The Language of Clothing
How did we get here?
Some time around 150,000 years ago, the first modern Homo sapiens began to travel north through Africa, towards the continental mass of Eurasia. At some point along their journey, they noticed that it began to get cold. Homo sapiens had to face the harsh reality that they simply were not built for the vast temperature variances of the world in which they lived. However, there was one saving grace. The species of Homo sapiens had a knack for innovation and invention. Someone took a fur pelt, cut a hole through the middle of it for their head and draped it over their body. Eventually, they tied string around their waist to keep the flaps in front of and behind them secured tightly against their body. Remarkable! Humans had developed to the point where they were capable of manipulating the environment around them enough to become the furry, cold-bearing creatures that they were not. To the point of overcoming the powers of nature, the guiding force of evolution, and becoming the makers of their own reality.
From there, clothing evolved in the pursuit of doing its job with greater efficiency. Differentiation was made between hides and pelts and each became used for different applications. Tanning was developed to soften animal skin, making it more malleable and comfortable to wear. Evolution of tools allowed for skins to be shaped into items similar to modern day shirts, pants, boots, coats, and even accessories. Humans became fully clothed, makers of their own outfits, their own costumes.
The word costume comes from the Latin word cōnsuētūdō, meaning “custom” or “habit”. These ancient garments were not merely clothes but a core part of identity. From the start, when these outfits were key to daily survival, they were still embellished and stylized. These embellishments were the first beginnings of non-verbal communication through the medium of clothing. Tribes were fairly uniform within and fairly distinct without. This relative inner-homogeneity represented cultural identity, and reflected many of the core aspects that separated tribe from tribe and person from person. From age, to gender, to profession, to location, pride was worn on one’s sleeve, and honor was rewarded in badges.
The biggest development in clothing philosophy came with the advent of agriculture around 12,000 years ago. Humans were finally able to reliably settle and maintain static sustainably. Permanent housing structures were built and grew into villages, into towns, into cities. No longer did all means of environmental protection live on man’s back, but were now rooted into the ground around him. Clothing was no longer required to provide the same efficient functionality as before, and that hole was filled with, well, new functions. Clothing started to be designed for how it looked as much as, if not more, than its utilitarian capabilities. Especially for those with wealth, clothes became an outlet to portray that status to those around, as a reminder of power. Colors were sought, the golds, the purples, clothes became extravagant, gaudy; kings and queens and emperors wore expensive furs and fabrics, sewn with intricate patterns, pure symbols of opulence. While it would be definitionally competent to describe this exploration of clothing as “fashion”, the message communicated is quite simple. “I have money and lots of it” and this messaging remained predominantly the same for thousands of years to follow.
This all changed with the spark of the Industrial Revolution. The inventions of the Spinning Jenny, the Water Frame, and the Power Loom managed to drastically alter the way that clothing was produced, and thus, a much larger demographic was able to access a much wider variety of clothing. This challenged the notion of clothing as wealth postulating, as more and more people gained access to recently unattainable standards of dress. This pushed a cultural shift in the expansion of the scope of non-verbal communication through clothing. It wasn’t long before the first famous fashion designers came about, the first runway shows, fashion magazines, all catapulting the textile and fashion industries into where they are today.
What does this mean to us today?
In the hypermodern age of clothing expression and availability, wealth has lost a significant grasp on the means of communication through fashion. In place of this, new meaning is to be found. This new meaning has widely developed as a further exploration of the aforementioned use of clothing to represent identity and the aspects that make an individual unique. While daily attire can still denote economic status, it can also provide insight into political beliefs, activities, hobbies, personality, musical preference, and values.
There are obviously scenarios of very blatant and easily observable communication through how one dresses. If someone is wearing a Nirvana shirt, there is a good chance that they may like the band Nirvana. If someone is wearing a “Vote for Beto” crewneck, it isn’t unreasonable to assume that they might have voted for Beto in the most recent election if they were of voting age at the time. Someone wearing an Astros hat might be a fan of that team and might even have lived and/or worked in the city of Houston. These are clear and intentional choices made to communicate what is typically an easily understood message. Clothing can further express intent. A student traversing campus in sweatpants and a t-shirt may be assumed to be attending class, but a student in a full suit would more likely be heading to a meeting, interview, or job fair.
Dressing for intent can also describe a hobby or activity when worn in different settings. Someone who always wears exercise clothing to class can be assumed to exercise often as they have an excess of that type of clothing, while someone who wears fishing shirts to class can be assumed to be an avid fisherman under the same pretense. Someone who typically dresses up for classes may be someone more organized, dedicated, or focused, but can also be seen as uptight, competitive, or irritable. Someone who typically dresses down for class may be seen as relaxed, understanding, or amiable, but can also be seen as messy, lazy, or unfocused. Connotations, both good and bad, come attached through culture to all aspects of life, and are especially present in clothing, as they are the first indicator of personality when interacting with any given person.
The problem with this is that there are diminishing returns when it comes to messaging through clothing. As a message becomes more intricate, it becomes more questionable. It is easy for someone to show that they like Nirvana, but exponentially more difficult to portray that they don’t eat meat or that they just got an A on an exam, short of buying an article of clothing that explicitly states that fact. Even so, culture itself plays a big role in complicating the readability of messaging through clothing. Cultural practices such as the rise in “thrifting”, or buying secondhand clothing at discounted or sometimes exponentially upscaled prices, have served to both expand and complicate the ability to reliably signal through what one wears. A Harley Davidson tank top can be an indicator of ownership or interest in motorcycles, but can alternatively show an interest in thrifting. Wearing a shirt from a 1996 Michigan State fun run could possibly mean that an individual or someone close to them either went to Michigan State at that time or at least participated in said fun run, but is much more likely to mean that an individual likes to thrift clothing.
It is this cultural intersection of clothing and communication that is seen as fashion. To be “fashionable” is to participate in the non-verbal communication of dress effectively, and in a way that is understanding of culture and the connotations of clothing during a given time period. Clothing will always be communicative to those around oneself, regardless of any conscious purpose or meaning on behalf of the wearer. To interact with the concept of fashion is to take control of this communication, to use it with intent and meaning and purpose. To act otherwise is to risk miscommunication and to accept overwhelming noise. It is our responsibility to interact properly with such a culturally potent and socially pervasive aspect of society. It is our responsibility to be fashionable.
Written by Nathan Brooks, Photographer: Maha Afzal, Social Media: Madelyn Jordan