Poverty Chic: aesthetic or elitist cosplay? The first mention of this “aesthetic” can be traced back to the mid-1980s in London. Red or Dead creator, Wayne Hemingway, is the father of this controversial aesthetic. Ironic, since his target demographic was the upper-class. Nevertheless, Hemingway had a keen sense for street fashion, and noticed a major shift occurring. The younger generation of the elite were distancing themselves from the stuffy, formal look of their predecessors.
This generation- though just as wealthy- no longer wanted “the well tailored young executive look”, according to Encyclopedia of Fashion. Instead, they wanted the “hard times student” aesthetic (AKA “recession chic”, “recession core”, or “poverty chic”).
The everyday working class individual was not the style inspiration of the 80s elite, though. In fact, the working class rarely fit into the upper-class’s definition of recession chic. Only those who were “poverty stricken but style-conscious” fell into this category. To be “style-conscious” in the 1980s meant wearing heavy fabrics. It meant layering. It meant wearing Doc Martens (yes, this is where the hipster trend originated). As Encyclopedia of Fashion says, “The idea of a heavy, functional shoe for women was not initially a fashion statement; it came out of the whole recession chic concept, but it soon became an obligatory accessory for those who would never have bought secondhand.”
After reviewing this criteria, one thing becomes abundantly clear: what is a necessity for the working class, is merely an accessory (or stylistic choice) for the wealthy. Yes, layering is a great way to add character to an outfit. It’s also a way to stay warm and protect one’s self from harsh environments. Yes, heavy fabrics give a sense of ornateness. They can also take an extreme amount of wear-and-tear, often outlasting their lightweight counterpart.
Hemingway saw this overlap and identified it as a problem. In his mind, fashion was fickle, and he didn’t want that to change. In fact, “the idea behind Red or Dead was… to wear the stuff for a few months, [before it] either drops to bits or becomes unfashionable.” So, what was Hemingway to do? Lower the quality of his products and risk losing the element that made his work so authentic? Perhaps, if he was based in the United States circa 2024. But not in London, and certainly not in the 80s! Which meant the only way to overcome the issue of durable, long-lasting material was to promote overconsumption.
Differentiate yourself as upper-class through quantity, not quality. That was the name of Hemingway’s game, and it garnered him international success. The Guardian dubbed the 80s as the age of “entrepreneurial materialism”, though, so is it really that surprising?
The game would go on to create a domino effect of issues, however, both within the industry and outside of it. Fashion, whether intentional or not, is a means of communication. You can tell a lot by the way someone dresses, and I don’t just mean about their personality. More often than not, you can gauge how someone lives their life, what hobbies they enjoy, what social class they fall into, and their belief system based on the clothes they are wearing.
When you take key aspects of a real issue or real topic and use it as a way to deliver aesthetic, you enter dicey territory.
Dr. Karen Bettez Halnon, a professor of Sociology at Pennsylvania State University, explains why in Poor Chic: The Rational Consumption of Poverty. Her paper lists the following aspects of poverty as props or symbols businesses often take advantage of:
- Mental illness
- Starvation
- Drug addiction
- Unhoused individuals
- Insane asylums
- Gangs and violence
- Ragged looking clothing (ripped jeans, torn-up hosiery)
- Short or ill-fitting clothing
- Work boots
- Thrift stores, secondhand clothing, and flea markets
What makes these props appealing in theory but repealing in reality? Our ability to choose when we engage with them. Karl Marx once said, “The commodity fetishizes: it conceals its essence, and replaces it with desires purchased for a price.” By choosing when we engage with these very real issues, and by only doing so in a superfluous manner, we control our fear of poverty by consuming poverty.
However, controlling the fear of poverty through commodification dehumanizes the issue. This disconnect ultimately causes a lasting, and detrimental, cultural shift. The necessities or inescapable realities of the economically disenfranchised are now viewed as meaningless, disposable commodities.
Does this mean we can’t buy a pair of ripped jeans with a clean conscience? Of course not. But, it should make us think twice before purchasing from brands that use aspects of poverty as a marketing tactic.
Leave a Reply