Quick and Easy Illustrations by Mai Manaloto
A sense of personal identity is developed through the use of fashion. Whenever we dress-up and put things together, we build our personal style. Upon embarking on the path of defining one's personal identity through the use of clothing, it is worth noting that there is a contrast between your perceived fashion orientation and of how others perceive it. For example, a female from an entrepreneurial background may stay away from tailored and crisp clothing that resonates with "dressing for success". Instead, her personal taste in apparel are those that make use of jersey fabrication and has a loose silhouette for comfort. In the eyes of the anti-conformist she is practicing autonomy and a sense of rebellion against mainstream norms of what constitute as "success”. However, other people might perceive it as untidy and just plain sloppy. The way we dress does not always translate to how we want to be perceived by others, this is why fashion put together key looks or styles to reflect a clearer direction on how we want to be viewed.
Various styles have been identified to suit one's unique personality such as classic, edgy, feminine, boho, glam and indie to name a few. Classic styles are clothing that are crisp, chic and timeless which create a polished and sophisticated look. The silhouettes have clean cuts with structured details and usually make use of neutral color schemes. Basics with a twist and timeless pieces instead of the current trend are classic essentials. On the other hand, edgy styles are experimental and have a hint of a punk rockish attitude. You'll know it's edgy when studs, chains, zippers, dark hues match with unexpected color combinations, graphic tees, ripped details and DIYed clothing pieces. The feminine style is the opposite of edgy fashion with its sweet and fresh look and just the right amount of daintiness. Soft pastel colors are common for this style and so are ruffles and lace. Silhouettes are often flouncy and floral prints are simply a must have for the girly-girls. Boho or bohemian style is one that is colorful and a mix of all sorts of prints.
Boho styles reflect the down-to-earth and free spirited nature of individuals who categorize their style as such. Loose, flowy silhouettes matched with tribal or floral prints are the way to go. Environmentally conscious clothing is one unique value bohemians share. Colors that grabs their attention are warm, earthy tones. Glam or glamorous styles, on the other hand, are flirty and bold altogether. Glam fashion is not for the faint-hearted as pieces from this look are often attention grabbing with their bold and bright colors, big statement accessories, animal prints and whole lot of sparkles. Lastly, we have the indie style or also coined as the "hipster" look with their own unique spin on fashion perceived as quirky, fun, unexpected and effortlessly cool. Vintage and retro fashion are a big inspiration for this shabby chic style. Other essentials include offbeat details, costume jewelry and love for mixing high-end with low-end pieces.
Given the various styles, it is clear that fashion may associate the world of everyday wear to a nexus of beliefs, likes, place in society and social pressures to conform to a certain lifestyle mold. Georg Simmel who is a sociologist, philosopher, and critic mentioned: "The underlying motivation for fashion consciousness is a desire to sustain a sense of personal uniqueness in the relatively depersonalizing milieu of modern social life (Simmel [1904] [1971])". The irony is that consumers dive into the realm of fashion to fulfill their desire to be self-directed individuals, only to be categorized and dictated by the governing laws of fashion styles, trends, and must haves. Otherwise, fall prey to being outdated, unfashionable, "baduy", or passé. Clothing oneself now becomes a form of social means rather than being authentic. It may then be argued that a person's fashion identity is dependent on his/her social setting. Fashion is a powerful tool, capable of becoming a "singularly expedient social form" (Simmel [1986][1971]).
The idea of fashion is to use clothing as an instrument to become unique individuals while simultaneously finding a style that conforms with people you associate yourself with. Personal identity does not always project a person's value but is often negotiated in a dynamic field of social relations. This contrasting image of fashion, a tool for self-identity and conformity, reinforce fashion consumer's desires to be "unique" and more importantly, to stand-out and not become one of the masses. This is very telling of how fashion consumers' self-worth and sense of "symbolic capital" (Bourdieu 1984; Featherstone 1991) go hand-in-hand with their desires to stand-out by dressing unlike others, "others" pertaining to the masses. The idea of not standing out through the use of clothing invokes disliked associations such as not being in control of one's destiny, leaving no mark on society, and finally becoming a follower rather than a leader. Whereas being fashionable expresses concepts such as climbing the socioeconomic ladder and attaining power, prestige, and wealth.
Clothing styles are viewed as a strategic tool for social competition. To stay ahead in the realm of fashion is to symbolically gain an advantage in the more significant contest for career opportunities. The importance of fashion is that it has the capacity to render clothing as a potent symbol for individuation and a vehicle to perpetual identity transformation. The perceived uniqueness and transformative power of clothing ultimately exist because of a belief that others will notice and care about one's appearance and that one's fashion choice has an influence on others behavior. Perhaps individuals who are dressed well are treated better and have a higher competitive advantage, but then again, this is contingent upon the assumption that people around us are concerned about fashion and its' discourses.
Source: Journal of Consumer Research: Consumers' Interpretive Uses of Fashion Discourses, Vol. 24, No. 1 (June 1997), pp. 21-23
