Costly Obsesion With Fashion

A Costly Obsession with Fashion

"The imperative to package is unavoidable in a society in which people have been encouraged to see themselves as consumers not merely of toothpaste and automobiles, but imponderables as lifestyle, government, and health," writes Thomas Hine, author of "What's in a Package" (91). Although my ridiculously expensive, fifty dollar Rhinestone Logo Tank top from Bebe did not necessarily require me to consider my health or the government upon its purchase, it certainly required me to consider the lifestyle I was living and what image this item would portray about it. Laurence Shames, author of "The More Factor," argues that the American way of doing things and the American sense of what's worth doing is based on a frontier, a symbol for opportunity- more. The tank top I purchased fits into what Shames calls "The More Factor" because the values in our society are ever changing; as is the frontier. In America, the fashion industry defines how its society should dress, and guarantees its success by focusing its packaging on the reassurance that what consumers are looking at, and potentially buying, is something newer and better. In America, where the idea that "bigger is better" is the underlying theory behind consumer culture, its fashion industry ironically thrives on the idea of less being more, with respect to the amount of material used for clothing, and

targets the whimsical minded adolescent citizens who consume extremely expensive clothing, associating it with societal status.

America strives to be different from other countries in the world in all aspects of its lifestyle, explicitly through fashion. We do not care so much about the latest trends in our society, but rather which brands are making them; and only if the brand is popular enough does the majority of society base their final purchase. This is not the case in other parts of the world, however, where clothing is not taken to the fashionable level but is simply considered a necessity. While in other countries the idea of being more clothed is considered more attractive, in America the less we wear the more attractive and appealing we seem; a theory targeted mainly toward women. This is ironic, however, because we are a society that markets its every new product, excluding some new technology, on the suggestion of bigger being better. In Shames' "The More Factor," the analogy of the frontier to suggest opportunity and success is made; with more land comes more opportunity. While this is true when building an industry, it proves inaccurate when dealing with the products of the fashion industry in America.

The "more" factor in the fashion industry in America is actually based on less material. The less you wear, the more appealing you are. When I bought my fifty dollar top, I knew that it was not worth the money, and in the Northern Mariana Islands, where it was actually made in the U.S.A., its maximum price was probably less than half of the tagged price. The shirt barely covered an inch of my shoulders and showed my midriff,

yet the tagged price suggested that I was buying a full-length winter coat. The fact that I was willing to pay such an amount for such an item clearly shows the effects of American

fashion culture on susceptible young shoppers- like me, there are many other adolescent shoppers that fit, and continually strive to fit, into this category.

But we are not all subconsciously spendthrift to constantly blow money on less clothing; in fact, we are fully conscious of our selections and purchases. Although we might not be receiving the most material for our money, it is the prestige and popularity that we might receive afterwards that lures us into buying an item. The responsibility for an item to catch our attention in a way that makes us believe that we might attain such respect by buying it lies in the way it is packaged. In essence, to make up for the fact that we pay so much more for less material is made up for in the item's packaging. "Packages help those who use an item feel good about it" (Hine, 92). The image of our body is so highly personalized and valued in American society that the packaging of an article of clothing that we are going to place on our bodies should be exactly representative of a certain image we want to portray: The look generally revolves around looking expensive and uncomfortable yet trying our best not to pay or feel in such a way- again, this theory is targeted toward women.

In fashion, the idea of feeling comfortable and looking sexy simultaneously is the goal, and when designers accomplish this they usually have a best-selling item. The trick in selling the item is in its packaging. In actuality, when we buy an article of clothing we are buying an image of ourselves. Its packaging, presented via models wearing the clothing, helps with the appeal of the article of clothing. Whether or not we actually look

like the model has no significance, as long as we see ourselves looking like the model or having the potential to look like the model generally satisfies us. My purchase of the

Rhinestone Logo Tank from Bebe was not only made because of the popularity of the brand, but because of the pictures of glamorous models wearing these outfits which made me believe I could look as good as the models if I wore it.

But people cannot be consumers all the time. If nothing else, they must do something to earn the money that allows them to consume the items they purchase. This, in turn pressures people to package themselves in order to survive. Individuals have to re-create, or at least represent, themselves in order to seem both desirable and safe (Hine, 98). What defines something as desirable is what the fashion icons such as Giselle Buchen and Beyonce Knowles are modeling; and today, less clothing is what seems to be more desirable.

However, it is not entirely our faults for purchasing expensive clothing that barely covers our bodies. The accountability of these purchases is largely due