I have been pondering this idea of individuality or individualism under the capitalist system. The idea came to me after watching a news broadcast of shoppers fighting over television sets on Black Friday in the U.S.
What is individuality? Is it the way one dresses? Is it how we perceive our choices of outer decor to be ‘outlandish” or “rebellious?” According to every person living in the West born after 1970, including myself, this is the case for individuality or individual expression. We all know where this obsession with ourselves leads – oh, right…to everyone else in the world being exploited and hungry.
Most ideas of ‘style’, with an exception to a few subcultures that are counter-hegemonic, such as the punk subculture in the late 1970s and early 1980s, are based around capitalist principles. Think every single trend to come out of the fashion industry. Think every celebrity ‘trend’ that has come and gone.
We purchase decorations, ones that not only protect us from the elements, the original purpose of clothing, to adorn ourselves in ways we see as “unique.” We want to separate ourselves from our community. I’m not sure why, but we do. Most of the time, the uniqueness is only experienced in small groups of people, ex. the hallways in a high school.
Since the majority of our clothes, shoe-wear and other fashionable commodities are all mass produced, we need to really question our idea of ‘individualism.’ These clothes are being worn and no one is really making any “individual” statements about who they are as human beings, yet they believe they are doing so. We believe that the way we dress somehow affects who we are as human beings. To get rid of this preconceived notion is incredibly difficult; I’m having a tough time unlearning these habitual judgments.
But I digress, the promotion of consumption leads to more consumption – the fact that every single person believes that they dress or decorate themselves in a way that is “unique” is astonishing. I look back on my so-called ‘rebellious’ high school years, by ‘rebellious’ I mean of course, dressing in ways my parents did not approve of
Oh, how counter-hegemonic I was!
Not.
I still found myself, even through the early years of college, struggling with my identity and building my self-worth and self-image around material wealth. The reason this has come to my mind is because, as of late, I have decided to reject consumerism as much as I possibly can. Not simply because I’m sick of it, but because I’m sick of being in denial about the people and planet I have been hurting while taking part in the majority of it. This isn’t to say that I’m not buying ANY commodities, or shopping at any retail stores, this is almost impossible under capitalism. I am merely stating that I am taking a step back and re-examining where I buy things, how these things are made and what they mean. I am tired of basing my self-worth on such shallow notions of happiness and beauty. I am tired of being assessed by my clothing and appearance, rather than my personality and ideas.
Materials, essentially, mean nothing.
This is my latest revelation. Clothing, jewellery, hats, gadgets, cars and shoes do not define me as an individual. I can go to class wearing gold necklaces in an attempt to appear a certain way, but I won’t be any less of who I was before I put that necklace on. If I dye my hair pink, I’m not revolting against the government; the hair dye product was made by a company that does not care about human health or corporate integrity – oxymoron, I know. All I am affirming is my love and dedication to maintaining an unequal and unfair system.
So, where does this leave me? Well, slightly scared but still hopeful. Scared because I am trying to leave something that has been so prominent in defining who I am – fashion and consumption do not define me. Why must I attempt to tell the world who I am through a piece of material made in a sweatshop by a child or a woman who hasn’t slept in days? That illustrates a lot about me and my lack of regard for other human beings in order to build up my fantasy of individuality.
Why do we base this conception of “individualism” on the way we shop, or rather consume, materials? Since when did “being an individual” mean “being a greedy, self-absorbed consumer who is oblivious to any implications?”
I’m personally sick of being that kind of person. I have decided to free myself from the bondage of self-obsessed ‘fashion’ trends and literally wearing the sweat of women and children. This sweat does not make me “individual” or “unique” or even “rebellious” It makes me conform to everything the money hungry fat cats want. It makes me a tool of exploitation, a smiling, foolish tool. Why do we base our apparent individual identities on such inhumane collections of materials? No one needs 6 pairs of shoes or 3 cars. No one needs to smear makeup all over their face, every single day of the year, so they can appear “unique” or “beautiful.”
We are all unique. It says so in our very complex DNA. It says so in our ideas about the world and the way we treat other human beings.
So, you wear your fur coats to show how fashion-forward you are. But who perceives you this way? Who creates these myths of “beauty” and “fashion?” Oh, right…the white supremacist men that run the fashion industry. Of course, they have your best interests in mind. Indeed, the industry based on the dehumanisation and commodification of nearly everything really cares about their customers. They are fooling the public into believing anyone gives a hoot about some upper class, greedy clothing company’s standards of what’s hottt. After all, improving your outer appearance will ultimately make you more fulfilled, correct? It will somehow fill all the voids in your life. It will make you happy. This accumulation of materials will really show people how unique you must be. In the meantime, while you sift through fashion magazines that encourage women to starve and kill themselves and while you spend hours walking in a shopping mall to buy fur coats, take a chance to thank the animal that was slaughtered to suit your egotistical idea of “individuality.” Last time I checked expressing your individuality did not need money, nor did it need the accumulation of material wealth.
I refuse to allow myself to succumb to self-centered behaviour to improve my idea of who I am, or who I should become. None of these things matter. If you lost everything in a fire – what would you have? Just you and the people you love (one can hope) and in the West, that’s simply not enough anymore.
I think you leave out an important note about style - we can buy items that are mass produced, but truly the maverick already knows that - it's how we "arrange" and curate our look that begins to take on an element of individuality. Especially those that focus on wearing vintage - the idea might be a mass production, but if you know the industry well, it's no secret that the majority of vintage isn't one of a kind but finding two pieces is rare. It's perhaps the last outlet to really have the potential to define individuality.
ReplyDeleteAnd while shedding any meaning from clothing is no doubt noble but dress, in a capitalist society, can actually yield much more knowledge than sitting down for a ten minute conversation over that commercialized coffee. It's important discourse, we've constructed a society that places importance on dress, therefore it's up to us to define the meaning. Even our dissent - think minimalism, "plain" clothing, etc. can be read.
Furthermore, I think women do receive more chances for this last part, about being "read" but men are not excluded either. The are just as much sorted - think about the fit of jeans, even eyewear, etc. So much potential lies in the things we willfully choose to costume ourselves with - not all of it has to be seen as negative, but it is a rather rife starting point rich with suggestion.
Also - it's important to note that Punk really emerges yes, as a revolt capitalism but the problem is exactly that - it asserts Capitalism by gratifying it through revolt. Very tricky cycle to maneuver - like I noted in the previous comment, even dissenting is an exertion of capitalism.
ReplyDeleteinteresting. i do see what you mean by vintage clothing - i do want to add that i do see a difference between one's style that they have made for themselves and fashion that is sold to them.
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to say that this was a very interesting post, it's given me lots to think about! I'd like to think there are ways to look unique without supporting corporations--I shop at used/thrift stores, mostly, although someone had to originally buy that garment from the manufacturer. It's difficult when people are judged so quickly on appearances. People want to evaluate you in a split second to see what "scene" you're in. I feel like if I don't express my personality through my appearance, people will get the wrong impression of me. But at the same time, I think it's disturbing that consumerism is seen as a path to individuality. (I guess consumerism is seen as the path to everything.)
ReplyDeleteIly,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad it's given you a lot to think about - i'm still thinking about it and trying really understand everything that goes into how i define myself. It's strange and disturbing to look deep, i think, has been for me anyway.
I know what you mean though, I shop vintage, too. I like vintage clothing, it's wonderful, at least with second hand, you're not directly buying into the capital game for your clothes. That's how I view it, but it's going to be a big change for me to get 100% of my clothes second hand.
I know what you mean about the dilemma with expressing personality through your clothes - i feel the same way and it confuses the hell out of me!
I had a lot of typo's in my previous posts, I apologize for that - they were written in haste. What I meant to imply is that really blogs like The Sartorialist and Face Hunter would not be popular if style wasn't as important as the clothes themselves. It doesn't matter if you're using old or new, capitalism allows the user to mold themselves accordingly. You either buy it or you don't. The thing is that no matter what you do, you're still embedded in it, which again, affirms its control.
ReplyDeletePlus, again, you're imposing just as many standards as they are by choosing not to partake. This is a bit why I find a lot of feminism unsettling - we want to point fingers at women who wear high heels and invalidate their choices and no doubt, that is a conscious declaration on their part of compliance, but we're still making a superficial judgment and that is exactly still the root of the modern problem. Until we get past clothing as indicative as categorical, we can't find a solution. It's sort of ironic to me too that something like high heels that men create and wear for horse riding become appropriated by women and end up in this fiasco.
Individuality is an illusion, but we still have the tools to re-create and that is the beauty of realizing potential in a Capitalist, Western society.