^{Giuppy d’Aura is a lecturer at Istituto Marangoni School of Fashion (UK). He completed a BA and an MA in Film Studies at Università Roma Tre, followed by a second MA in History of Fashion at London College of Fashion and is currently studying for an MSc in Psychology at Birkbeck University. He worked as head of research and author of the interviews in Luca Guadagnino's documentary "Ferragamo: shoemaker of Dreams" (2020), and his peer-reviewed publications focus on the relationships between fashion and art, fashion and modernity, and fashion trends.}

 

In today’s political landscape, great focus is placed on what is commonly referred to as “identity politics.” This approach conflates two aspects that do not usually belong together: identity, which is deeply intimate, and politics, which has traditionally been a general, public matter. Clothes occupy the liminal space between the intimacy of an individual and their representation in society; for this reason, it is particularly interesting to see how fashion is intertwined in both identity and politics.

An increasingly abused platitude about fashion is that it amounts to “self-expression.” If proof is needed, try asking a group of young design students for their definition of fashion. Today, fashion is also used to convey political messages, some of which belong to the politics of identity and of the aforementioned Self. However, the more I have studied the domain of fashion, its meaning in society, and its nature, the less it appears to me to be an efficient tool to communicate both the Self and one’s political beliefs. What people are really defining when invoking self-expression is a certain use of garments rather than the very nature and function of fashion; for these reasons, both the concept of “self” and the communication potential of fashion call for further analysis. This contemporary attitude reveals liberal societies’ obsession with identity and individuality in its most extreme form: individualism. I find myself needing to question this narrative by investigating how the crumbling of 20th-century politics and the emerging of a postmodern sensibility have led to a re-consideration of dress and have given fashion a new, albeit unfulfillable task: representing certain intimate features of the wearer's personality. I also try to address two fundamental matters deeply rooted in the postmodern liberal discourse: I begin by defining the Self and understanding whether or not it is accessible to the individual, and then analyzing the communication potential of fashion tout-court. There seems to be a silent agreement that fashion expresses precise individual, political, and societal values, but can we trust this assumption?

Political shifts, identity politics, fashion

In today's public discourse, the narrative of the essentiality of the Self often overlaps with its opposite: social constructivism. Conservative author Douglas Murray has written about the paradox whereby a left-wing activist may describe transgender identity as an immutable and innate characteristic, and, simultaneously, being a cisgender woman as a social construct.[1] Identity is increasingly exploited by people and parties on both sides, and it is probably one of the most contentious and divisive topics within the public political discourse.

But how did the Self become such a critical political category today? Postmodern sensibilities played an essential role in radicalizing the concept of individuality. As claimed by Lyotard, [2] the disillusionment towards Master Narratives such as Marxism during the second half of the 20th century is at the very base of Postmodernism. This process is conventionally seen to have culminated in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, when it became clear that the Soviet experience—a Master Narrative still rooted in Modern values—had been deeply unsuccessful. It was also during the 1980s that the left wing started to reorganize itself around a new principle, shifting its discourse from the defense of the working class to the empowerment of identities and minorities. This is one of the elements that has, slowly but progressively, formed what we call today “identity politics.” In the spirit of postmodern morals, the diverse mass that constituted the working class and encompassed people of all sexes and races, splintered into identity groups—race, sexual orientation, gender, and so on. Class was no longer seen as the main bond for all the oppressed. From the point of view of the traditional Left, the irony of this is evident: if the dividing line stops being class, the opposition is no longer between rich and poor but between, let's say, Blacks and Whites, or straights and gays. And these identity groups should supposedly have the same needs and priorities, even if within those categories some individuals have far more financial possibilities than others. The large working-class mass stopped being the Left’s priority, and progressively disintegrated within its discourse. The Master Narratives that informed Modernity met the same fate. 

One is tempted to think that some left-wing politicians hoped that addressing many minorities could grant the same success as addressing one single, albeit vast, working class. However, in politics, the sum of fragmented clusters of voters is often smaller than expected. In other words, the whole is less than the sum of its parts. What the Left underestimated is that not all voters within a group have the same priorities; furthermore, different groups may have conflicting interests, and it is sometimes difficult to keep them together. How can a party in the West address the values of conservative Muslim immigrants and, at the same time, the liberal values of young women or gays? This synthesis is undoubtedly challenging to achieve.

The emphasis on individualism is the extreme outcome of the fragmentation of social classes; in other words, groups have been atomized, leaving individuals loosely connected. In our social-media-dominated society, every subject demands to be unique and uniquely successful. Every individual is the carrier of a personal truth, while the concept of a universal Truth has also melted into thin air for the sake of individual, fragmented 'lived experiences.' It is from this confusion and lack of structure that the incestuous marriage between capitalism and the relics of the Left originated. Fashion brands have done a fantastic job capitalizing on this quest for truth amongst their clients, who today tend to be wealthy, young, urban, and embracing of liberal values with all their contradictions. The marketing strategies adopted by the most successful brands rely on discourses that seem to resonate with the demographics mentioned above. Inclusivity, diversity, freedom, and sustainability take center stage, even if they often operate only at a communication level. Sustainability, for instance, is virtually incompatible with a business that encourages clients to buy one new collection every six months, and where brands are expected to be on a steady path of financial growth. Nevertheless, if fashion brands wish to succeed among the younger generations, they are required to address the supposed moral values of their target consumer. In capitalist society, morality is yet another commodity to sell. I believe it is precisely for this reason that the most successful maisons upholster their communication with the narrative of self-expression. The new frontier of capitalism today, as noted by Slavoj Zizek, is to sell to clients both the problem and—included in the price—its solution. [3] This is particularly visible in the case of fashion, where, by virtue of its price and exclusivity, class and social inequalities are rendered more visible; nevertheless, brands offer an image of diversity, empowerment of individuality, and, most ironically, inclusivity.