Anti-Fashion: The Dissidents of an Industry
The contemporary fashion industry is more democratized and more accessible than it ever has been before. The rise of social media and increasing speed of the fashion machine with fast fashion is most likely to thank for fashion’s escalating attainability. Fashion exists now in a state of “anything goes”, where trends are both more abundant and, yet, less directional than ever and consumers increasingly opt for a no-rules approach to dressing. Fashion has certainly not always been this way and will continue to evolve and adapt to the times, however this is not to say that fashion is without rules and rule-breakers. Woven deep within its own history, adornment has always had two opposing forces dictating styles of dress; these being fashion and anti-fashion.
This essay will explore how anti-fashion has subverted mainstream ideals and practices of adornment throughout history in order to examine anti-fashion’s purpose within an anthropological and theoretical perspective. Before examining the historical and theoretical implications of anti-fashion, this work will look first at the function of clothing and adornment in society as well as define the opposing terms of fashion and anti-fashion. Anti-fashion subverts mainstream fashion ideals by using clothing as a means of demonstrating ideological values, beliefs, and identities, instead of merely as an arbitrary sign of wealth, status, or style. The history of anti-fashion is a long and profound one, however it is clear that the style of dress reacts not only to reigning fashion trends, but societal norms and expectations as well in order to empower its users.
In order to fully understand the history and role of anti-fashion, it is imperative to examine the “specialized form of adornment” (Polhemus 18) that is fashion and why people clothe or adorn themselves in the first place. Polhemus references the studies of Bronislaw Malinowski, an anthropologist who developed the theory of functionalism in regards to dress (Polhemus 18). He states that human beings have certain basic needs in order to survive; shelter, protection, kinship, hygiene, etc. Humans have long built various forms of shelter in response to the necessity of bodily comfort. In this regard, clothing “is seen by the functionalist as a response to purely practical requirements for shelter to sustain bodily comfort” (Polhemus 19).
While functionalism accounts for the purpose of clothing, how then can one account for the purpose of adornment? Polhemus notes the suggestions that adornment serves the purpose of modesty, however when examined within a global, cross-cultural context it is clear that this is not the case. In fact he notes, “The extreme cross-cultural variability of the expressions of modesty in dress makes it perfectly clear that the use of clothing does not rise out of any innate sense of modesty, but that modesty results from customary habits of clothing” (Polhemus 23). Modesty varies in importance and implementation across cultures and this leaves but one other possible function of adornment: the hedonic pursuit of identity. Adornment allows for individual expression as well as social belonging to the collective of one’s choosing (Polhemus 23). In fact, so important is this function that humans are willing to neglect other fundamental needs laid out by the functionalist, such as bodily comfort, movement, and even health (Polhemus 25).
In understanding the human function of clothing and adornment, it is important now to define fashion and anti-fashion as they appear in this work. The terms fashion and anti-fashion, as Polhemus puts it, “are based upon and project alternative concepts and models of time” (Polhemus 31). In J.C. Flugel’s The Psychology of Clothes, he states that
[anti-fashion] changes slowly in time, and its whole value depends, to some extent, upon its permanence; but it varies greatly in space, a special kind of dress tending to be associated with each locality… [fashion], on the other hand, changes very rapidly in time… but it varies comparatively little in space, tending to spread rapidly over all parts of the world which are subject to the same cultural influences (qtd. in Polhemus 29).
Fashion is a unified system of ornamentation that is defined by a rapid and deliberate pattern of style change. By contrast, anti-fashion, the natural antithesis, is a style of dress that remains unchanged and unaffected by fashion. Where fashion’s trends are arbitrary and interpretable, anti-fashion symbolizes values and beliefs that exist outside the organized system of fashion change.
However, this is not to say the anti-fashion styles have never evolved, it is simply that their evolution takes place exponentially more gradually over longer periods of time. While this paper focuses on more ‘Western’ examples of anti-fashion because of their historically closer association with the fashion industry, it is important to note that the most exemplary cases of anti-fashion adornment come from tribe cultures and their rituals of tattooing, scarification, body modification, as well as their traditional and intensely purposeful styles of dress (Polhemus 42).
Though fashion has become the dominant style of dress in contemporary society, as well as the driving force of the industry, it is interesting to note that it was not always the accepted mode. Anti-fashion was the only acceptable option in Europe throughout the Middle Ages and prior due to long-standing sumptuary laws that forbid certain styles of dress from certain classes (Polhemus 33, Hunt 47). The rigid feudal system of the Medieval era made social mobility an impossible feat as a method of keeping the noblemen in power over the serfs (Polhemus 33). This was serviced by clothing in its use to demonstrate status and wealth, or lack thereof. However, prior even to the Renaissance, a socio-cultural shift was brought about by the population decline from the Black Plague, the expense of the Crusades, and other factors that weakened the position of the aristocracy (Polhemus 33). In gaining enough social mobility to establish a sizable middle class, fashion followed suit and people were no longer tied to the previous strict rules of dress. Anti-fashion, having serviced mostly the upper class in keeping their power, was clung onto by the aristocracy but eventually was pushed to the fringe of the fashion industry over the centuries that followed.
Many counter-cultural movements throughout history have provided examples of the push and pull of fashion and anti-fashion. Aileen Ribeiro highlights this phenomena in her chapter “Fashion in the Eighteenth Century” in The Fashion History Reader as having occurred during the French Revolution in a number of ways. As Post-revolution France navigated the waters of democracy, so too did long standing modes of dress become challenged by drastic social change. As a reaction to Robespierre’s long Reign of Terror, there arose styles of dress that both stood in opposition to the grandeur and ornamentation of the Rococo period as well as in solidarity with the victims of the guillotine (Ribeiro 231). French women, in mockery of Robespierre’s Republic of Virtue, wore semi-naked, revealing neoclassical costumes made of simple white muslin that resembled that of the ancient Greeks (Ribeiro 231).
Their male counterparts were known as Les Incroyables similarly pared down the ornamentation of their dress compared to Rococo styles, yet, with the aim to shock French society in response to the Reign of Terror. They utilized deliberately exaggerated costumes that were “as artistically dishevelled as any late 1970s punk costume” (Ribeiro 231). These styles of dress can be characterized as anti-fashion by their opposition to trends and their use to demonstrate political beliefs and values. These modes existed centuries before the word, anti-fashion, was invented or, better yet, the fashion industry as a whole.
Centuries later, a similar example of anti-fashion resulting from socio-cultural shifts as a method of non-verbal resistance occurred in the 1920s. Diana Crane writes, “the dominant feminine ideal of the nineteenth century, the voluptuous matron, had been replaced by the flapper (whom the French called la garconne)” (Crane 349). The flapper arose out of a cultural movement, a “symbolic subversion” as Crane puts it, and eventually was adopted into mainstream culture. But, undeniably, it was born out of anti-fashion. Victorian women had strict rules of dress that both bound and obscured the body, however groups of women during the latter half of the 19th century began dressing alternatively. They began tipping into more masculine clothing, such as men’s button-downs and trousers, which was a clear resistance to the dominant style of dress at the time. Crane says, “this style of dressing represented a kind of symbolic inversion of the dominant message of feminine clothing by associating it with masculine clothing (Crane 348). This gave these clothing items new meanings, such as feminine independence and disrupting social class boundaries, particularly because this style was worn by women of each social class. This movement paved the way for la garconne and their abandonment of the corset and ankle-obscuring hemlines by providing women with a sense of empowerment through dress. What started as a fringe movement became a style that was adopted by the mainstream and defined the 1920s.
Moving forward into the 1940s through the 1950s, this marked the arrival of a number of different subcultures, each with their own anti-fashion aesthetics. Post-war sentiments and the rise of jazz culture led to the creation of groups like the mods, the Teddy Boys, the zoot suits, and the beatniks, as well as many more. Each fringe had its own look and style that associated wearers with the groups values and identities. The zoot suit arose in the early 1940s and was popularized by young Mexican, African-American, and Italian men (McSherry, 2019). It was characterized by its oddly exaggerated proportions and comically oversized fit. Being popular in the jazz scene, it was intended to shock the austere society, especially the upper class (McSherry, 2019). The zoot suit directly inspired the Teddy Boys, who arose in the late 1940s through the 1950s. However, the Teddy’s look was less focused on oversized proportions and, instead, took inspiration from the Dandy style of the 19th century with long jacket tails, drainpipe trousers, and ultra-slim ties (McSherry 2019). Again, this movement was largely popular in the less wealthy, lower classes and aimed to mock the easily-shocked upper class while being heavily related to music culture. Both looks existed outside mainstream fashion trends and symbolized youth, association with jazz, and opposition to the old.
The punk movement of the 1970s, while also being heavily inspired and intertwined with a genre of music, marked the origins of the new age of anti-fashion. Right off the heels of the youthquake of the 1960s, punk began as a deglamorization of rock, turning down the flamboyance while turning up the anarchy (“Rip It to Shreds: A History of Punk and Style.”). The first notions of the movement occurred in New York with musicians like Debbie Harry and the Ramones who began wearing t-shirts held together by safety pins and ripped jeans. However, punk was undeniably created by Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm Mclaren at 430 Kings Road in London with the opening of their clothing shop called “Sex” (Thomas). The punk movement represented a certain intensity of indignation for the previous that was unlike any counter-culture movement that came before. An affinity for vulgarity and anti-materialism defined the movement and guided its style choices. Within a matter of years ripped clothes, severe hair and makeup, and subversive designs were undeniable symbols of the values and beliefs held by the punk movement. It is also an incredible example of anti-fashion in terms of its longevity and continuity. The punk look has remained steadfast and ever present in the fringe of fashion since the 1970s to today.
The 1980s marked the height of anti-fashion infiltrating haute couture as well as a sort-of end to anti-fashion on a large scale. A number of new subcultures arose in the late 70s and early 80s after the height of punk and teenagers had to try harder and harder to find their “tribe” (“How 80s Indie Anti-Fashion Quietly Defined a Generation”). Youth unemployment was at an all time high since the 1930s, making young people unable to afford the latest fashions and, yet, scholarships and grants were making it easier to obtain a higher education (“How 80s Indie Anti-Fashion Quietly Defined a Generation”). This all added up to more simplistic and affordable styles coming into fashion with the youth. At the same time, the fashion industry, as well as society, grew less infatuated with youth culture.
High fashion designers in the 1980s grew obsessed with the female form. Designers such as Gianni Versace and Thierry Mugler created ultra-feminine, ultra-sexy silhouettes paired with excessive, bright colors and became adopted as the fashion trend of the decade (Downs). However, economic turmoil as well as rising political tensions sparked a darker reaction to these trends (Downs, 2019). Anti-fashion fringes searched for something that was raw, unglamourous, even ugly in order to exclude themselves from these male-gaze supporting trends. Deconstruction became the method of rebellion for the decade. Rei Kawakubo was the pioneer of this movement with her avant-garde, utterly oppositional approach to design. Her work showed “a reality in which conventional beauty standards were diluted from the garments” (Perez). Her collections were marked by their dark, monochromatic color palettes, unfinished hems, body obscuring proportions, and subversive sensuality through androgyny. She inspired a myriad of other Japanese designers to follow suit with this anti-fashion approach, as well as a group of designers based in Belgium, who later became known as the Antwerp Six. This group was responsible for bringing deconstructionist anti-fashion throughout Europe.
However, the 1980s also marked the end of the clear demarcation between fashion and anti-fashion. The democratization of fashion occurred as a result of the invention of the computer and social media, as well as the speeding up of the fashion cycle through the increased pressure to release content faster and the fast-fashion industry. This is not to say that anti-fashion no longer exists, however the lines have been blurred between fashion and anti-fashion as a result of the increased fashionalization of subcultures.
With this understanding of the history of anti-fashion, this work will also examine contemporary fashion theory as well as how it applies to the subject of anti-fashion. In her 1987 book, Reading in Detail, Naomi Schor contends that “the denigration of the decorative by critics of fashion betrays a contempt for the feminine since, traditionally, the decorative has been associated with women” (Negrin 512). Furthermore, throughout history ornamentation has been associated closely with female duplicity and decadence, therefore being passed off as trivial, superficial, and non-intellectual (Negrin, 512). All these judgements are reserved for fashion because they were first reserved for women and fashion appears as an extension of that. Karen Hanson elaborates further on this hatred of the feminine in her 1992 article ‘Dressing Down Dressing Up: The Philosophic Fear of Fashion’ by arguing that “the underlying hostility to fashion is a fear of, or discomfort with, the body” (Negrin 512). Western society has long regarded the naked form as both sinful and taboo, therefore can only appreciate artistic expressions when they are disassociated from the body (Negrin 513).
With this limitation in play, other contemporary fashion theorists such as Silverman, Wilson, and Young propose that the most liberating form of dress is one which brings to light the fact that the body is a cultural construction, similar to the work of Kawakubo. They argue that contemporary fashion “denaturalizes the body” as well as the wearer’s “specular identity” and “thus divests all essentialism’’ (Negrin 514). This offers femininity with a certain privilege of aesthetic freedom and “such female imagination has liberating possibilities because it subverts, unsettles the order of respectable, functional rationality in a world where that rationality supports domination” (Young, 208–9; Negrin 514).
How then do these theories apply to anti-fashion? In the specific case of the Deconstructionists of the 1980s, one could argue that, while partaking in the denaturalization of the body, they also fell into the same hatred of what is feminine that was highlighted by Schor. Deconstruction was an unsympathetic reaction to hyper-femininity, that was deemed either uncreative or un-intellectual by the fringe movement and designed in opposition to. At the same time, however, one could argue that with almost every movement of anti-fashion the body becomes performance. For example, “‘with punk, women transgress norms of feminine beauty… the very notion of makeup and hairstyles as an enhancement of what ‘nature’ has provided is gone and the body is treated more radically than ever before as an aspect of performance’” (Negrin 514). The power of anti-fashion here lies in its ability to subvert and empower, as well as relating to one of the main functions of dress that was highlighted in the beginning of this work as being the representation of individuality.
The topic of anti-fashion’s centuries long history as well as its theoretical and anthropological implications is not only an important one in understanding the fashion industry as a whole, but is also extensive and convoluted. Though it would take much too long to recount every instance of anti-fashion after the Medieval era or to examine its impact under each prevailing fashion theory, this work highlights anti-fashion’s most important events throughout history as well as examines the mode of dress under an important feminist lens. The purpose of anti-fashion is to symbolize values, beliefs, and group belonging, however in this pursuit empowers its followers at the same time.
Works Cited:
Crane, Diana. “Clothing Behavior as Non-Verbal Resistance.” The Fashion History Reader, Routledge, 2010, pp. 348–349.
Downs, Betty. “WTF Is ‘Anti-Fashion’?!??” Fashion Coma, 23 Jan. 2020, www.fashioncoma.co.uk/2019/04/14/wtf-is-anti-fashion/.
Flugel J.C., The Psychology of Clothes, Hogarth Press, London, 1930
“How 80s Indie Anti-Fashion Quietly Defined a Generation — Museum of Youth Culture — Google Arts & Culture.” Google, Google, artsandculture.google.com/exhibit/how-80s-indie-anti-fashion-quietly-defined-a-generation-museum-of-youth-culture/7ALSKIRPyBAKJw?hl=en.
Hunt, Alan. “A Short History of Sumptuary Laws.” The Fashion History Reader, Routledge, 2010, p. 47.
McSherry, Frances. “Fashion History.” Dialogue of Civilizations. Fashion History, June 2019, Paris, France. Class Lecture.
Negrin, Llewellyn. “The Self As Image.” The Fashion History Reader, Routledge, 2010, pp. 512–514.
Perez, Laura. “Decoding Rei Kawakubo’s Anti-Fashion.” HIGHXTAR., 30 Apr. 2020, highxtar.com/decoding-rei-kawakubos-anti-fashion/?lang=en.
“Rip It to Shreds: A History of Punk and Style.” Pitchfork, Pitchfork, 25 Oct. 2016, pitchfork.com/features/from-our-partners/9943-rip-it-to-shreds-a-history-of-punk-and-style/.
Polhemus, Ted. Fashion & Anti-Fashion: Exploring Adornment and Dress from an Anthropological Perspective. Thames & Hudson, 2011.
Ribeiro, Aileen. “Fashion in the Eighteenth Century.” The Fashion History Reader, Routledge, 2010.
Thomas, Sophie Saint. “How 70s Punk Became the Blueprint for Alt Fashion (and Subculture’s Doomed Demise).” VICE, 12 Feb. 2016, 11:17am, www.vice.com/en/article/rkq5ax/70s-fashion-vinyl-punk.
