A Gift Card For Fashion! OR Funsters of the World Unite!

One of the reasons I love Portland is that it is an environment that allows two distinct and thoroughly interesting social patterns that can sometimes be stifled in other places the ability to thrive. While I am not known for, and in fact have often mocked the concept of, a preoccupation with "fashion", I have recently developed, after much deep and utterly frivolous thought, a new-found respect for fashion as a sort of birthing pool or nursery for independent thought, creativity, and societal introspection. That being said, it can also be the grounds for rampant conformity, repression, violence and tyranny. The latter set of possibilities was how I had always viewed it, this outlook being born from my rather iconoclastic childhood as "the weird kid". However, having now come to grips (more or less) with prior traumatic experiences with fashion, I have begun to look upon the subject with a new perspective. And now here's your chance to hear about it! At length!

So, I'm going to fastball some important setup ideas that we will need on hand for this little trip. Feel free to disagree loudly once the essay is finished, but please suspend disbelief for the length of this endeavor. As I don't have time to prove these items to be true, I'm going to invite you to join me in the assumption that A) human beings communicate information with each other as a natural and necessary part of their normal functioning. Then, B) this exchange of information occurs through a wide variety of media including those verbal and non-verbal, intentional and subconscious. Finally, C) this exchange of information is absolutely necessary for the formation, orderly functioning and advancement of society as a whole.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's talk fashion! Personally, I am a big fan of the idea that fashion is a a social recapitulation of biological adaptations such as the peacock's feathers. Why would evolution favor an animal that wastes genetic resources on colorful decoration when it could have spent that time developing faster legs or more powerful talons? Because, as I'm sure I don't need to tell you, evolution favors those animals who get the chance to mate, and successful mating is as much about attracting a partner as it is about personal survival. The theory to which I tend to prescribe is that complex animal decoration, in addition to simply attracting attention, indicates to a perspective mate that the individual is so capable of survival that it has genes to spare on looking cute. This can, of course, be relatively easily extrapolated to human behavior. A person who can spend three hundred dollars on a pair of jeans is probably not going to starve. Now, I could go off on a long rant about how that particular reasoning is inherently flawed, but that is not what I want to talk about today.

Let's move beyond the basic, evolutionary explanations proposed to explain fashion. What I want to talk about is not as much what fashion does for the individual and their breeding potential, but rather what fashion means as a social function. Okay, so individual people have ideas. Those ideas come in myriad shapes and forms. Some ideas are quite useful, others not as much. Now, who's to say which ideas should get passed on from one person to another. Well, each person gets to pick for themselves which ideas they want to share with other people. Likewise, each person gets to pick which ideas they have gotten from other people they would like to keep and use. This is not always strictly true. I have, on multiple occasions, fallen victim to someone getting a song stuck in my head. However, excusing incidents of sticky songs and cult brainwashing, we can generally chose which ideas we wish to retain and employ in our day to day lives.

But Devon, what does any of this have to do with fashion? Ideas are communicated from one person to another, the usefulness of those ideas often influences their long term success. In addition to it's biological usefulness, fashion was also a means to demonstrate social status. Chiefs, headmen, shaman, veteran warriors, across cultures we can observe that fashion accessories were used to denote status. Status, of course, could be parlayed into evolutionary advantage for the individual. But it could also be parlayed into memetic advantage for the ideas that the individual professed. If a person has the biggest hat, then he probably is the strongest and has the best ideas. Otherwise, how'd he get that hat? Or more importantly, how does he keep it? Social status relates directly to biological fitness when an individual can leverage status to garner support from other individuals. A chief may or may not be the most powerful warrior in the village, but he is definitely the one with the biggest number of supporters. The beauty of this is found in the self-reflexive nature of the relationship between social status, biological and memetic fitness, and fashion. A person can gain status by being biologically or memetically fit. A person's biological and memetic fitness can be increased by their social status. A person's social status or bio/memetic fitness can get them more valuable fashion accessories. A person's fashion accessories can confer social status and bio/memetic fitness. The chief is the guy with the biggest hat. Why does he have the biggest hat? Because he's the chief!

Of course, this is not as simple as I, for the sake of comedy, would lead you to believe. All of these traits are constantly being put to the test by competitors. So, you're the strongest? Prove it! Lift this heavy rock! So, your ideas are the best? Prove it! Defend them against rational scrutiny! So, your fashion is the most fashionable? Prove it! By . . . fashioning . . . this . . . wait, what? How does one demonstrate that they are the most fashionable? This is a more difficult question these days then it used to be. Originally, it was a matter of obtaining certain prized resources. Colorful feathers, shiny stones, unusual objects. The simple fact of possession of such an object was proof that you had the necessary pull. As we progressed and acquired more and more stuff it became necessary to evaluate the stuff so that it could be distributed properly. Obviously the person with the most status should get the coolest stuff. Obviously, the person with the coolest stuff should have the most status. The question of how to evaluate said stuff and said people began to gain importance. Useful stuff was given a certain amount of consideration. Things that were obviously advantageous to have should go to the person with the most clout. On the other hand, sure, useful things are cool, if you're into that kind of thing. But a person who's got a lot of useful stuff might only be important because of their stuff. Now, if a person surrounds themself with useless baubles, clearly that person has weight to throw around. Once we had advanced to the point where we could think about the implications and ramifications of our own institutions, there was no chance of a clear cut cross-cultural answer to how possessions and status should be delegated. The various interpretations have been explored in a seemingly infinite number of ways by different cultures throughout history. Vikings and Pacific Northwest Native American tribes (to varying degrees) often denoted social status by the ability and willingness of a leader to give away their possessions. Alternately, Louis XIV's court at Versailles was the quintessential example of personal material possession and conspicuous fashion as not only an indicator but rather a determinant of social status and political power.

Speaking of Louix XIV, let's talk about hipsters! Now, there has been a lot of talk in recent years about what exactly it means to be a "hipster". Many people speculate about the superficial indicators of hipsterdom. I will not enumerate them here for you now, as I am not entirely qualified for that task and I have no doubt that you could find better accountings elsewhere on the webs. Instead, lets talk about the concept behind the term. The original connotation intended by the term "hipster" is that of a person whose decisions, particularly with regards to fashion, are based entirely or in majority upon the current social trends. In other words, someone who wears or does that which will garner them the most social capital. However, in recent years this term has come to represent a particular aesthetic that may or may not be related to the mindset described above. Not wanting to tread on anyone's toes, I am going to propose that we use the alternate term "trendsters" to refer to people who actively do things specifically because they are the current trend. Using this definition, Louis XIV's Versailles is the original trendster Mecca. Not that Versailles invented the concept, but that they took it as close to its Platonic form as human beings are likely to do. Prior to Versailles the French government was centered in Paris and the aristocracy had an entrenched power structure that prevented the king from exerting supreme authority. While all nobles were required to be outwardly loyal to the king, certain nobles were effectively more powerful through a combination of personal wealth, political connections, military force and social capital. While Louis may have had the biggest hat, he did not necessarily have the clout to back it up. However, by moving the French court to Versailles and requiring that every noble spend at least part of the year in attendance there, he disrupted the entrenched power structures and established that he would dictate the terrain upon which battles for social status were won and lost. Political and social power jockeying would have to be done in accordance with his schedule and his terms. In effect, he gave himself the supreme home court advantage and further institutionalized conspicuous consumption as a requirement of social and political clout.

So, originally I mentioned two distinct social patterns that I find interesting. One of them I just finished outlining, the idea of the "trendster", someone who uses fashion as a means of establishing, maintaining and wielding social status. Sure, the most extreme cases of this occur among celebrities, politicians and the rich, but that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of it going on all around us. Many of the people that are commonly referred to as "hipsters" would fit this mentality. This is not to say that everyone who wears thick rimmed glasses and a patterned sweater is a trendster. I'm using trendster to define a cognitive process, not an aesthetic theme. It can be easily summed up as "What can I wear, do, say, listen to, read, or proclaim that will make me seem more valuable to those around me?" While this system of thought has its merit and functionality, there are plenty of downsides. While there are plenty to discuss, the one I want to focus on is the effect that such a mindset has on the self-reflexive nature of human communication. Fashion accessories are used as a non-verbal (sometimes subconscious) means of communicating certain ideas to other people. "I am a very important person because I have a big hat." If, in a given society, it is socially valuable to dress exactly like everyone else then one of the messages being conveyed is that conformity is a valuable idea and those who do not adopt that idea should be granted less status. Of course, conformity can lead to social cohesion as much as it can lead to repression of independent thought. If, in a given society, it is socially valuable to dress to the extreme of uniqueness then one of the messages being conveyed is that it is valuable to devote much time and energy to demonstrate individual value. Of course, demonstrating individual value is most useful when there is open competition for resources and where there is competition there is violence of all sorts.

Now, it's tempting to say that the trendster mentality is towards conformity. After all, how can there be a trend if people aren't displaying similar activity. That's what a trend is. However, the trend can be to conform to an ideal of anti-conformity. Wrap your brain around that one for a second. So, I'd like to distinguish the trendster concept not by the outcome but rather by the intention. As I've defined it, the trendster modality is based on a premise that "If I [perform action] I will gain [perceived benefit]." As an example, "If I wear this ironic t-shirt I will gain the respect of my peers." If you have found yourself thinking along these lines while getting dressed, then don't worry. We all have. It is a natural and reasonable line of thought when considering choices. We survive because of this type of cost/benefit analysis. Let's redefine the trendster as someone who bases the vast majority of their decisions on the social capital to be garnered by the fashionability of their choices.

Now, if that's your M.O., then I am not going to say that you're superficial, callous, egocentric, or avaricious. Though, you may have those qualities in addition. However, what I will say is that this mentality does tend to focus on the objectification of the personal identity. To put it another way, if you use who you are as a means of acquiring social capital, then it is likely that you will find that all you are is a function designed to best acquire social capital. While this is useful from a macro sense - it perpetuates the social institutions that have been built around that impulse - there is a wealth of thought by great thinkers across all cultures that that kind of thinking leads to dissatisfaction, unhappiness, political turmoil and all of the bad things of human interactions.

What then do I propose as an alternative? Well, if the trendster mentality of "what would make other people think I'm cool" is what we wish to avoid, then I propose you instead ask "what do I think is cool". This I would like to term the "funster" ideal. "What would be fun? What would be nice? What would be entertaining? What would be enlightening? What would I like to see be the case?" It may not seem like a big difference, but I would argue that this simple change of intention would result in a wide range of change. And from personal experience I would say that it has. The two mentalities can be seen at work and at play on the streets of Portland, and many other cities throughout the world. Most humorous of all, perhaps, is that the superficial expressions of these two mentalities are often indistinguishable. On the other hand, they are sometimes very easy to spot. But the important part is not the effect that it has on the things that we wear so much as the effect that it has on how we think, how we conceive of the world around us and how we determine what type of world we would like to create and perpetuate.

I was talking about some of these ideas with my sister recently and she detailed for me a somewhat nebulous project that she summed up with the phrase "We wear the funny hats." Hats of all kinds are worn by people. The person with the biggest hat is obviously the most important. But what about the people who wear the hats that aren't in style. The hats that are worn to make the wearer smile, and more importantly to make someone else smile. If, during my adolescence, you were to walk down any major street in my home town of Staten Island, NY wearing a hat made to look as though your head was being eaten by a fish then you would have been likely to get dirty looks at best and verbal or physical abuse at worst. The society would actively repress attempts to stray from the fashion norm, and by so doing repressed alternate perspectives. But in Portland and in many other cities the opposite is true. Differentiation is not only accepted but often lauded, such as with bumper stickers that proclaim "Keep Portland Weird". Now, of course, much of that proposed weirdness is done in a trendster fashion intended to garner social status through displays of creativity and uniqueness. And that's commendable in it's own right. But along with that there comes the possibility for the rise of the funsters.

It may seem as though I am merely trying to out hip the hipsters. Most important to remember is that I am not talking about drawing lines around one style or another and saying that this aesthetic is the one true taste! What I'm talking about is a fundamental shift in the intention behind even the most superficial of choices. You can't point at a person and say "they're obviously a trendster and therefore I hate them". Likewise you can't say a person is a better funster because they have the funnier hat. Abandon your desire to evaluate hats and the people that wear them. All hats are funny, if you look at them right. The only question is one you must ask yourself, which hat do I want to wear?