The Philosophy of Fashion

The majority of my university courses have been heavily focused on both ancient and modern philosophy, allowing me to refine my own ideas and writing style. Therefore, I thought that it would be purely fascinating to examine fashion through the lens of philosophy. I was also recommended the book, Bring No Clothes: Bloomsbury and the Philosophy of Fashion, which studies the acceptance and rejection of clothing within the intellectual group of Bloomsbury. It made me want to analyze fashion through an unorthodox sector of philosophy, where the theories are avant-garde in themselves. That being said, here is a brief reflection on how the insights of ancient thinkers, modern philosophers, and critical theorists shape our understanding of the deeper significance of what we wear.  * Disclaimer – This is for fun and written in a stream of consciousness, so feel free to argue on any of these principles. This is far from an academic report and welcomes criticism and conversation *

Foucault and the Power of Clothing

I really love Michel Foucault’s concept of panopticism, the idea that individuals internalize societal expectations under an implicit, ever-present gaze. It offers a compelling framework for understanding fashion’s role in both enforcing and resisting power. The term originates from Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, an architectural design for prisons where a single guard could observe all inmates without them knowing whether they were being watched at any given time. Much like the disciplined subject in Bentham’s panopticon, individuals regulate their clothing choices, adhering to norms that dictate professionalism, gender expression, and social status without explicit enforcement. This phenomenon mirrors the visual language of art history, where clothing has long been used to signify power, virtue, or rebellion. From the rigidly structured attire of Renaissance portraiture, to the fragmented, avant-garde fashion inspired by Cubism and Dadaism, artistic movements have often reflected or challenged prevailing aesthetic and social hierarchies. Just as modernist art broke from classical representation, subversive fashion movements – punk or androgynous styles – reject imposed norms, transforming dress into a medium of resistance. In this Foucauldian paradox, fashion becomes both a disciplinary mechanism and a site of defiance, shaping and challenging the visual and social codes that govern identity.

Aristotle and Mill on Sustainability

Sustainable fashion, when examined philosophically, redefines fashion where garments are not just commodities but entities with histories, labor, and ecological history. Each piece of clothing carries the history of the hands that crafted it, the ecosystems that provided the materials, and the economic systems that dictated its journey. This aligns with Aristotelian virtue ethics, advocating temperance in consumption, justice in labor, and prudence in sourcing. Aristotle taught the idea of eudaimonia, or the highest form of human flourishing, by living in accordance with both reason and virtue. Virtue, in the study of sustainability, can be placed into three major categories: temperance, justice, and prudence. Temperance is developed through mindful consumption, discouraging excess and promoting thoughtful purchasing decisions. Justice demands fair wages, ethical labor practices, and the humane treatment of workers throughout the supply chain. Prudence encourages the mindful sourcing of materials, favoring ecological and regenerative cycles. By considering Aristotle’s principles, individuals contribute to a system that values craftsmanship, respects labor, and prioritizes environmental stewardship

A utilitarian approach to sustainable fashion assesses its ethical permissibility by weighing economic benefits, environmental impact, and social justice. John Stuart Mill would have assessed fashion by accounting for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Mill may have argued that while fast fashion provides affordability and jobs, it also exploits workers and depletes resources. Act utilitarianism might justify fast fashion based on short-term consumer satisfaction, but rule utilitarianism argues for ethical guidelines that ensure long-term well-being. Sustainable fashion aligns more closely with rule utilitarianism because it seeks to establish systemic changes for the long-term success of a greater number.

Plato and Kant on Beauty

Plato and Kant offer distinct yet complementary views on beauty, both contributing to how we understand aesthetics. Plato believed that beauty was not simply a sensory experience but an ideal form, existing beyond the material world. True beauty is not merely found in the garments themselves, but in the craftsmanship they embody, or the cultural narratives they convey. Take the Dior “New Look”. These designs changed fashion forever, as they represented a post-war return to elegance, femininity, and artistic perfection. The balance, proportion, and craftsmanship reflect an aspirational aesthetic that will forever defy time.

Kant positioned beauty within the realm of human perception, arguing that it is inherently subjective, and shaped by personal experiences, emotions, and cultural contexts. He argued that beauty in fashion is not merely an objective quality embedded in the clothing but is instead a dynamic interaction between the garment, the wearer, and the observer. A dress may be admired not only for its construction but for the way it makes someone feel, the memories it evokes, or the statement it makes within a particular social or historical moment. The ripped fabrics, safety pins, and rebellious silhouettes of Vivienne Westwood’s punk designs, were not traditionally “beautiful” in a Platonic sense, but they evoked strong emotional and political statements.

Fashion, in this sense, becomes a fluid dialogue between these two philosophical networks. What is considered beautiful in one time and place may not be in another, showing the malleability of beauty in fashion.

Sartre and Existentialism

Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre’s argument that "existence precedes essence," fundamentally challenges the notion of predetermined identity, emphasizing instead that individuals must actively construct their sense of self through lived experience. Fashion, in its purest form, is immediate and personal. It is a tangible manifestation of self-definition. What we choose to wear is a form of self-definition. Every outfit we put on is a small act of self-definition, a way of telling the world who we are, or who we want to be.

For Sartre, fashion becomes a medium through which we assert our freedom. Much like art or language, clothing allows individuals to engage in a dialogue with the world, resisting externally imposed identities and instead crafting a personal narrative. In a society that constantly seeks to categorize and define, personal style serves as a site of both conformity and resistance, an opportunity to navigate and negotiate identity on our own terms. 

Final Thoughts

Engaging with fashion philosophically allows us to uncover the complex ways in which it intersects with autonomy, social stratification, and political discourse. What we wear is not simply a matter of aesthetics or function but a deeply embedded statement of values, aspirations, and resistance. Through this lens, fashion becomes a site of purpose shaped by the evolving ethical and ideological currents of the world around us.

Xoxo,

Annie