Look around and observe the many characters of Smith College. Just about every “aesthetic” can be found here, whether it be “alt,” fairy-themed or maybe the recently popular “Lana-Del-Rey-vinyl.” There are distinct and observable archetypes of people that this school attracts, and more discernibly, a variety of fashion styles that never seem to stop evolving along the newest trends. The incessant upkeep with trends is a marked trait across campus, and it is without a doubt that the students of Smith express themselves through fashion with such nonchalance—but at what cost?
The distinct manner in which Smith’s students express themselves can be accredited to numerous factors. For one, the value of gender expression and the collective experience of dressing according to one’s assertiveness for the first time plays a heavy role in this unique expression. For many students, Smith serves as a safe haven for expressing themselves without barriers such as the male gaze, societal expectations and oppressive gender norms. While prominent, these elements do not solely contribute to Smith’s fashion culture.
At Smith, a historically women’s college (HWC), the legacy and evolving history of gender and its implications are inescapable. Throughout history, women have been treated as vessels for the expression of trends. There has always been a marked aesthetic look to each decade, and women have always been at the forefront. With advancing technology, however, style is now more indicative of buying patterns and marked by an incessant, all-consuming era wherein everything becomes a product (also known as late-stage capitalism).
Who are the ultimate sculpting style creators in today’s culture? It is hard to clearly discern who exactly molds our culture and expression, and while women are most definitely — whether we like it or not — deciding how people dress, there is another silent, stronger force that was not nearly as present in past decades. One of the most formative deciding factors in the way we choose to dress is the intrusion of capitalism into every aspect of our lives.
It is without question that across the ages, people of all classes have always dressed differently. However, today the way we dress has become vastly different even within classes. Fast fashion and the prevalence of over-consumption are marked traits of late-stage capitalism. The accessibility of the multitudes of styles available to anyone is indicative of this colossal, and arguably abhorrent excess of material goods.
Capitalism feeds off the arbitrators of trends and culture, regardless of their identity, eventually spoon-feeding the regular person to be able to buy everything. On social media, we see these pre-packaged personality kits adoptable only through the access that capitalism has provided us. Because we can buy anything and everything these days, the arbitrators of trends in culture (things like popular movies, books, fashion styles, etc.) all become marketable to an unhealthy extent. With the rise of the “Barbie” movie, Taylor Swift, bows on everything (and style generally popularized by designer Sandy Liang) and being a “girl’s girl,” we see now, as one example, an extremely evident and discernible trend in girlhood and its extreme marketability. We are sold this packaged idea of first-wave feminism, hitting on the very surface-level ideas of being a woman.
While these expressions, within themselves, are ultimately positive and seem to only encourage and validate young women and young people’s relationship to their identity, ultimately the commercialization of these facets is what truly never lets young women rest. Taking advantage of the “trend” of girlhood to become a selling point is another way of capitalizing on young women — simply revealing the evils of the means of production. It is no longer simply creating clothes, but constructing pre-made identities to buy so that truly there is no longer a vision of individuality under capitalism, regardless of one’s individual identity.
The issue at hand is that capitalism does not discriminate. While the focus and example given was simply girlhood, capitalism does not care for age, gender, sex or race; there is truly no discrimination. The death of individuality is masked by capitalism’s massive hidden constructions of these schemes, to give us the vision of individuality, the illusion of choice. Under capitalism, there is no individuality.
