What happens when items of clothing become a commodity instead of a vehicle of self-expression? When certain components come to signal being ârichâ or âpoorâ? When retail outlets designed to make clothing more attainable become inaccessible for the very groups they were destined to help?Â
It is undeniable that the clothes we wear can reflect the type of person we are. Fashion is a way to reveal our personalities: our quirks and aesthetics. Clothes are a tool in which our internal selves can become externalised, providing us with a creative outlet of expression. Whether we choose to prioritise comfort over individuality, or make a bold statement over simplicity, what we decide to wear can signify a plethora of things. Clothes are subjective items that can be viewed and worn in contrasting lights.
The phenomenon of clothing as a class-signifier stems from the intrinsic and historical systemic social divide between classes.There is no question that this is the reality of our current society. This is a time and space in which the lower-classes are becoming the victims of disenfranchisement and marginalisation, yet again.Â
On social media platforms such as Instagram and Tiktok, we see people sharing hauls of clothing items bought from charity shops. This has become an act termed and referred to as âthriftingâ, in which used items are sold for lower prices in order to simultaneously donate the profit to an important cause as well as making clothing more accessible for the less affluent. But, it is an act that has become popularised, commodified, and ultimately, unobtainable for the groups who once relied on clothes at an affordable price.
These items are now being coined as âvintageâ, âenvironmentally-friendlyâ and âtrendyâ by the upper-class who can afford them due to their rise in prices after their increase in popularity amongst these groups. The working-class are hindered from attaining these once inexpensive items because of the upper-classâ purchasing of them. These items and the establishments they are sold from were once looked down upon by the people who now buy and frequent them due to their inherent class prejudice and the negative classist connotations associated with these clothes and shops. Now, however, they are desired, and anyone who does not possess items from these means is critiqued.
Not only are these clothes now beyond access for the working-class, they are also deemed politically and environmentally correct because of their lack of fast-fashion heritage. Yet, because of the inflation of prices in thrift shops, the lower-class have no option but to buy from fast-fashion companies because of their cheap prices. Although these businesses are undoubtedly unethical, some groups do not have a choice but to purchase from them. Because of the inflation of secondhand clothing, the âlower-classâ may feel the urge to prove something by their clothing items and style, an overcompensation that is the direct result of the actions of the higher-class. Ironically, it is the upper-class who reproach the use of fast-fashion brands, despite their over-use of the ethical and affordable shops and their subsequent rise in prices, being the reason for it.
It is this irony that brings to light the extent of the hypocrisy of the upper-class and the fragility of their beliefs. Thrift shops were once frowned upon, and now they are admired. The clothes sold there were once âchavvyâ, and now they are âcool.â These changes in views do not emphasise the moral-righteousness of the upper-class, but rather highlight the significance the working class have on fashion. The richâs use of these establishments and items simply reflects their leeching off the backs of the creativity of the poor. The working-classâ disadvantages become advantages because of their stylistic uniqueness, and it is this artistry that the upper-class want to claim by reinventing working-class fashion as theirs.
This leeching of style transcends clothes and becomes political. The higher-class want to embody the working-class aesthetic so much so that they adopt a false persona. They pretend that they are not as privileged as they are because they think it will make them fit in better. They boast their riches and in the same breath pretend to be âbrokeâ. They think that by cosplaying as being less advantaged, they will become more relatable and consequently more likeable and personable, because the marginalized working-class count for the majority of society. They desire to fit in with groups that have historically been oppressed for their working-class background because it gives them a sense of substance and singularity that they lack due to their privilege.Â
The upper-classâ stark lack of awareness of the true ordeals of working-class culture and life posits them as performative. They fail to understand that their working-class cosplay is problematic because the entirety of the world is built around rich peopleâs lives. They resent their privilege because it denies them the right to insert themselves in certain conversations and accentuates their non-reliability. Their rife use of clothing stores designed to alleviate the financial burden of the working-class points to their gap in empathy, awareness and understanding towards those in more disenfranchised class positions.
It is this behaviour that results in their lack of âswagâ by performing as a politically aware person whilst continuously enabling harmful classist rhetoric that perpetuates class differences. âSwagâ is more than the clothes one wears. It is the integrity and consideration one has. It is the acknowledgement one has of their privilege which is used to remove difference and promote inclusion. âSwagâ is not simply about keeping up with the latest trends because they are popular. Being âswagâ is an authentic embodiment of style that is shaped by the lived experience and culture of an individual that gives them a uniqueness and allows them to express themselves. âSwagâ is not the exploitation and ignorance of working-class culture that one steals in the name of fashion.