Classy or Classist

Classism is rife throughout much of the world, but in fashion, it’s especially prevalent. The way we choose to dress is an expression of ourselves, and those with more money have a far wider variety of options at their disposal. On the one hand, branding can be an ostentatious display of wealth, or at least of money spent on a piece. On the other, higher quality knits, cuts, and fabrics tend to look better and, in turn, are perceived as more expensive. The issue boils down to how people who are considered as dressing ‘well’ or ‘poorly’ are viewed by society. People have a tendency to associate stylishness with wealth and the lack of it with poverty. As these stereotypes persist, divisions between the less well-off members of society and their wealthier counterparts only grow. In essence, fashion increases the idolization of the rich by highlighting the gaps of society.

Article by DEVAN SINGH

Perhaps the largest contributor to the classist undertones of fashion is branding. A white tee shirt with a Levi’s graphic costs under $20, while an equivalent piece from Gucci costs over $450. Of course, the make of the tee may differ, but certainly not at a differential as steep as $430. The average person may not know the specific difference in price between the two items, but they will most definitely associate the Gucci shirt with wealth. To understand the problem at its core, it’s important to step back and ask what purposes branding actually serves. For the consumer, it could be a display of brand loyalty, appreciation for design, or, most topically, wealth. For the creator, it can be a means of increasing brand awareness or reputation. Designers like Gucci tend to be worn by those who spend more money on clothing in general, and, regardless of whether a person wearing a Gucci tee is dressed ‘well,’ the simple act of them wearing Gucci pieces in conjunction with other expensive items fosters the exclusive and expensive reputation of the brand. Implicitly, people begin to view companies like Levi’s as inferior, for these brands lack the status that comes with money.

Clothing without labels or logos can just as easily feed into classism. A cashmere Hermes scarf is likely to look significantly better than a wool one from Zara, as would a pair of APC jeans vs their Gap counterparts, or an Acne sweater compared to a Uniqlo one. By virtue of having means, wealthier people can simply access better looking clothes than their less wealthy peers. One might counter that the well-off can also access better goods of any kind. Fashion, however, is a uniquely overt and personal activity. For instance, owning a nice home that entertains a few close friends and guests is different from wearing a Burberry pea-coat that impacts passersby and friends alike. Similarly, people often notice when a person is dressed in cheaper clothing. Because the divide between inexpensive and expensive clothing is frequently apparent and discernible, it reinforces the gap in the perception of the poor and the rich. Fashion can, in this respect, increase the degree to which people revere the rich and resent the poor.

Though the problem of classism can never truly be eliminated from the fashion industry, certain actions can be taken to lessen it. For one, branding can be toned down, and more deeply examined. A conscious consumer could still buy clothing at a higher price point, but opt for pieces which are less overtly labelled. Even more effectively, clothing could be made more accessible. Yes, price will always be an inhibiting factor in who can buy what, but reducing - where possible - the costs of high-quality brands could benefit the industry as a whole through the establishment of a broader consumer base. In the end, fashion is about self-expression, and a more tenacious industry is one in which people can express themselves with as few barriers to expression as possible.