What if it's all just clothes?

facing the question that scares the sh*t out of me

an ipad cover we made while I was head of copy at Rue La La

I am a very passionate arguer. I would have made a great lawyer if it weren’t for — every single other thing about being a lawyer. When I really get going, Susanne, my friend and business partner is always like “oh, shit, the lawyer is here.”

The thing is, as persuasive (ok, pushy) as I can get, I like changing my mind, too. It bugs me that in politics we identify that as “flip flopping” instead of seeing it as a virtue. Open mindedness. Listening to reason. My son is very good at this. He has taught me to pause and say “Fair,” recognizing a good point when I hear one in the heat of the moment. These days, when I’m not able to see the valid threads of an alternate position, it often means I’m inordinately revved up.

Most often, when confronted (by others, something I read, or myself) with the concern around how much stuff I have, I defend it. Is it OK to have so many clothes? I am willing to ask this from time to time but then I always tell you (or me) why it is .

In fact, though, I can also can tell you why it isn’t.

clothing or collector work? (window of Moncler)

In short, I flip flop. I waiver. I don’t change my position (in that I never take active, meaningful steps toward an alternate way of operating) I just feel bad about it from time to time. I have accepted my Miami Maximalism — and I have tried to be a minimalist. I have pared down — and I have shopped up. I have luxuriated in choices — and I have longed for simplicity.

And when I return, inevitably, to my spend-y, accumulative ways, it always comes back to this: style = self! Exploring and refining my style is a way I explore and evolve who I am. And clothing expresses something about me — when I get on that Zoom in my boxy, sharp blue, Jil Sander sleeveless blazer, it’s conveying something about the kind of ideas and results I’m capable of.

But my friend Tiia, of @sundaystyle is someone who always makes me stop my breathless push to the shopping finish line and go, “Fair.”

A little while back she said something I’ve looked and looked for and can’t seem to find (Tiia, if you know what I mean, will you link in the comments?), something along the lines of how fashion world convinces us that fashion is this signifier of self. That is, she opened up for me, for the first time (and jeez, I can’t believe it was the first time!) the idea that maybe the fashion machine is what’s telling us that clothing is about this deeper thing, the self — maybe even TO SELL US CLOTHES.

«insert mind blown and facepalm emojis here»

And it’s true that sometimes Amy of Tibi’s ruminations are a bridge too far, even for a fan me. Like when she gets into things along the lines of … if you look creative in an interview someone will think you have creative, bottom-line impacting ideas. That sort of thing. I think most leaders are where they are in part because they suss talent quickly, even if it’s in a paper bag (and it often is).

But it was eye opening to hear Tiia’s probe, as usual. And led me to put the title to this blog into drafts. And leave it there. Scaring me. For a long time.

Let’s face the demon and contemplate it then. What if clothes are JUST CLOTHES. Separate and apart from the self.

A couple proof points

Exhibit A) I’ve hired lots of people in my time, and I can’t say that even I, with my clothing obsession, have judged what they wear as indicative of who they are beyond the egregious, e.g. wildly ripped denim on an interview felt like they didn’t care or have the best judgement. Same with wildly revealing to the point of distraction. But that’s where that ends.

Exhibit B) I have a friend whom I adore. She’s brilliant. She’s confident because she knows her shit. She wears whatever, I think. I do not honestly know why she dresses the way she does - there’s no intention whatsoever. I believe her primary goal is to cover her body and just get by without raising eyebrows in her important job. She has an incredibly strong sense of self. Like top .5 percentile.

That’s it. That’s my best evidence!

But ok, let’s assume for the sake of discussion that understanding, evolving and communicating the self is NOT part of dressing.

Let’s assume we just love clothes. And love collecting them. Indulgently.

If … then

Sure, if it is just clothes, then theoretically, you only need enough to cover yourself and make yourself appropriate in the various situations that matter to you, like my friend.

But even if you don’t buy that they have anything to do with who you are as a person you still might want more of them. You might want options, you might like their beauty, etc. etc.

Lots of people want more of things. It’s why the term “collector” exists. Coin collector. Stamp collector. Art collector. So if it’s just clothes, as far as collections go it’s a wearable one! Useful! What’s the problem?

Why is this the only area of collecting, besides, maybe … hunters collecting antlers, that seems to have this vail of judgment on it?

For one thing, sustainability. And I do get that. Fashion is one of the worst sustainability culprits. Buying “more” when it comes to fashion is a lot different than buying “more” when it comes to stamp collecting. Or even travel.

It seems to me that the only thing inherently “wrong” with having all these clothes (assuming you can afford it, you’re not ignoring your family in service of it, and all the other addiction implications), is the environmental implication. But not all collecting is created equal. It’s not a zero game. That’s an oversimplification.

I am far from perfect or even very “good” on this, but I do look at everything I do as being part of a cycle. I’m either buying used or thinking about what will happen when I no longer want this piece, right from the moment of purchase. I use any platform I have to promote sustainable options and experimentation with what you have, and I encourage re-wearing your clothes. I give advice with the intention of helping others avoid mistakes that will just sit in their closet and eliminate one-use items. I show others how to shop sustainably. I look very closely at who I buy from. When I give style/closet/DNA advice, I know I’ve gotten people off fast fashion.

But yes, I have lots of stuff. I collect. This is a joy for me.

And so many others. I honestly feel that we will make better inroads sharing small, attainable steps and collectively pushing the fast fashion industry (with our dollar) to do better. Not trying to get those who love this stuff to become minimalists. Prohibition didn’t stop drinking.

But is something else happening?

If we are just people who want a lot of beautiful things, just collectors in the world, and we are doing it as responsibly as possible, why should there have to be this idea that somehow there’s a greater self at stake? Why can’t it be just clothes?

I think that criticism of women for accumulating a lot of things is a particular strain of criticism in the world — and there’s something not right about it.

The idea of women accumulating, say, shoes has become a shorthand for women being shallow or frivolous, or even unhinged. And that’s not something we ascribe to male collectors. And it’s not just the sustainability piece, because that never seems to come up within this brand of condemnation.

In that first Sex & the City movie, Carrie is virtuous when she wants to get married in a used suit, but when she starts gleefully trying on all these uber high end labeled dresses, it’s this montage that sparks her downfall. She’s guilty of wanting beautiful stuff.

In the Devil Wore Prada, the Anna Wintour has the montage scene where she throws a different bag and coat on the desk every morning. It shows a carelessness about people’s feelings, in the obnoxious toss, but we also go close to see that each is different, each is designer, each is “a lot” — we also indite her for her excess.

I could supply endless examples of these tropes where cis men are exasperated with women’s shopping habit, where it’s something we’re “doing to” them, where stuff somehow becomes signifier.

I think it’s interesting that the one that the area of collecting we somehow feel the need to justify with this notion of self improvement (which, by the way, I believe is real, but for the sake of argument) — is primarily inhabited by women.

Maybe it’s not that clothing companies sell us on discovering ourselves through clothes in order to get us to buy things. But rather that clothing companies are reflecting something that’s happening in the world. Something that we need to tell ourselves because of the judgment from without and within. About what having “too much” means.

I keep hearing that line from Elaine on Seinfeld in my head. “It’s nobody’s business where I buy my shoes.” (I’m not buying them at Shein.)

But back to the question.

What if it’s all just clothes?

For me, it isn’t. For some it might be. We get to — it’s certainly a privilege, so there is that — but we have the right to have beautiful things, in a way that’s decent and complies with our own moral code , even if that’s “all” there is behind it.

Rather than ask ourselves, if we’re somehow “bad” if it’s just clothes, I think we should also look at this judgment. Judgment of self, judgment of each other, and yes the judgment of the men who portray having lots of clothes as somehow “less than” while collecting cars and whatever else.

Criticism, in the sense of critical thinking, is a good thing. It forces us to be more conscious and reckon with ourselves and our decisions. It also needs to be meted out fairly.

Judgment and stereotyping and self flagellation aren’t tools of progress. And ultimately may get in the way of it.