The Fashion System
How the World is Reflected in Fashion Rhetoric
August 2015
Sometime around 2014 young city dwellers began to don a collection of bland, suburban attire. Mom jeans, sneakers, fanny packs, old sweatshirts, and man sandals (mandals) replaced skinny jeans and flannel shirts. Generally seen on the type of people you’d expect to live in Brooklyn or San Francisco, working in very creative fields. This new style was given the name “normcore”. It is, at its root, “anti-fashion”. A sociocultural concept to go against anything mainstream. The problem is, normcore is now ubiquitous. Look up the word on Google and it yields over 681,000. How can something that is “anti-fashion” be so fashionable? Can something actually truly be “anti-fashion”?
Fashion is more than a technical, functional thing. It is more than clothing and it is more than style. Clothing, individual garments, are used for purely functionary purposes. At its base clothing is nothing more than a useful tool to protect the body from the elements. Next comes style. Style is individual, how one person chooses to wear the garments accessible to them. Style is generally dictated by fashion, but the two are not synonymous. Fashion is universal, and by nature of being universal, is something more abstract than a technical, functional thing. In his book, The Fashion System, Roland Barthes states that fashion is nothing more than a system of signs and those signs produce not clothing but rather an abstract notion of Fashion. It is because of this abstraction that Fashion is a reflection of the world.
This system begins with the “real”, the physical garment. This is called the “vestimentary code”. This technological level is made up of fabric sewn together into a certain form as dictated by the designer and manufacturer. Once created, the real garment is given a name and a description. This gives the clothing a language. Once it is given a language, the real garment loses its special significance and the importance then becomes about the words—the “rhetorical code”. Written clothing has an importance beyond that of the real or the image. The latter two have practical and aesthetic functions whereas the former does not, “it is entirely constituted with a view to a signification; if the magazine describes a certain article of clothing verbally, it does so solely to convey a message whose content is: fashion”.
Once given a semantic code, the article of clothing becomes a symbol. That symbol, the abstraction of Fashion, can then be used to gain a greater understanding of the world. “Without discourse there is no total Fashion, no essential Fashion”. When the vestimentary code is represented by the rhetorical code, Fashion becomes less about the garment and transforms into an abstract symbol of the world.
To understand how this system works, it is first important to understand the rhetorical code. At the most basic level, this code is simply a matrix involving an object (O), which gains significance because of a support (S) and a variant (V). In the context of the fashion system, the object may be anything that falls under the category of clothing. The Support is a specific detail of the object, such as a collar on a shirt. The variant describes the support, pointing out what exactly about that particular collar makes that shirt mean something of “fashion”. In the statement “a sweater with a boat neck collar”, the sweater is the object, the collar is the support, and boat neck is the variant. In writing, or speaking, about an article of clothing, a sweater on its own is nothing more than a garment to protect from the cold. Once it is given the support of a boat neck collar however, this sweater receives the signification of now being fashion.
Once established, this matrix gives transcendence to the understanding of fashion. This is because of the fluidity of language. The garment itself, once constructed, cannot be changed without becoming something entirely new. Language though is always changing. That’s the beauty of it. Today one may say that the boat neck sweater is fashion, but tomorrow it may be that a peter pan collar sweater is fashion—in which peter pan is the variant, collar the support, and jumper the object. The first sweater does not become the second one, but the language does—both statements lead to the same significance. That is the fragility of Fashion. The object for signification does not have life of its own, but rather it “possesses, for the duration of a spoken word, a meaning which does not belong to it and which will be taken back from it”.
This fragile nature of fashion is what allows it to become a reflection of the world. Whereas something may have once been “in fashion” and is no longer, that does not mean that it has lost its importance. We no longer wear togas, but yet we still study their role in identifying the status of wearers in Greek societies in History class. The real clothing may no longer be fashion, but the written clothing still is—for “time is not present in the rhetoric of fashion”. Words never go out of style.
In the 1840s a new type of garment was introduced in women’s fashion called the crinoline. It made women’s skirts pouf out in all directions and form a shape of a bell. The original form was essentially a very large petticoat made of horsehair. This garment was extremely heavy and cumbersome. In 1857 the crinoline was given a makeover with the introduction of the caged crinoline, which made for even bigger skirts than ever before and freed women from the necessity of wearing more than one petticoat.
Fashion is more than a technical, functional thing. It is more than clothing and it is more than style. Clothing, individual garments, are used for purely functionary purposes. At its base clothing is nothing more than a useful tool to protect the body from the elements. Next comes style. Style is individual, how one person chooses to wear the garments accessible to them. Style is generally dictated by fashion, but the two are not synonymous. Fashion is universal, and by nature of being universal, is something more abstract than a technical, functional thing. In his book, The Fashion System, Roland Barthes states that fashion is nothing more than a system of signs and those signs produce not clothing but rather an abstract notion of Fashion. It is because of this abstraction that Fashion is a reflection of the world.
This system begins with the “real”, the physical garment. This is called the “vestimentary code”. This technological level is made up of fabric sewn together into a certain form as dictated by the designer and manufacturer. Once created, the real garment is given a name and a description. This gives the clothing a language. Once it is given a language, the real garment loses its special significance and the importance then becomes about the words—the “rhetorical code”. Written clothing has an importance beyond that of the real or the image. The latter two have practical and aesthetic functions whereas the former does not, “it is entirely constituted with a view to a signification; if the magazine describes a certain article of clothing verbally, it does so solely to convey a message whose content is: fashion”.
Once given a semantic code, the article of clothing becomes a symbol. That symbol, the abstraction of Fashion, can then be used to gain a greater understanding of the world. “Without discourse there is no total Fashion, no essential Fashion”. When the vestimentary code is represented by the rhetorical code, Fashion becomes less about the garment and transforms into an abstract symbol of the world.
To understand how this system works, it is first important to understand the rhetorical code. At the most basic level, this code is simply a matrix involving an object (O), which gains significance because of a support (S) and a variant (V). In the context of the fashion system, the object may be anything that falls under the category of clothing. The Support is a specific detail of the object, such as a collar on a shirt. The variant describes the support, pointing out what exactly about that particular collar makes that shirt mean something of “fashion”. In the statement “a sweater with a boat neck collar”, the sweater is the object, the collar is the support, and boat neck is the variant. In writing, or speaking, about an article of clothing, a sweater on its own is nothing more than a garment to protect from the cold. Once it is given the support of a boat neck collar however, this sweater receives the signification of now being fashion.
Once established, this matrix gives transcendence to the understanding of fashion. This is because of the fluidity of language. The garment itself, once constructed, cannot be changed without becoming something entirely new. Language though is always changing. That’s the beauty of it. Today one may say that the boat neck sweater is fashion, but tomorrow it may be that a peter pan collar sweater is fashion—in which peter pan is the variant, collar the support, and jumper the object. The first sweater does not become the second one, but the language does—both statements lead to the same significance. That is the fragility of Fashion. The object for signification does not have life of its own, but rather it “possesses, for the duration of a spoken word, a meaning which does not belong to it and which will be taken back from it”.
This fragile nature of fashion is what allows it to become a reflection of the world. Whereas something may have once been “in fashion” and is no longer, that does not mean that it has lost its importance. We no longer wear togas, but yet we still study their role in identifying the status of wearers in Greek societies in History class. The real clothing may no longer be fashion, but the written clothing still is—for “time is not present in the rhetoric of fashion”. Words never go out of style.
In the 1840s a new type of garment was introduced in women’s fashion called the crinoline. It made women’s skirts pouf out in all directions and form a shape of a bell. The original form was essentially a very large petticoat made of horsehair. This garment was extremely heavy and cumbersome. In 1857 the crinoline was given a makeover with the introduction of the caged crinoline, which made for even bigger skirts than ever before and freed women from the necessity of wearing more than one petticoat.
On the level of the vestimentary code, the caged crinoline was significant because it achieved the fashionable bell-like silhouette. Like most fashionable garments, the crinoline was meant to be the embodiment of beauty and grace, “it allows the dress to fall in graceful folds” as well as allowing for the support of “massive skirts”. The language of such advertisements, often creating connotations between the dimensions of the hoops and the subsequent beauty and grace of the wearer, can extend beyond the width of the skirts. The variants express the expansiveness of the fashion—the ballooning, bell shaped hoops to support massive skirts. It seems as if the descriptions of the skirts are meant to be as expansive as the skirts themselves. Which is quite telling about the time of these skirts—a time of expansion and ballooning over.
“The crinoline is the unmistakable symbol of reaction on the part of an imperialism that spreads out and puffs up…, and that…settles its dominion like a hoop skirt over all aspects, good and bad, justified and unjustified, of the revolution”.
Whether or not this was the intention of the real garment, and likely it was not, the legacy of the crinoline is that of one of inconvenience, covering things up, and expansion.
The crinoline was followed, in 1878, by the “bustle period”. A time of tighter dresses and exaggerated rears. The new dress style was “cut diagonally across the body and stretched over the body” and it seemed as if “everything that could keep women from remaining seated was encouraged…Dress became an image of the rapid movement that carries away the world”. Both the construction of this new garment and the rhetoric in which it is described is a direct reflection of the world. The bustle period coincided with the period of the suffragettes. Whereas the crinoline allowed for a sedentary lifestyle, the bustle period seemed to encourage the new life and new world. For as Barthes aptly puts it, “a variation in clothing is inevitably accompanied by a variation in the world and vice versa”.
This concept can be further explored with the introduction of Dior’s “New Look” in 1947. The war introduced many changes in Fashion; women were in the work field and in factories, thus necessitating a change in dress. The fashion of the 1930s and 40s was rather masculine, plain, and unimposing. Marked by broad shoulders, dropped waistlines, and limited decoration. Women’s trousers became more acceptable, which allowed for more freedom in clothing. However, after the victory of 1945, a change in the world called for, yet again, a change in fashion. Dior’s New Look, one of nipped in waists and full skirts, reminiscent of the crinolines from seventy years previously, was a smashing hit. “In December 1946, as a result of the war and uniforms, women still looked and dressed like Amazons. But I designed clothes for flower-like women, with rounded shoulders, full feminine busts, and hand-span waists above enormous spreading skirts.”
“The crinoline is the unmistakable symbol of reaction on the part of an imperialism that spreads out and puffs up…, and that…settles its dominion like a hoop skirt over all aspects, good and bad, justified and unjustified, of the revolution”.
Whether or not this was the intention of the real garment, and likely it was not, the legacy of the crinoline is that of one of inconvenience, covering things up, and expansion.
The crinoline was followed, in 1878, by the “bustle period”. A time of tighter dresses and exaggerated rears. The new dress style was “cut diagonally across the body and stretched over the body” and it seemed as if “everything that could keep women from remaining seated was encouraged…Dress became an image of the rapid movement that carries away the world”. Both the construction of this new garment and the rhetoric in which it is described is a direct reflection of the world. The bustle period coincided with the period of the suffragettes. Whereas the crinoline allowed for a sedentary lifestyle, the bustle period seemed to encourage the new life and new world. For as Barthes aptly puts it, “a variation in clothing is inevitably accompanied by a variation in the world and vice versa”.
This concept can be further explored with the introduction of Dior’s “New Look” in 1947. The war introduced many changes in Fashion; women were in the work field and in factories, thus necessitating a change in dress. The fashion of the 1930s and 40s was rather masculine, plain, and unimposing. Marked by broad shoulders, dropped waistlines, and limited decoration. Women’s trousers became more acceptable, which allowed for more freedom in clothing. However, after the victory of 1945, a change in the world called for, yet again, a change in fashion. Dior’s New Look, one of nipped in waists and full skirts, reminiscent of the crinolines from seventy years previously, was a smashing hit. “In December 1946, as a result of the war and uniforms, women still looked and dressed like Amazons. But I designed clothes for flower-like women, with rounded shoulders, full feminine busts, and hand-span waists above enormous spreading skirts.”
Walter Benjamin, a noted German Jewish philosopher and cultural critic once said that, “clothing dictates the role of women”. During the war women were needed to do men’s work, following the war and the return of the men, women were needed to return to their previous positions of femininity—they needed to be “flower-like” again. The return to “the second Empire of France” silhouette necessitated the return to Victorian ideals, or rather vice versa. The New Look was not new, it was a 1947 recreation of the crinoline of the 1870s, which was a recreation of the panniers of the 18th century and that a recreation of the farthingale of the century before. There is nothing new about fashion.
By introducing it under the guise of new rhetoric, “flower-like”, “enchantress”, and “smash hit”, even the fact that it was called the “New Look”, Dior’s iconic dress deceived the consumer into thinking that it was, in fact, new. This displaces the particular garment from its fashion genealogy, thus displacing it from the historical and worldly connections. It could be said that such a thing is done in the spirit of capitalism. If the same clothing was described the same way year after year, no one would buy the new styles and thus the fashion industry would fail. However, capitalism aside, this use of rhetoric in expanding the importance of the clothing is something to keep in mind when trying to gain a wider appreciation of a time. Nevertheless, the worldly reflection of the fashion must be taken into account. If it is true that fashion dictates the role of women and if it is true that the crinoline was meant to encourage women to lead a “sedentary life—family life—since their manner of dress had about it nothing that could ever suggest or seem to further the idea of movement”. It thus follows that that was what was expected of women once again with the so-called “New Look”. However, because of the luster of new rhetoric, the history gets forgotten and the fashion seems special to the new era.
Fashion is a much more complex notion than clothing. Even more complex than clothing that serves a higher purpose than protection—beauty, ceremony, or symbolism. For when put into the rhetorical code, a code of meta-language and connotation, fashion is not even about clothing anymore. The individual aspects of the code—the variants and the supports—can all be changed, thus changing the signification of the object, such as a dress, and yet the result is still the same. It still gives a reflection of the world. This is the true signification of fashion. It is not found in the fancy clothes or the models walking down the runway, it is the way in which when put into words, fashion can transcend time and become a reflection of the world.
So, sorry Normcore, but there is no such thing as “anti-fashion”. Because as soon as wearing high-waisted, hip exaggerating levis and Birkenstocks was given a name, it was added to the canon fashion. It will forever represent the youngsters living in urban areas, working creative jobs, and drinking overpriced coffee of the 2010s.
By introducing it under the guise of new rhetoric, “flower-like”, “enchantress”, and “smash hit”, even the fact that it was called the “New Look”, Dior’s iconic dress deceived the consumer into thinking that it was, in fact, new. This displaces the particular garment from its fashion genealogy, thus displacing it from the historical and worldly connections. It could be said that such a thing is done in the spirit of capitalism. If the same clothing was described the same way year after year, no one would buy the new styles and thus the fashion industry would fail. However, capitalism aside, this use of rhetoric in expanding the importance of the clothing is something to keep in mind when trying to gain a wider appreciation of a time. Nevertheless, the worldly reflection of the fashion must be taken into account. If it is true that fashion dictates the role of women and if it is true that the crinoline was meant to encourage women to lead a “sedentary life—family life—since their manner of dress had about it nothing that could ever suggest or seem to further the idea of movement”. It thus follows that that was what was expected of women once again with the so-called “New Look”. However, because of the luster of new rhetoric, the history gets forgotten and the fashion seems special to the new era.
Fashion is a much more complex notion than clothing. Even more complex than clothing that serves a higher purpose than protection—beauty, ceremony, or symbolism. For when put into the rhetorical code, a code of meta-language and connotation, fashion is not even about clothing anymore. The individual aspects of the code—the variants and the supports—can all be changed, thus changing the signification of the object, such as a dress, and yet the result is still the same. It still gives a reflection of the world. This is the true signification of fashion. It is not found in the fancy clothes or the models walking down the runway, it is the way in which when put into words, fashion can transcend time and become a reflection of the world.
So, sorry Normcore, but there is no such thing as “anti-fashion”. Because as soon as wearing high-waisted, hip exaggerating levis and Birkenstocks was given a name, it was added to the canon fashion. It will forever represent the youngsters living in urban areas, working creative jobs, and drinking overpriced coffee of the 2010s.
References:
Barthes, Roland. The Fashion System. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983.
Benjamin, Walter. The Arcades Project. Cambridge: First Harvard University Press, 2002.
Barthes, Roland. The Fashion System. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983.
Benjamin, Walter. The Arcades Project. Cambridge: First Harvard University Press, 2002.