By Theodore Hoelker

Recently, I took an adventure to Meijer with a few friends. We got there just 10 minutes  before closing, with barely enough time for me to buy the cookies I had come for. While we all sat in the car and enjoyed them, I happened to see People magazine in the seat next to me. Intrigued, as I do not often read magazines, I opened it up. My friend Sophia directed me to the “Style Tracks” section on page 10, where we were greeted with some recent fashionable celebrity outfit picks. I was struck by music artist Bad Bunny’s outfit, which consisted in a white button-down shirt, several golden chains around his neck, a square-shouldered, plaid suit coat, and what appeared to be designer swim trunks. He threw on an Atlanta Braves baseball cap to top it all off. Of course, I laughed and mocked him sufficiently for it (why would anyone root for the Braves?), but when I had finished, I reflected on the nature of fashion and its propensity for producing such absurd outfits. Why, I wondered, would anyone seriously wear such a ridiculous arrangement of clothing? Further, why would a legitimate publication not only treat his outfit normally, but also regard it so highly to think that it should be printed as something to emulate? 

Are they bound by the anxiety of influence, feeling obligated to do something no one has done before? Are they operating under P. T. Barnum’s theory that the only bad publicity is no publicity? Or have the modern fashionistas and fashionistos just abandoned all common sense of what looks good? I suspect that some of the above ideas play a part in the answer, but I think the root issue is fallen human nature; at the same time, I believe that fashion is inherent in human nature but is not inherently flawed. Instead, it can sway public opinion and thought to what is good and eternal.

What I just said probably sounds a little silly. That is because I equivocated on the word “fashion.” Let me clarify the second sense of the word, the sense that can sway public thought “to what is good and eternal.” 

“Fashion” expresses the idea that things pass in and out of popularity. Broadly speaking, fashion does not just refer to clothing. There are also fashionable words and phrases, careers, lifestyles, and even ideas. People of all kinds and throughout all of history have experienced these different kinds of fashion.  In my History of Mathematics course with Dr. Murphy this semester, we have been learning about a sort of “fashion” in the mathematical world. In the time of Ancient Greece, Pythagoras, with his love of number, successfully proved many mathematical truths using arithmetical quantity as a basis. However, when one of his disciples proved what we now call the irrationality of the square root of two, all of Pythagoras’ proofs were called into question, creating a skepticism of arithmetic. Because of this Pythagorean crisis, Euclid, Archimedes, and the Greeks following Pythagoras dealt almost solely with geometry. Over the next sixteen centuries or so, geometry remained superior to arithmetic in the general perception of mathematics. However, that has shifted in our modern age. Now, arithmetic is understood as superior to geometry, as is evident from the fact that one or two out of the twelve math courses you take in grade school are geometry, but the other ten are arithmetic. Not even the abstract realm of mathematics is safe from the vicissitudes of fashion. But this shift in the math arena is not necessarily faulty or incorrect. In fact, many mathematical leaps have been made since this shift, many of which would have been much more difficult with a geometric base instead of an arithmetic one. If its changes are not always vicissitudinous, then why is fashion sometimes mocked?

Not even the abstract realm of mathematics is safe from the vicissitudes of fashion.

Usually, if fashion is not taken seriously, it is because of its rapid change or its ridiculous extremes. As Bad Bunny makes clear, there are times when a “fashionable” outfit is too outlandish or unrealistic. This causes people to take those who control fashion less seriously because, if those controlling fashion believe such a laughable outfit is a solid indication of what looks good, why should one follow their advice? Next is fashion’s all too quick variation. This is illustrated well by the Tulip Mania of Europe in the 17^th century, when tulips were sparsely introduced from the Ottoman Empire. Tulips quickly became a status symbol, adding more demand to the already low supply, and as any good economist will tell you, low supply plus high demand equals an expensive product. The demand for tulips became so high that individuals and families invested entire estates in the tulip market; however, when the market crashed practically overnight in 1637, many people lost their land and fortunes. Because the monetary value of tulips changed immediately, so did their popularity. These two examples show why many people hate fashion or avoid what is fashionable. But, as the progression of mathematics illustrates, not all variations of fashion are bad. In order to find what makes these fluctuations good or bad, then, we should determine their origin, the origin of fashion.

Fashion seems to be innate to a community. Because of the multiplicity of people, there is a multiplicity of clothing, phrases, careers, lifestyles, and ideas. However, one will also find in a community a few people of what we can call “special influence.” Everyone holds influence over some, but when someone is said to have special influence, his actions and words weigh more heavily on the opinions of many. His character—his ethos—must be able to impress upon his audience the importance of his actions, actions which, if performed by someone without special influence, would be viewed indifferently. Possessing special influence is the moral equivalent of an argument from authority (by “moral” here, I do not mean “ethical,” but rather “having to do with action”). The man with influence impacts the multiplicity of clothing, phrases, and ideas. His ethos makes his actions and words appealing: others desire to be like him, and thus imitate him in wearing what he wears, saying what he says in the way he says it, and sharing his opinions. When a man of influence changes his way of speaking or takes on a new idea, or if a new man with influence enters the community, what is “fashionable” will usually change accordingly. 

This is what gives rise to the changes in fashion. Though the man of special influence is rare, he seems to be present in all communities. In any group, leaders will naturally arise, and their influence will likely be felt by most in the group more heavily than the influence of others. It seems, then, that there are inevitably people of special influence in any size community.  Because of this, people will inevitably desire to imitate them, and thus, fashion is inevitable and innate in a community.  

Thinkers like Thomas Aquinas who assert that man is a mimetic creature would probably agree with this conclusion. For, if man is mimetic, then it is according to his nature to imitate others, and thus, a natural leader will probably be imitated more than others, giving rise to fashion. If this is the case, then, that fashion is innate to human communities, why does it fluctuate in such a flawed way? 

We need look no further than our shared fallen nature to find the cause of fashion’s constant flux. Because of this nature, we often see people of special influence and envy them. We wish to be well-known or respected like they are, and so we vie for influence, thus sparking the ever-constant battle for relevance and popularity. That constant vying is what leads to the frequent shifts and far-reaching extremes of fashion. For, once one person acts in a way that gains attention or seems to influence others, other people often attempt to do something different to gain influence, which sparks more reactions for the sake of influence. The rapid succession pulls popular opinion every which way, causing clothing, ideas, art, and other things to pass in and out of vogue more quickly than they should. 

In hopes to outdo one another, some people then attempt to take an idea or theme further than anyone else has, creating a cycle that leads to the wild extremes of fashion. In this way, our envy, which arises from our fallen human nature, is the cause of fashion’s continual shifting.

All of this is very academic. What I mean to say is that it is not fashion that leads us away from what matters, rather it is we who lead fashion away from what matters. Fashion is not inherently good or evil: it is like physical strength, money, political power, or a flute. It is a tool which takes effort and skill to use properly, and when used as it should, it yields a beautiful end. 

It is not fashion that leads us away from what matters, rather it is we who lead fashion away from what matters.

Perhaps it can be contended that using fashion properly is more difficult in the internet-laden world where we abide, and the internet has exacerbated fashion’s problems by allowing its fluctuations to spread across the globe much more swiftly. But this simply adds to the glory we will experience when we are raised with Christ, for we can say that we lived in the first generation of those who wielded the power of the internet.

Properly wielded, fashion will lead those under its influence to virtuous strength, to prudence, to holy leaders, and to good music, which all lead one to God. To say that fashion is inherently flawed is like saying that hammers are evil because they are often used for violence against others. A tool’s abuse does not make the tool itself flawed. The user is the one who is flawed. 

A tool’s abuse does not make the tool itself flawed. The user is the one who is flawed.

If this is true, what implications does this have on human nature? Would man have had fashion contests before the fall? Would ideas have passed in and out of popularity? How far would this have gone? What bearing does this have on us, and how can we use this information to better the culture? To this last question, I would say watch how fashion influences you. Examine yourself and see if there are any cases in which you act or think in a way only because it is the popular way. But more than this, to those who hold special influence, I commend you to your duty and caution that you be careful. People watch what you do—do not abuse that power.

Theodore Hoelker is a Junior studying Mathematics and Philosophy.