|
|
An
increasing number of America's youth dress eccentrically,
serving as an aggressive challenge against the rigid
norms society has traditionally advocated. In
an age where children are dying for designer labels,
and just about any ensemble carries with it an unmistakable
label, it's no wonder that individual fashion has
become a farce. But then again, one must question
the belief that fashion ever enabled individuality.
Everyone remembers the youth anthem "Parents Just
Don't Understand," by The Fresh Prince of Belair.
At one point Will Smith, formerly the Fresh Prince,
pleads with his mother to make a trendy purchase
so he won't be derided for his clothing selection
in the coming school year. Surely, we have the supermodels
to persuade generations of young women to starve
themselves as they flaunt their symmetrical curves
and arches. And who can forget the late great ‘80s
slogan "Dare to Be Different," which beats in our
ear like a drunk guy's deafening scream during a
sporting event. But should this "persuasion to be
an individual" come from the heights of the social
pantheon where the commercial and entertainment
industries stand like gods who hold the fate of
mankind in the balance?
Within the adolescent population, fashion statements
have become vehicles of expression, as diverse as
they are unconventional. Coming from a conservative
background, khakis or blue jeans, polo shirts and
the button-down, were the standard suburban attire
literally issued by the parental fashion critics.
It was an unspoken social rule that was imposed
to help us "later down the road," and introduce
us into the upper echelon of society where playful
fashion ensembles were reserved only for the obnoxious
silver-screen community or trendy elite. Unlike
the yellow-star of Nazi-occupied Europe, which was
forced upon its victims under penalty of death,
certain fashion statements within the adolescent
population today represent the death of individuality,
while at the same time victimize social and economic
denominations with the same implacable tyranny.
As a high school teacher, I have witnessed the unsavory
union of the two: personality and fashion preference.
I have witnessed the tyranny of fashion strike the
youth of America with deadly precision. Dictators
no longer have the magisterial pencil-thin mustaches
or large concentrations of troops like Hitler or
Stalin may have boasted. Rather, names like GAP,
Abrocrombie & Fitch, and Fashion Bug have replaced
troop buildups with marketing campaigns but still
remain true to militaristic goals and tactical strategies.
It is not ironic that Nike, the athletic shoe juggernaut,
took its name from the goddess who holds the scales
of justice in the balance, who judged man's destiny.
So much for humility, huh Nike?
In middle-class white America, fashion trends are
immensely diverse. This is due in part to boredom
conceived by wealth. When one has exhausted his
resources, nothing else remains available to him.
Introspection confirms the terror of his situation,
and change becomes an impregnable fortress that
must constantly be maintained to repel the harsh
realities of the insipid enemy. From the skater
and snowboarder to the jock, preppy, and yo-boy
the preponderance of white high schoolers suffers
from redefining themselves through fashion. Boredom
is that terminal condition in which the individual
holds the world and at the same time can't tolerate
it. Nothing satisfies. When everything is at your
disposal, nothing is valuable. And it is boredom
compounded by a lack of identity in an age of meaninglessness
that animates the suburban fashion plight. On the
other hand, African-Americans, usually represented
in lower economic divisions by-and-large, appear
more unified in their fashion trends, demonstrating
a community resisting the opulent Anglocentric commerce
ensuing around them. But then again, as more and
more African-American based fashion industries take
hold, the community is susceptible to exploitation
and acquiescence, feeling forced to adopt the "ceremonial
garbs" sanctioned within the population to preserve
unity at the price of individuality. There is obviously
a great problem in determining the value of individuality
in an age of "collective" alternatives quickly aligning
to replace more traditional collectives. This is
largely due to the fact that many of these social
collectives, especially fashion statements, remain
inconspicuous and are usually only detected when
they have already managed a stronghold.
Fashion
has become a myth perpetuated to America's youth
time and time again. It is an epidemic of social
resistance that has gone so far as to ravage other
cultures who attempt to emulate our fashion-conscious
nation. But one must realize that fashion preference
is not indicative of social standing or intellectual
prowess. This is true in alternative circles, where
academics may be a priority but fashion is not.
As a result, all sorts of outfits attempt to draw
attention to the wearer who is struggling with his
or her own bout with acceptance. If the outfit is
unacceptable it is a good defense mechanism to impede
any further investigation into the personality of
that individual. Thus, the outfit becomes a shield,
warding off misinterpretation and criticism, so
common in adolescent social circles. When one goes
to a rave (an underground dance party replete with
narcotics), it is almost expected that the dress
code is flamboyant. For what? When attending a coffee
house performance in the trendy district of Greenwich
Village you shouldn't appear too conservative. When
attending a fraternity gathering, polo shirts and
khakis are a must. I suppose the relaxing outfit
frees up your hand to hold a beer and makes extension
to your mouth a pleasure rather than a task. In
minority communities the romance with sports attire
is far from over. Baggy pants, heavy work boots,
and baseball hats are a sure way to avoid accusations
that a man who refuses that standard ensemble is
a "sellout." This indictment goes to the highest
courts and seeks to preserve our ethnic and social
traditions under the banner of multi-cultural unity.
It is contradictory.
And after the tragedy of the Holocaust, does anyone
really want to be seduced into a decision of what
to wear?! Psychological warfare is just as heinous
as physical warfare. And the fashion industry masterminds
are nothing more than modern day generals that "generalize"
our clothing selections. But in the end, anything
sponsored by big industry seems to have little substance.
Copyright © 1999 by Frank S. Palmisano III
Frank S. Palmisano III is the "Poet-in-Residence"
at Carver Center for Arts & Technology in Towson,
MD. He is a graduate of Towson University and is
currently pursuing an M.A. in Philosophy at American
University and an M.A. in Theology at St. Mary's
Seminary & University. In his leisure time, he also
freelances as an entertainment critic for Digital
City.
|
