천사도 악마도 아닌 패션

Fashion, Neither Angel nor Devil

天使でも悪魔でもないファッション

People often say that “fashion goes in circles.” Just when it seemed like the skinny jeans trend had finally passed, whispers of their comeback are once again surfacing—this time, following the wave of Y2K fashion. In a world where everything changes at lightning speed, fashion paradoxically feels as though nothing is ever truly new. Perhaps you’ve found yourself wondering: why do people care so much about something that seems so hollow and meaningless?

Endlessly fleeting, weightless fashion

How did a system built on ephemerality and aesthetic illusion come to occupy such a prominent place in human history? Why did this happen in the West and not elsewhere? How is it that, in an age governed by technology and ruled by reason, we also find ourselves in an age dominated by the absurdities of fashion? How can we begin to think about and explain a system of frivolous, transient change that has become so entrenched it now appears permanent? 1

Gilles Lipovetsky, author of The Empire of Fashion, argues that this transience—this sense of non-essentiality—is not a flaw but rather a defining feature of fashion, one deeply intertwined with the history of Western democracy. His book attempts to understand the essence of contemporary society through the history of fashion, analyzing how fashion extends far beyond mere trends to shape social structures and individual identity. He sees fashion as a vital component of modern life, exploring its complex relationship with individualism and democracy.

The Magic of Appearance

In the first part of his book, Lipovetsky traces the origins of fashion and explains how it became democratized and eventually popularized. He argues that fashion is not a universal phenomenon found across all eras and civilizations, but rather a socio-historical construct that emerged under specific conditions. According to him, fashion originated in the aristocratic societies of the West, and it did not arise from universal patterns of communal life or any essential human nature. He writes:

Fashion does not belong to all eras or all civilizations. It has a specific point of origin in history. It is neither a fundamental force of social life nor a permanent principle of transformation rooted in the human condition. Fashion is, in essence, a socio-historical construct limited to a single type of society.2

As this passage reveals, Lipovetsky sees fashion as a “cultural exception,” something that could only emerge in certain civilizations. He specifically identifies Western European aristocracy as its point of origin, where fashion functioned as a visual language for expressing social hierarchy and identity. In this context, appearance was not merely decorative—it was a means of displaying one’s status, and through it, an “aesthetic of seduction” was established.

Over time, this fashion system expanded beyond internal aristocratic competition to cross class boundaries and spread throughout society at large. What had once been a privilege of the elite began to transform into an everyday practice among the general population—a process Lipovetsky interprets as the democratization of fashion. In the 20th century, the emergence and proliferation of high-quality ready-to-wear further diluted the class-based symbolism of fashion, shifting its central value from class distinction to youth.

Fashion’s Destination Is Not a Void

In the latter half of the book, Lipovetsky explores how fashion, which originated in the aristocratic societies of the West, gradually moved beyond its role as a class marker to emphasize personal identity and the value of youth. This shift signals more than just changing styles—it reveals how fashion has become a central element in the construction of modernity itself.

According to Lipovetsky, the democratization of fashion unleashed an explosion of individual expression. As a result, society enters a state of overlapping voices and styles—a kind of cultural “white noise.” While this may seem chaotic or incoherent on the surface, he argues that such complexity should not be dismissed as mere emptiness or meaninglessness. For democracy is not merely about equality or harmony, but about the ongoing processes of differentiation and identity formation.

It is here that fashion plays a vital role. Rather than producing major social conflicts, it generates subtle, layered distinctions among individuals. It transforms tensions and oppositions into a form of play. The drive to distinguish oneself, to express one’s opinions, is now played out on the stage of fashion—as creative, aesthetic acts. Through this process, fashion becomes a space where multiple subjectivities are performed and made visible.

In this way, the democratization of fashion ultimately comes to symbolize modernity itself. It allows us to better understand the structure of contemporary society and the processes through which individual identity is shaped.

Fashion is neither angel nor devil. It mitigates social conflict, yet deepens the rifts between individuals. This is the greatness of fashion—and its tragedy.3

A Critical Addendum — Rereading The Empire of Fashion

Lipovetsky’s argument—that something as seemingly trivial and non-essential as fashion played a central role in the emergence of democracy and modernity—is undoubtedly compelling. Yet certain aspects of his analysis call for critical reexamination through a contemporary lens.

Lipovetsky frames fashion as a unique social phenomenon originating in Western aristocratic society, and describes its gradual democratization as enabling a global arena for individual autonomy and expression. However, such a perspective cannot easily escape the charge of Eurocentrism. While clothing has served as a marker of class and identity in many cultures, his analysis tends to confine the concept of fashion within a Western historical framework, implicitly casting non-Western cultures as either “pre-fashion” or outside of fashion altogether—a problematic implication.

Furthermore, his notion of the “democratization of fashion” may be seen as overly optimistic. Contemporary fashion, heavily influenced by consumer capitalism and media culture, often promotes more sophisticated forms of homogenization in the name of “individuality.” Are popular choices truly autonomous, or are they constantly being shaped—if not orchestrated—by the logics of media, markets, and capital? Today, fashion may function less as a vehicle of self-expression than as a mechanism of conformity disguised as personal choice. From this perspective, Lipovetsky’s theory of democratization seems to overlook the strategic operations of neoliberal consumer culture and its subtle regimes of control.

Written in the late 1980s, The Empire of Fashion inevitably reflects the limitations of its time, particularly in accounting for the digital environment and rapidly shifting global cultures. While the book deserves recognition as a foundational text in fashion criticism, it also calls for a critical reinterpretation from a more decentered, cross-cultural perspective.

Yeonwoo Kim

© Textum Club. Some content is copyrighted by original authors and publishers. Unauthorized use is prohibited.