Most studies of fashion are framed from a perspective of idealism, echoing Herbert Simon’s famous claim that design is concerned with “how things ought to be.” Within the realm of dress, this means interactions are primarily seen as symbolic endeavors, most often aiming at communication, seduction and aesthetic markings of class or conspicuous consumption. From such perspective, conflicts expressed in dress are merely aesthetic reflections of other social forces, while fashion is a playful arena trying to escape the limits of the socio-economic domain. If fashion is connected to biological functions, such as sexual selection, the peacock usually becomes the to-go metaphor, and then most often with the connotation of the cumbersome expressions of attraction: corsets, high heels, etc.

Taking cues from political philosophy, this idealist position could be countered with a Realist perspective. From such perspective, fashion would appear as something else, something more messy and cruel, more of a zero-sum game and a quest for power in the form of prestige and popularity. Indeed, it may be the very essence of fashion to be “nasty, brutish, and short” in a true Hobbesian way. Not only does realism move from how things ought to be towards how they are, but dress also becomes a more explicit instrument for domination by processes of selection and rejection. Rather than a tool for seduction, fashion is as much a weapon for rivalry, competition and aesthetic violence, and don’t forget, allure is as much seduction as deceit. The peacock may still be beautiful and seductive, but it is also forcefully protecting its territory from antagonists and rivals. Allure is a game of attraction, but also an aggressively seductive labor of prestige, deception, entrapment and cruelty.

External Link »