antifashion

Since I mentioned the term anti-fashion in yesterday’s post, it’s necessary for me to clear up some definitions about different ways of thought which eschew fashion in some sense. In my experience, these different views are often mistaken for one another.

There are three basic ideologies which often get lumped together as anti-fashion: (actual) antifashion, afashion, and nonfashion.

Antifashion

Antifashion is the strongest of the three viewpoints, and the most antagonistic. Antifashion means two things: actively avoiding the current fashion trends or dressing in a way opposite to those trends. A staunch antifashionist must be aware of the fashion world so as to avoid participating in it. Given that, it’s unsurprising that there are very few people dressing completely in antifashion. We also note that a strict antifashionist is almost as controlled by the fashion industry as someone who follows all the trends.

Afashion

Afashion (asexual is pronounced similarly) is the most common of the three philosophies. Someone who believes in afashion will claim that the fashion trends are irrelevant to how they dress; that they actively ignore rather than oppose the fashion industry. Obviously, perfect afashion is impossible (unless one we’re to dress randomly), because our subconscious molds our personal aesthetics based upon what we see in others. Conversely, a large proportion of the population has some measure of afashion in their personal style.

Nonfashion

Fashion only exists because humans can afford to adorn themselves with clothing at a level beyond personal survival. This allows the fashion cycle (of rising and falling popularity and replacement) to work. Certain garments, such as traditional or ceremonial dress remains unchanged over time, and is thus removed from the fashion influence. This type of dress comprises nonfashion. Certain aspects of our world exhibit nonfashion, to a degree. For example, church garments are partially nonfashion, though in today’s world there are different cuts and models, the basic idea of priestwear is largely removed from fashion.

It is important to distinguish these concepts, because often what many people call antifashion is really a measure of afashion. Most people have a degree of both antifashion and afashion in their personal style philosophy, and to describe it as pure antifashion is incorrect.

Are the oxymorons?

I remember having a jarring personal experience midway through my second year of college. I had grown tired of what I considered far too much elitist behavior; people who thought they were better than everyone else because their parents had a lot of money. Parallel to this, I was just beginning to become interested in fashion, and despised the notion of trends, and that those with social status dictated what was cool, and that such cool things were typically prohibitively expensive.

As a relatively unfashionable 18 year old with little social status or parental riches, these were all perfectly natural feelings. I’m sure millions of other people have felt/do feel the same way, and I still think somewhat in the same way.

Then one day, I claimed to a friend that I “hated elitists,” and that I was “anti-elitist.” No sooner had the words come out of my mouth did I realize that this, of course, made me elitist. I was too good of a person to be an elitist, I was better than the elitists…oh. This realization bothered me for weeks, as I considered how it carried over to many disciplines where I simply felt inadequate.

There is certainly a significant group of people who are self-proclaimed anti-fashion, and I wonder if they experience the same thing. Is being anti-fashion simply a way to feel better than other people, who decide to embrace fashion and trends? While I don’t advocate blindly following trends, going too far in the other direction is hypocritical and damaging.