artikel fashion as an identity

HOW WE USE FASHION TO CREATE AN IDENTITY
Many of us look into our closet every morning and ponder, “What do I feel like wearing today?” This question can have many different influences on what we wear each day. What we end up wearing depends on how we feel; are we bloated, are we feeling skinny, did we wake up happy, or upset, do we feel rested or are we sleep deprived. Clothes are supposed to give us a sense of security in presenting ourselves to society. They can give us the power to present ourselves as sexy, as feminine, or any other attitude or identity we want. If we leave the house unsure of our fashion choice, most likely we will second guess ourselves all day; pulling, tugging, and adjusting the outfit of choice.
The phrase, “fashion choice”, doesn’t simply imply the articles of clothing that we choose to put on, it also includes the identity we choose to represent for the day; may that identity be a gender identity or a sexual identity is up to the individual. A simple blouse cannot only make us feel good about ourselves; it can also make us feel bad. It can take you from wanting to feel more “sexy”, flirtier, more confident to frumpy, unattractive, and uncomfortable. Many say attitude is everything but I believe clothing and by default fashion is everything, because for many, our clothing can determine the fierce attitude we exude or don’t exude for the day.  So, where do we get these ideas of fashion? Who is our fashion role model? How are social views and constructs of acceptable fashion used to make us feel oppressed or empowered?
To answer these questions we must analyze the fashion model, the fashion industry, and the clothing. In many of the readings the idea of power and how women obtain this power thru clothing is studied and at times scrutinized. The argument here is whether or not women’s clothing should be viewed as oppressive. The study looks at several published articles about clothing in Ms. Magazine over a span of thirty years, and the general consensus is that, at various times in history women’s clothing, especially the skirt, has been viewed as oppressive. However, what also comes up several times is that many women feel like they can dress and wear make-up to feel more empowered, by feeling more like the woman they want to be (Tyler and Paff Ogle, 2007). Which supports my previous claim, that the clothes we wear day to day define how we feel, and reflect our attitudes and moods. The Tyler and Paff Ogle article goes on to notice that one point of view states that dressing to feel empowered is really just another form of oppression, since we are relying on reactions of others to feel the way we want. The other view is that clothing is put together by women in a very well thought out fashion and is in their control (Tyler and Paff Ogle, 2007).
Next, we must look at how we as a society use the fashion model as a teacher (Dwyer, 2006), and our grading scale for beauty and sexuality (Ashmore, et. Al, 1996). At the core of these aspects is the body. The body, to some is a biologically predetermined entity. It has its own agency, and some things are natural while others are not natural and have been adapted from societal influences. To many fashion designers, I would argue, the body is just a canvas; a canvas that has no natural barriers and is there for the designer to control and manipulate however they see fit. Fashion designers find inspiration in daily things surrounding them and make interpretations of what they see and put it into their clothing. They may have no identity or gender in mind when they find inspiration say, in their cats blue eyes, like Karl Lagerfeld’s spring 2012 collection. Although for anyone to wear their works of art, identity and gender must be assigned at some point to the clothing, and a template of the idealistic gendered body is used as the display.
Both of these are controlled by society, based off of a somewhat consistent rating system of attractiveness (Ashmore, et. Al, 1996). Clothing just like levels of female attractiveness can be put into categories: Sexy, feminine, and trendy. Obviously there are many more categories and sub-categories but I think these three can be used the most to make the arguments of how clothes can be used for a sense of control or for oppression. In the first two pictures below, I think, exude a sense of power and sex appeal. The first photo is a purple satin suit; the posture of the model insinuates an air of confidence and arrogance. The suit itself is traditionally thought of as a symbol of power, and in this case the suit is form fitting and sleek suggesting some consideration for sex appeal, the shoulders are padded a little giving off the illusion of sharp powerful edges, suggesting that sex and power coexist together. The models hair is pulled back, so a sense of femininity is lost, and what is left is a sexy power hungry form. The second is a photo fashion designer Tom Ford surrounded by his masterpieces. Again the models stances exude a flaunting of arrogance, which I have always associated with power, the notion that you can do anything. The outfits are form fitting, yet detailed in a way that flaunts control and power, even the lighting and colors suggest an old world gangster appeal. The third and fourth photographs are pieces done by Marc Jacobs, a designer known for whimsical fantasy pieces or trendy statements, and feminine reinventions of the 40’s and 50’s. Marc Jacobs encourages women to put on “outfits” to embody the woman you want to be or the character you feel you aught to be.
Now, I have very much played up these four photos trying to persuade my reader that clothing is made to empower women, we have various fashions that will let us exude any feeling or personality that we want. We can be sexy, fierce, whimsy, alternative, retro, and feminine. We have the choice to combine many of these categories to create our own style and identity.  What I left out was criticism of the canvas, or the models themselves. I mentioned the attitudes the models give off but that’s really in an effort to play up the clothes, they tell the story that the designers want them to. The clothes fit the models well and suggest in doing so a perfect body type. The model is put on display as a selling tool. Imagine the same purple satin suit on a somewhat frumpy, out of shape woman. Would it tell the same story? Would it sell? The picture wants you to see sex and power, and the model’s thin physique lets us see that, given a bigger body type, we might judge her flaws and miss the statement that is trying to be told.
Therefore, this brings the fashion model under scrutiny, as an oppressive symbol, or potentially as a powerful and positive influence. The female fashion model is what society views as a 10. However, she is under constant scrutiny by many feminists, and by the fashion industry. Many women say she is too thin, while the fashion industry might say that the same model is either perfect or too curvy. She endures the positive and the negative, and she is either pleasurable or not, but never both (Dwyer, 2006). She can be a teacher and role model to our youth seen as desirable, but many see her influence as offensive. She can be damaging to young girls, giving many young girls body dimorphic disorders, and an unrealistic image of what they “should” look like. In contrast she can be seen as a way for girls to emulate “a feminine fantasy”, and she can be fun, simply a way to play a character and put on various masks of femininity, using her as a way to undermine restrictive scripts of femininity that are put in place by a patriarchal society (Dwyer, 2006). Both arguments have validity.  One flaunts the different masks of femininity that puts power in women’s hands. We are not conforming but building and molding ourselves into whatever we want, even if that identity could be viewed as ambiguous. The other is a fear of obsessive infatuation with the models body, causing a deep desire to look the same, which can become harmful.
In different ways the fashion industry can be thought of as unassuming and in a certain aspect, non-judgmental. I think it is one of the only capitalistic industries that have adapted the quickest to what  “forecasts” predict. They see what colors are trending, and use that to design entire collections of clothing. They also see what the world sees as attractive and gives us visually appealing models to wear stunning clothing. What the industry does to bend social norms is encourage the abnormal, and in doing so pushes the public to accept often-controversial trends or sexual identities. To quote a legend in the fashion industry, Karl Lagerfeld has said, “There is no beauty without strangeness”. The industry seeks out the unique and wants to find new ways to push societal barriers. The ways the body can display sex, femininity, masculinity, or ambiguity, are often explored and played with by the fashion world.
We use fashion as a tool, it helps us evolve and shift our physical and emotional identities, and fuels our human need to mask our true selves allowing us to play “parts” in society. The fashion industry gives us with these tools, providing us with ways to express our sexuality, femininity, and our day-to-day feelings. Our fashion identity is formed through social scripts, and fashion is there to aid us in our character choice. Fashion is a tool used by the individual to drive the unique identity of every person, the road can be treacherous, filled with missteps and regret, but the ride can be rewarding if the outcome proves positive and self-fulfilling.