Desire and Ritual : A Look into Fashion's Irrationality

Fashion is often related to excess and constituted as something luxurious and not of necessity; however, when we deny the value in fashion’s irrationality, we are dismissing its roots in mythos, desire and ritual. In doing so, we undermine the many ways in which fashion can be perceived and experienced, and also how fashion’s relation to the feminine has particularly exposed a negative connotation surrounding the irrational. Through an analysis of this irrationality that is so heavily linked in the discourse of fashion, we come closer to comprehending fashion’s origins, purposes and ultimately how the use of the term ‘irrational’ is not necessarily something malignant.

Similar to art and theatre, fashion is birthed from expression and a deep desire to display cultural values and ideas. It is unjust to submit fashion as something trivial and relating to unnecessary expenditure without reading into why we think this to begin with. Our conceptions of fashion as adornment have historical meanings that can still be found in its modern use. Elizabeth Wilson in her book Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity speaks to the ways in which fashion historically relates to the fantastic by explaining,

Anthropological discussion of dress tends to blur the distinctions between adornment, clothing and fashion, but is interestingly because when we look at fashion through anthropological spectacles we can see this it is closely related to magic and ritual. Dress, like drama, is descended from an ancient religious, mystical and magical past of ritual and worship (Wilson 56).

We then can trace all our use of glitter, gems and beading back to ritualistic ornament and dress. The intention of adornment has always precipitated a ‘holy’ response and its majestic qualities and purpose still linger today. While we may not participate in ritualistic sacrifices or gatherings nowadays, we still attend fashion shows and perform through social media platforms, garnering the same collective feeling of worship and affinity to our learned tastes.

It is important to make the reference to art and theatre when speaking of fashion to gauge how we as consumers hold unequal perceptions of each practice. This inequality, as Wilson argues, stems from social acceptance and our ability to accept or not accept a multitude of interests. She writes, "We expect a garment to justify its shape and style in terms of moral and intellectual criteria we do not normally apply to other artistic forms; in architecture, for examples, we may all have personal preferences, yet most of us can accept the pluralism of styles, can appreciate both the austerity of the Bauhaus and the rich convolutions of rococo. When it comes to fashion, we become intolerant” (Wilson 49).

Our intolerance and higher standards towards fashion require it to prove its worthiness and in most cases wear-ability. If a garment lacks a perceived purpose, it is deemed inessential in the modern age. Like Wilson suggests, fashion appears to have made its jump from “religion to secular seriousness” (Wilson 49). Yet, we still cling to the power of certain garments to elicit emotions or luck. Talismanic properties, Wilson argues, are indicative of the magical qualities fashion can conjure and ultimately proves that a strong relationship and attachment with a garment, such as a ‘lucky sweater’ or a piece of clothing from a previous lover can be attributed to irrationality. Yet, this irrationality is what makes fashion ultimately sacred and pleasurable.

This pleasure in the discourse of fashion is more often than not associated with sin. When indulging into something, whether it be apparel or food, there is a judgement taking place, especially when its ‘use’ is supposed to be practical. When fashion is referred to as irrational or superfluous, there is an ignorance to what fashion has been capable of and the pleasure it can stimulate, and most importantly what that pleasure represents for those participating in it. Wilson writes that women who are involved or show a liking to fashion are often deemed as having a “false consciousness” (Wilson 58). Here, we begin to connect the concept of how fashion becomes a way of men to infantilize women while simultaneously imposing such beauty standards and desires for certain shapes. Because fashion contorts the body and presents the unrealistic boundaries of corporality, it continues to represent the irrational and with its correlation to the female body especially, we witness how society can construct a negative and unimportant value towards fashion.

The use and practicality of fashion is often what is pointed at to deem its irrationality, yet this argument denies the ability to see the deeper-rooted rituals in dress despite its so-called functionality. Thorstein Veblen writes in Dress as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture of his opinions on fashion’s wastefulness denouncing those who choose to connect themselves to fashion. He argues,

Even in its freest flights, fashion rarely if ever gets away from a simulation of some ostensible use. The ostensible usefulness of the fashionable details of dress, however, is always so transparent a make-believe, and their substantial futility presently forces itself so baldly upon our attention as to become unbearable, and then we take refuge in a new style. But the new style must conform to the requirement of reputable wastefulness and futility (Veblen 343)

Veblen criticizes that fashion is based upon a principle of make believe and offers a transcendence of reality that, to some, is bothersome and upsetting. His commentary on fleeting styles also points to the societal aspects of fashion and its ability to communicate without language. The eruptions of styles and trends is bothersome to Veblen as it seems wasteful , yet it demonstrates fashion’s ability to be constantly transforming and formative to societal values and desires.

Veblen also categorizes women, the social group most responsible for actively participating in fashion, as frivolous. He writes that by expressing this affinity, the woman remains the “economic dependent of the man” (Veblen 345). Veblen suggests that women seek to participate in fashion only to demonstrate their access to leisure and “play” while simultaneously representing the economic status of their man. Here, fashion’s irrationality is directly connected to gender and poses the idea that something so dominant as fashion within the feminine life must constitute weakness, waste and only serve to be the representation of the man. To this point, Veblen suggests any desire or relation to fashion to be unnecessary and further initiates the idea that once fashion has become almost synonymous with femininity, its value depletes itself. The feminine and fashion are then succumbed to this distinction that ultimately disregards its deep, meaningful history and intentions.

Yet, while critiques like Veblen’s exist, there are many movements that choose to expose the rituals and cultural significance of motifs and symbols within dress as well as exploring the restrictions of gender and the body. Surrealist fashion is an example of irrationality within the fashion scope as its lack of ‘wear-ability’ and utilization of the dream world vehemently contrast the status quo. The trompe-l’oeil effect often presented in works by Rei Kawakubo or Avant-garde influenced Martin Margiela, force the spectator into an uncomfortable space where fashion leaves its sense of necessity and enters a sort of illusive, magical space. There is an emphasis on the body or the mannequin and often times we see a contortion of our standards.

For example, Rei Kawakubo’s 1997 Spring Comme des Garçons collection “Body Meets Dress, Dress Meets Body” emphasized the grotesque, to challenge what femininity means with references to the ideal body. This collection in particular distorts the image of a body and how clothing is meant to be worn, disrupting all sense of rationality. Yet, if one chooses to view the irrational in this case, as something illogical and inevitably meaningless, the deeper meaning and explorations of the conventional status of the female body are dismissed and deemed unimportant, when in reality they deeply rooted in timeless feminist concepts and ritualistic ideas of beauty.

In conclusion, logic does not necessarily correlate with good or correct in the fashion world. Fashion, while ever changing, is rooted in early civilization mysticism and ritual. While many attribute fashion as being protection and unfit when surpassing its necessity, there is an ignorance towards the mythos surrounding dress and adornment that still exists today. Whether it is nostalgia of a 90s-fashion trend, a Halloween costume or a keepsake from a loved one, fashion very much embodies a fantastical element that allows whoever dons it to transcend their sense of being. When we view fashion in a logical manner, we deny its ability to transform and challenge our conceptions of reality.

Works Cited

“Comme Des Garçons Spring 1997 Ready-to-Wear Fashion Show.” Vogue, Vogue, 6 July 2017, www.vogue.com/fashion-shows/spring-1997-ready-to-wear/comme-des-garcons.

“Dress as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture.” The Theory of the Leisure Class, by Thorstein Veblen, BiblioBazaar, 2008, pp. 339–346.

Wilson, Elizabeth. Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity. Rutgers University Press, 2003.