of Miranda’s, the editor in chief of Runway (the equivalent of Vogue in the movie) about Cerulean Blue.
"You go to your closet and you select out, oh I don’t know, that lumpy blue sweater, for instance, because you’re trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don’t know is that that sweater is not just blue, it’s not turquoise, it’s not lapis, it’s actually cerulean. You’re also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves St Laurent, wasn’t it, who showed cerulean military jackets? And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic “casual corner” where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and so it’s sort of comical how you think that you’ve made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you’re wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of “stuff.”
— Miranda, Devil Wears Prada
source: New York Post
Blue comes in different shades; everyone knows that Turquoise and Blue Klein are different colors. The point is to highlight the trickle-down effect of fashion. What Miranda explains is that behind a simple color, there is a whole industry, of creatives, producers. A very small microcosm that decides what the average American wears; what he/she buys in the local department store. Yet, this is only one layer of fashion’s universal impact. In fact, fashion is political because of its wider cultural context and social aspect; the who, why, where, when, and how – of a garment is paramount in how our clothes (and by extension, we) are read by others.
Fashion is political because it’s part of a vicious Cycle
Fashion belongs to a whole complexed cycle consisting of creation, production, and consumption. The phase of production is particularly crucial in arguing that fashion is political because the decisions that brands and couture houses make in terms of where they are going to fabric their clothes, base their factories impact the lives of many and their surroundings in ecological terms but also economic ones. Scandals have broken out for Zara exploiting refugees or children under 14. A brand is nowadays called out if its choices are not in line with the vision of their consumers; many people on social media called out for the boycott of Nike and their treatment of Uyghurs. Organizations like Anti-Slavery International and more than 180 organizations organized a pressure campaign to convince Nike from ceasing production of its clothes in China.
source: Save Uighur
The fashion cycle is also inherently political because of the legal implications it detains. Who has the right to produce in certain countries? It appears that the rules do not apply in a similar way for brands or other creatives. Brands like Zara or Nike indeed have more facilities finding ways to produce in countries where the labor is cheaper, where in Brazil for example workers would sew for 16 to 19 hours, with little time off, and in debt to their traffickers ; who then allows these conditions, except for Zara and local traffic groups?
Who makes the decisions about these factories ; except for governments and fashion groups such as LVMH? Nowadays, citizens do not have a direct say about where to produce clothes, who should produce them, unless they take action. Choosing where to produce is choosing where to either benefit people in terms of employment if it is done in a regulated manner ; either crush them with terrible work conditions that have been a long time associated with fast fashion’s poor work ethic.
Fashion is political because it’s about who sets the Agenda.
Fashion Weeks are set years ahead and a single week engenders a whole cycle of production, pollution that is still acceptable because of the magic these events convey. Empty jets fly out to transport one celebrity at a time or garments, yet brands pretend to work sustainably by implementing carbon-free runways, or recyclable textiles; simply, this is not enough. Re-evaluating the agenda of the fashion industry would contribute more to reducing the harm fashion causes in the long-term. Setting the agenda is also about putting your priorities at the top. Yet, some houses are more prominent, more eager to make their fashion weeks more prevalent and mediatized, just as some politicians can make their issues and problems more relevant.
Why is it that fashion weeks in other cities than Paris, London, New York and Milan receive few — if any — coverage in the media? It is not only about financial means or about talent, it’s about power and who detains it.
Fashion is political because clothes have a deeper Meaning
Wearing cerulean blue had a meaning in 2006; you were following a trend and you were consuming what a small industry decided for you. Clothing also have a broader meaning in social movements. Why do people wear military colors; and why is khaki inevitably linked to conflicts, and wars? Why did Maria Grazia Chiuri capitalize feminist slogans on Dior’s t-shirts? Clothes can inspire and have a visible meaning and message, and these messages are often political. It is also one of the easiest ways to defend causes you cherish; it is visible and universal.
source: DNAMAG
Back in 1968, candidate Joseph McCarthy also relied on fashion to gather support. He positioned himself as the anti–Vietnam War candidate and was hoping to attract younger activists, college students. Yet, he wanted to distance himself from the tactic of so-called hippie youths, who irritated political moderates. He, therefore, adopted a strict dress and grooming code for volunteers, to attract the fringe of volunteers he wanted, and at the same time gather support and votes from moderates. But wearing no clothes is a political act in itself, rejecting fashion, or simply rejecting what society tells you to wear — or not to wear — FEMEN protesters are usually topless and write messages on their chest to fight for their feminist causes.
Fashion is also political because clothes relate to Culture
… and especially cultural appropriation. The line between cultural appropriation and appreciation being this thin and blurred, brands often capitalize on other’s cultures such as Gucci; or become insensitive to other’s culture by using blackface in their campaigns or their clothes.
source: Metro UK
Gucci was part of the controversy for featuring white models wearing Sikh turbans in 2019. As a reaction, the Sikh Coalition "a community-based organization and think tank that defends Sikh civil rights", in particular, tweeted: "The turban is not just an accessory to monetize. It's a religious article of faith that millions of Sikhs view as sacred. Many find this cultural appropriation inappropriate since those wearing the turban just for fashion will not appreciate its deep religious significance." Gucci then apologized and decided to retract the item from its collection.
Many themes have been touched upon in this article, but fashion is also political for a myriad of other reasons. One could simply say in conclusion that Fashion is linked to politics because it perpetuates the same hierarchy and the same inequalities. Nowadays, there is rising attention and awareness growing around the topic of sustainability. But who can afford to buy sustainable clothing? Why are people that still buy from Zara and Primark bashed while they cannot afford vegan leather or sustainable textiles? This is a political question; even though it is about fashion.
Class relations are evident on the consumption side; clothes that are not affordable to the public contribute generally to pollution and poor ethic, yet the consumer cannot resort to other options.
