“A total social phenomenon,” said by some of those interested in the business. Others view it as an insignificant issue. Fashion is a transversal aspect that represents social, cultural and historical phenomena.
The relationship between fashion and dictatorships is not often a subject that draws attention, as it is usually associated with the statement that fashion is a phenomenon strictly related to capitalism and democracy, as it requires “a freedom to create and wear”.
All dictatorial regimes, although from different ideologies, tend to use the same vocabulary and grammar regarding fashion. While the vocabulary is identified with the style, the grammar would be the ensemble of these styles, endowing them with a meaning and a reason.
The two main purposes of fashion would be; one, the need for unification in a social group and, the second, the need for differentiation from other groups. Perhaps somewhat of a contradiction.
The fashion of dictatorial systems tries to fulfill this double function. The unifying group is the nation, in such a way that an identical way of dressing an entire society would define the nation. This is, however, completely utopian in that it disregards the individual feeling that each person has. Nevertheless, with this objective in mind, dictatorships seek to create their own style in accordance with their ideology.
For example, after the war, Spanish fashion had to be nationalized or “Spanishized” and therefore, all influence from Parisian fashion had to be banished. With this, women’s sections in fashion publications had to remove Paris models being mentioned as attractive or worthy of imitation.
Also, one of its main objectives was to highlight national belonging, to show patriotism; to make people identify with and feel part of Spain, one might say. Women’s costumes with typical Spanish touches were imposed in magazines.
On the other hand, in the 1950’s mutually collaborating fashion institutes were formed in all the capitals of the Soviet Bloc, with functions similar to those of the Haute Couture Ateliers in Western-Paris: to set trends, to inform society, but, at the same time, to draw a path for people to follow for the state-owned textile trade as well as for the state-owned textile industry.
Another example would be the East-German communist ideologists. They ordered the production of practical garments accessible to anyone, of an enduring style, whose cut and color would change not because of the influence of individuals (e.g. designers), but by the development of society.
All this references the language of fashion that dictatorships created to achieve their political objectives. The ideologies, the identical language, as they share the same political objective: power. This attempt to influence the ways of dressing can be explained by following the trickle-down theory, elaborated by Georg Simmel. According to him, it is the upper classes of society that create new fashions, while the lower classes are influenced and consequently forced to change the way they dress by copying and mimicking them.
Although this theory has been dismissed on several occasions by other philosophers, it is fair to acknowledge it. The political situation of a country will not only be affected in its economy, but the way dressing is perceived.
Authoritarian systems tend to use the same vocabulary in the language of fashion: nationalization, typical costume, folklore, competition, opposition, even if the ideologies propagated within them are different. The reasons for this are the same: political power.
This story was originally published in Spanish in Cultura Colectiva.
