Menu

Fashion Observed


Trend observations with a sociological eye from afar...

by Darryl S. Warren  

Follow  on Twitter:         @FashionObserved
              on Instagram:   @fashion_observed_ 
              on Facebook:      /FashionObserved
              on Pinterest:      /FashionObserved

While President Obama learned he was to be re-elected, the First Lady made a bold move: to re-wear a dress. For the general public this may not seem so significant, but for those in fashion this is a huge statement, and it’s important to understand just how important this seemingly innocuous decision can be.

In the United States, the First Lady holds a unique position of celebrity.  The power of celebrity as an influence in culture is nothing new; for decades each First Lady occupies a special place with regards to fashion and trends when media deems them fit to represent. Be it the end of bustles in dresses due to fashion influence by Frances Cleveland;  Mamie Eisenhower in the shoulder-baring fabric flaring New Look gowns; pillbox hats, leopard coats or three-quarter sleeves of smart suits worn by Jacqueline Onassis; the penchant for red from Nancy Reagan, a First Lady that is admired will find followers.  The same can be held to the contrary; if a First Lady does not find favor her style statements can be her undoing. Elanor Roosevelt used to wear a hair net when rushing about while the constant ridicule of Hillary Clinton’s hairstyles and pantsuits became fodder for what not to wear on a large scale.

The power of celebrity has long been utilized to sway the purchasing decisions of the public, and we’ve only seen this recognition in the last few decades increase to the point where celebrities have created entire product lines to capitalize on their “brand”. A peek at the roster for fashion week shows no shortage of celebrities entering into the lucrative fashion market riding on their name to maximize profit. Some find success (Gwen Steffani and The Olsen Twins) while others find failure (Kanye West and Linsday Lohan during her trial at Ungaro). But the position of First Lady has a slightly different aura compared to the conventional celebrity: broader accessibility.

When a First Lady finds favor with the public, she has the opportunity to make an impact on the greater society, as do all women married into seats of power (Princess Diana, for example) who are admired. This, of course, is not a fact wasted on neither the current First Lady nor the people who are part of the White House team. Ideas such as creating an organic garden or wearing affordable garments in media appearances are well-calculated public initiatives to encourage the public into a new direction. One that needs addressing right now is entirely fiscal.

Our culture has long been a supporter of consumption. Careful review of pop culture such as television programming shows sit-coms where the characters seem to have an endless wardrobe budget, wearing different clothes in every episode. There are very few shows where wardrobe does not bring variety into the format. Musicians have a close relationship with fashion as well, coupling their relevance with their wardrobe choices, be it for their products or when performing.  Even newscasters play the fashion game, displaying an envious variety that is beyond realistic expectations of the average consumer.

Fast fashion has resulted from our demand to be complicit in this lifestyle direction as we seek to emulate this signal of success. Unfortunately, it has resulted in a level of consumption that adds to our landfills and steers the public into irresponsible spending habits.  In Canada, personal debt has reached its highest levels ever growing the fastest in the past two years to an average of $35,000-$40,000 per person. In the USA, the tab on personal debt has reached $2.48 trillion and this doesn’t include mortgages. Blame this on our fear of poverty; we have stigmatized poverty to such a degree that we are inadvertently making ourselves poor to maintain an image of being anything but. Consumption levels are making people cash poor, and these need to change.  And who better to initiate change than those who lead by example?

And so this seeming innocuous move by First lady Michelle Obama was a truly well-calculated statement to the public to give it permission to wear the same dress twice. If someone in her position can do this, is it not good enough for the rest of the public? And if people can re-wear clothes, then they can bow out of the race with dignity and revisit their spending habits. And this clear demonstration is one that the fashion industry is taking careful note of. Her influence will be emulated by many average women, and this will have an impact on how the fashion industry makes its profit.

This, in line with more mend-and-make do articles, increases in reworked clothing and investment spending versus pure consumption is the most public signal that our generation is making a shift. And that is why it’s such a big deal that the First lady decided to wear her Michael Kors dress again. It is a very, very big deal.

Go Back

Post a Comment


Post a Comment
Created using the new Bravenet Siteblocks builder. (Report Abuse)