You are what you wear: our growing absence of awareness

 

I really struggled with coming up with a topic for this month’s post. I was so focused on finding a ‘summer’ piece, but struggled to find much substance in a lot of the topics I initially tried to write about. 

This post was inspired by a repost of my mutuals ‘talklacemagazine’ (instagram) and ‘cutipiekitties’ (TikTok) of a video by ‘e.cxhi’ on TikTok about how wearing Vivienne Westwood is innately anti-government. Since writing my piece on ‘Politics in Polyester’, I’ve been involved in more conversations about politics in the fashion industry and so thought it’d be interesting to take the same topic in a slightly different route. 

I’m sure we’ve all seen behind the scenes filming of The Devil Wears Prada 2,  and in this conversation I can’t help but think of that scene in the original where Miranda’s team are choosing between two ‘identical’ belts according to Andy. Miranda then proceeds to critique Andy on her ‘choice’ of sweater that arguably wasn’t her own, but instead something subconsciously bought into by Andy to experience the essence of abundance of whom it was initially granted to. 

This is not a new concept, of buying through the chain of classes. Something starts at the top, and over time the ‘rest of us’ buy into it in the hopes of encapsulating the feeling of this lifestyle. Hence why we glorify trends under the titles of ‘old money’ or ‘quiet luxury’, because we dont want to make direct claim to these lifestyles, but experience them all the same. 

And I thought the discussion in the video by ‘e.cxhi’ was interesting. How despite Westwood’s hard-earned image through her brand, the true meaning and intention has been diluted by our obsession with brands: ironic for what Westwood stood for. 

Although we see clear examples of fashion being used for political intent in flags, written messaging and culturally appreciative garments — the most effective goes unnoticed. It goes in the seams of our shirts, the colours they create, the patterns we pick. It doesn’t always go in what we wear, but instead who we wear. 

So how does this link? 

I don’t think this distant attitude towards politics in fashion is recognised enough, as we see it so frequently by people excusing brands for their advertising approach all in the name of ‘sales’. Advertisers aren’t silly, they know how the market works. So when you see something that feels ‘off’ in the branding, it probably is. A current example that has fallen centre stage recently is the Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ad.

Sweeney’s ad with American Eagle brought this blind spot to light amongst consumers. People are either of the critical view that the series of ads act as a dog whistle for eugenics and test the reception to white supremacist ideas being publicly resurfaced. With others arguing that it’s ‘just not that deep’. 

Whilst many defensively point out that it’s directly inspired by Brooke Shield’s 1980 Calvin Klein ad, this inspo wasn’t created in a politically or socially conscious approach either. Shield’s ad was filmed when she was 15 years old. The visuals provided a sexual tone, confirmed by the tag line of ‘What comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.’ insinuating that she wasn’t wearing any underwear. So you can justify it in the name of ‘fashion’, but what about taste or awareness?

With Sweeney, there are racial undertones on top of the sexual style (I think I only saw the full jeans about twice throughout the series of ads). Drawing concerns as when seeing the ad, the link to ‘genes’ seems out of place, it doesn’t make sense. To have the line as ‘my jeans are blue’ after talking about genetical genes, and then finish it off with ‘Sydney Sweeney has great jeans’? Arguably the only plausible link you can draw between the three that reaches some sense is the connotations to race. 

Someone commented that the brand had done diverse campaigns before, exemplifying one from 2021. But whilst this is undeniable, it is now four years on. Four years on with a far more fragile political climate, particularly in the States, with actions and attitudes demonstrated towards DEI programs. 

Four years on with the brand’s teams likely changing, along with their motives… four years on. 

I’d also seen a TikTok by creator ‘haailss3’ who was the formal social media manager of American Eagle, who discussed how the brand’s main concern was to outdo competitor Abercrombie — not the product, nor the people, but the brands. 

So whilst brands compete to outdo one another, I think it is crucial for the rest of us to focus not on what they’re selling, but often who’s ideal they’re selling. It may not always be a product, but instead a pretty picture for propaganda. Because unfortunately, it is that deep.