When populations experience an embarrassing divide in the division of wealth and the lower economic portion reaches a point of suffering, the last thing they want to see is the higher economic portion not only doing well but living extravagantly. Increasingly in history, blind excess has always succumbed to an eventual uprising by a frustrated public to dismantle and punish the apathetic. The lack of involvement to rectify the scenario that creates or adds to disparaging conditions is the fuel that lends strength to such reactions such as the apathetic senseless rioting that occurs when a marginalized population feels abandoned and disconnected, especially when where poverty is a factor.  Fashion, and of course the most opulent expressions of such, immediately takes a back seat as the excesses, once something to dream of and aspire to, become vulgar and representational of the very thing the population felt oppressed by.

We have seen this as our democracies have evolved with increasingly sophisticated means of communication to unify opinion more readily. As the effects of economic austerity become more apparent, every detail associated with opulence is dialled down lest it incur a wrath similar to that experienced in 18^th century France. It is the cautiousness and sensitivity exercised by both the wearers and creators of fashion who pay heed and respond in kind regardless of whether the impetus is sensitivity or survival.

Recently, especially after the near miss navigated through the American Congress concerning their debt ceiling, displeasure for cooperation and self-servitude for special interests captured the attention of some very high profile and ultra wealthy individuals (Warren Buffet and Howard Schultz) who vocalized their displeasure in the current situation as well as making bold suggestions. Mr. Buffet recommended the immediate raising of taxes (much lower in the USA for the top 2%) while stating that he and his equals no longer need “coddling” and are quite willing to do their part to contribute, especially when there are those of less means who are doing proportionally more of their share. Mr. Schultz indicated that the loss of faith in their public servants was due to their drive for re-election and focus on campaign contribution and wants to spearhead a drive to “cut them off” until they can start putting the interests of the public ahead of their own greed.

The display of conscience, social responsibility and utilizing one’s station to make an impact is unique in that the very people who would not normally speak out and who are demonized by a fearful and envious public for their accumulation of wealth are actually taking a rather public stand to support public opinion and instigate change, something the public has not seen at this level for a long time.

Vocal social responsibility from that high up on the food chain is not new to fashion, though. Katherine Hamnett and Vivienne Westwood have both used their position and elevated profile to support causes and ideologies that have little to do with clothes and everything to do with humanity and the environment. It is the utilization of their station to do more than to further personal aims that has made their efforts all the more admirable.

How will the political events of the USA affect fashion? It depends on the longer-term effects of the economic global turmoil. Should there be a turnaround we will continue to enjoy the celebration of detail and ornamentation we continually support. Should the public’s opinion over ostentation become more negative and vociferous, we can expect things to simplify accordingly. It happened in the early 90s when matters reverted to minimalism. It didn’t make sense to flash bling when the unemployment rate was high. It was vulgar then and it could become vulgar in the future (or at least well-kept behind closed doors).

Also, our declarations can become more vocal in our casual garments and ornamentation as those elements can better encourage ideological consensus. This happened in the war years when the uniform and anything associated with the war effort was worn with pride or in the 60s and the 80s when there were causes to support with bold slogans shouting out our beliefs across our chest.

As well, we have to factor in the type of global discord we are experiencing now, with flare-ups in the UK, Greece, Spain, the Middle East and even recently in, of all places, Vancouver. Such international tension and strife was rampant in the 30s and 60s, and social congruence helps propel inspiration. The SS 2012 collections will certainly reveal where the designers are looking and the 2012 Resort collections have already given many clues. And this much we know: the hybrid of current political and economic events are on our minds.

As for displays of social conscience, our enlightened stance coupled with better dialogue over more sophisticated communication channels is supporting a generation of social responsibility with many gradients of scale in both effort and impact. There are some who may argue that this is all for publicity, and given our history of deceptive avarice it is hard to dispute those suspicions. But any action to help those who are in greater need is far better than being aware while waiting for someone else to act.

With our society willing to take up the slack of bias media through social networking to more readily expose disingenuous efforts and highlight the work that needs to be done, perhaps we can start to see action from those most able to afford to do so, be it time, resources, funds or character. That there is recognition from those in higher socioeconomic stations to demand responsibility, common sense and compassion is encouraging. It is with hope that those same people in power who can afford a voice will take a cue from those who are already enacting change through action. Realization of that aspiration should always be fashionable.