Fashion and Conformity

NYC Street Style...

“Why are people always staring at me?” After drawing many stares during a ten-block walk to and from the grocery store, I began to ponder this and texted the question to my best friend and my mother. My best friend, Nikita, explained it simply, telling me it is because I am “an eccentric ginger girl,” while my mother responded by asking what I was wearing. I almost didn't tell her because trying to describe my outfit over a text message made me realize how eccentric I truly looked – and I had even taken my fascinator off!

...According to Google

            I used to think fashion conformity was a plague of suburbia, but things aren't that different in Manhattan (perhaps with the exception of a few trendy neighborhoods). Over the summer, I visited Paris and multiple Italian cities, including Milan, the country’s fashion capital, and the situation was no different overseas. “Street style” is truthfully nonexistent except in a very limited number of urban neighborhoods and only represents what a select few fashion innovators wear.

Grunge - 1990's

            If fashion is a form of self-expression, are people using fashion as a means of conformity or neglecting its power to send a desired message? I believe the former to be true in most cases. As a society, even if we deem fashion to be superficial, we recognize that our appearance has the power to influence others’ thoughts about us. Anti-fashion movements, such as the 1990’s Grunge movement, are based in a rebellion of this idea. However, even grunge became a fashion moment because fashion is an unavoidable form of self-expression.

Fashion Cycle

            Throughout history, people have used fashion to express their relationship with conformity – and society as a whole. Essentially, the whole idea of fashion uniformity will always exist. The nature of mass market fashion business is to provide average consumers with the goods they desire. Because of the large scale of today’s dominant businesses, most people are buying the same brands in the same stores. At some point in the fashion cycle, the masses are all wearing variations on the same product.

Flappers - 1920's

            Every fashion movement begins with nonconformists. However, when the fashion moment is at its peak, it is at the very height of conformity – though always far more “toned down” (translation – made into something uninteresting) to appeal to the masses. During the Roaring Twenties, flappers hiked their hemlines above their knees – and were the first women to ever do so. These flappers were revolutionary, scandalous nonconformists. (Keep in mind that the erogenous zone of the time was legs.) Because of their influence, the average women did begin to wear shorter styles, although still often kept to below the knee. Some flapper, trends such as short hairstyles like the Eaton bob and the use of cosmetics, were more readily accepted by the public – and eventually became the uniform for the era.

Trousers - 1920's

            Even so, many fashion daredevils don’t see their pioneering looks accepted by the conformists until decades later – which may disappoint or delight them, depending on their outlook. During the Roaring Twenties, short skirts and women’s pants were introduced by fashion pioneers. However, neither was accepted by the public until approximately a half-century later. If we are viewing fashion as a reflection of culture (in case you haven’t been paying attention, we are), we must account for human nature. It is well-known that people are more comfortable and confident about fashion trends if they not new to them. The women that grew up in the Jazz Age were familiar with the short skirts and trousers their parents were scandalized by, so they were ready to adopt them in the coming eras.

Schiaparelli - 1930's

            Fashion is also engaged in an eternally-perpetuating conversation with itself. If, in the 1920’s, Chanel did not make fashion more practical (and consequentially, boring), Schiaparelli would've never come along in the 1930’s with her fun, frivolous surrealism. Of course, this did not happen in a vacuum, removed from society. During the Great Depression, people were drowning in the plight of forced practicality. Life was hard and they wanted to see images that were removed from their own lives. Hollywood, with its glamour, money, and beauty, boomed. Fashion was truly a form of escapism in the 1930’s. It is crucial to note that the allure of the rich and famous was dependent on the start contrast with the lives of the average individuals. If the appearance of screen stars resembled that of the average person, they wouldn't have held any remarkable significance. Being average has no impact.

Claire McCardell - 1940's

            This tug-of-war between the practical and the frivolous was fought throughout history and continues into the current day. During World War II, some fashions were rigidly practical and uniform-inspired. Rations had a strong influence on this due to restrictions on fabric and decorative elements. New roles for women in the workplace and in support of the war effort also increased the need for practical attire. Similarly to the 1930’s, because fashion was somewhat inaccessible to the masses, creativity became seen as more desirable and even morale-boosting. Women learned how to have fun with clothing within their practical limits, seemingly bridging the gap between the two parallels. They used clips to change their necklines and wore more printed fabrics in the absence of fancy trims. While clothing tended towards the practical, accessories were not rationed and hats became quite popular and whimsical. In the post-war half of the 1940’s, the most important designers were Claire McCardell and Christian Dior. The former produced more utilitarian apparel, such as a Pop-Over Dress, which was a cross between a dress and an apron. Dior threw practicality to the wind in the absence of wartime rationing. He was considered revolutionary for using copious amounts of fabric that women were used to seeing as forbidden. Exhausted from the effects of rationing on their wardrobes, women loved the new ideas Dior presented. It wasn’t long before Dior’s new ideas became the typical look of the time. This is something very interesting about revolutions. The trigger is something remarkably different than what people are used to – and then it simply becomes the norm, only to be overthrown again.

Swimsuits - 1940's

            We mustn’t forget about shock value. In the 1940’s, the bikini was introduced. It was deemed to be so shocking that it deserved the name of an atom bomb. Today, showing excessive skin no longer has shock value. Of course, that doesn’t stop celebrities and entertainers from thinking it does. If my skirt is too short, nobody is staring at me in shock; the only result is that I feel slightly uncomfortable. I find it much easier to shock people, not by showing skin, but by choosing unconventional fashions. As you may have gathered, I have a passion for (err, obsession with) fascinators. Please believe me when I tell you I draw more looks in these than a revealing yet generic ensemble. (And the looks I do get are probably less creepy.)

Beatnik - 1950's

            Fashion changes when rules are broken. The 1950’s arguably had the most rules about fashion ever in the 20^th century. There was a sense of formality and fashion magazines described the perfect outfit for every occasion. Women (at least those who weren’t suburban housewives) were expected to wear gloves, girdles and hats. But the rebels of the 1950’s understood that rules are meant to be broken. The birth of rock ‘n’ roll and beatnik style spurred a teenage-centric fashion influence that continues on today. Jeans, once reserved for working men, were a popular rebellious response to this staged formality. Fashion will always swing back and forth between these extremes as different groups in a society use it as a means of communication – and often challenge – amongst themselves.

Hippies - 1960's

            This rebellious youthquake really took off in the 1960’s with two very different movements: Mods and Hippies. The Hippies were responding to social unrest and their obsession with ethnic cultures and nostalgia for the past informed their fashion choices. While this was not a fashion movement, what the Hippies wore certainly had an impact. Ethnic fashion would boom throughout the next decade. Meanwhile, the Mods in London were very interested in fashion and art. The Mod movement coincided with Andy Warhol’s Pop Art scene and many fashions were influenced by pop and op art. Of course, what truly made the Mods rebellious were their miniskirts. Although the designer Mary Quant is credited with popularizing them, the movement really started with girls hiking up their hemlines, like the flappers had done before them. This time, the culture was ready for miniskirts – and hasn’t truly given them up since.

Courreges - 1960's

            Innovation is truly the key to nonconformity. Everything would look the same if nothing ever changed. People would all eventually adopt one style – and then nobody would move on, so there would be no fashion diversification. It’s a good thing we don’t live in a world that boring and devoid of progress! During the 1960’s, there was a great amount of experimentation with new materials. A fascination with science and space fueled the Space Age trend pioneered by designers like Courrèges. We have continued to increase our technological knowledge and capabilities over the last half-century and it has impacted fashion enormously. Since the advent of ready-to-wear, we have technology to thank for our clothing. But today, with digital printing techniques and clothes that can interact with the wearer’s body, fashion will change in many unpredictable but fundamental ways.

Punk - 1970's

            I don’t think I can address fashion nonconformity without talking about the punk movement, particularly relevant at the moment because of the current exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute. Unlike the Grunge movement I mentioned before, the Punk movement was very purposeful in its interaction with fashion and, therefore, I don’t believe it can be considered anti-fashion. The core of the punk movement was anti-establishment, but Punks certainly knew how to use fashion as a form of self-expression and had fun doing so. The deconstruction (and reconstruction with safety pins and spikes) of clothing was a fundamental aspect of the Punk movement that has been accepted by the mainstream. The Punks made a sport out of outrageous, shocking fashion statements. By refusing to conform to society, they actually conformed to the norms of their own group. At once, the Punks were undeniably unique but very much united out of that.

Princess Kate - Fascinator

            So what does this all mean for the current state and impending future of the fashion industry? I think society will continue its cyclical tug-of-war between nonconformity and uniformity. My advice is to dress in a way that allows you to express yourself, regardless of where that falls on the conformity spectrum. If your goal is to fit in, you’ll probably want to dress in the popular styles. But if you want to stand out, get noticed, and change the world, you may want to dress a little different. While interning today at Marie Claire, somebody I met in an elevator in the Hearst Building (quite possibly a fashion magazine editor) told me they were excited that fascinators were coming back. This caught me by surprise because I don’t see anyone else wearing them – except Sarah Jessica Parker and British royalty. Don’t be afraid to be different: at the very least, you’ll get noticed and interesting fashion choices can often serve as great conversation-starters.

The Great Fashion Debate: Chanel vs. Dior

Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel and Christian Dior were arguably the two most influential fashion designers of the early 20th century. Of course, they couldn't have been more different, both in their aesthetics and philosophies about women and fashion. In the 1950s, when Dior's popularity had peaked and Chanel returned to Paris to reclaim her throne, fashionable women were divided between Dior's New Look, at once refreshing and nostalgic, and Chanel's practical simplicity.


As a feminist, I must begin by saying that I have a great respect for Chanel's contributions to fashion. She introduced styles that enabled working women to be chic without throwing practicality to the wind. Chanel had a true sense of what women needed and took inspiration from menswear and the lower classes to supply it in the form of suits, simple dresses and costume jewelry.

However, as a fashionista, I actually have a strong dislike for Coco Chanel's aesthetic. I credit Chanel with making fashion boring. I must admit that I'm drawn to the impractical beauty of fashion that Chanel strongly opposed. Chanel didn't believe in extravagant, artistic creations. Instead, she replaced her fine jewels with costume gems and borrowed ideas from the aforementioned groups, whose wardrobes were far less interesting than the upper-class women of the time.

Of course, fashion hasn't remained completely yawn-worthy for the last decade. After World War II, while the Nazi Chanel was hiding out in Switzerland, Dior debated the only style that the fashion industry recognizes as revolutionary, rather than evolutionary. It was dubbed "The New Look" by Harper's Bazaar editor-in-chief Carmel Snow. Women, who had been thrust into more masculine roles in wartime while the men fought overseas, readily accepted his new femininity. I must agree that I believe it to be one of the most beautiful fashion looks of the twentieth century. I certainly would've adopted it quickly and gladly don similar ensembles today.

However revolutionary Snow and her contemporaries may have considered Dior's silhouette to be, I question their logic. The "New Look" was actually a step backwards for women. The desired hourglass silhouette, not dissimilar to that of the WWII pin-up icons the GIs had fallen in love with, threw women back into the corsets that Paul Poiret had liberated them from at the beginning of the decade. Post-war nostalgia certainly fueled this longing to return to the standards of the previous century and the feminist movement in the 1960s proved that this old-fashioned femininity didn't have a lasting influence. Despite my decidedly feminist mentality, I like to simply view Dior's New Look as a beautiful fashion moment.

Maybe I don't have to choose. Chanel was a curse for the fashion industry, yet played a key role in the women's movement. Dior was a fashion fantasy creator, but was an accessory in the societal movement to take women out of the workforce. So let's just take their contributions at face value: both deserve our respect and our skepticism.