visual communication of our identities through dress and/or fashion is ubiquitous and a fundamental tool that

proclaims who we are, both to ourselves and to people around us. Getting dressed every day is a compulsory,
non-negotiable activity for most people; we can hardly ever exercise our preferences on the matter. Instead, we
decide how to execute the dressing process. What we choose to wear can determine rejection or acceptance into
different social groups, whether or not we get a job, a promotion, respect, admiration and attention. Our dressing
and fashion choices have psychological, social, political and economic meanings and consequences.
Identity is a complex and sometimes ambiguous concept, which can be loosely understood as the set of different
meanings that define a person in his/her society (Burke 1980). An attempt to understand identity has resulted in
an agreement by scholars of the subject that we possess multiple identities. There are three widely accepted
bases of identity social, role and personal identity. Our overall identities are a blend of the three identities we
possess. We play different roles in society one could be a student, mother, daughter, wife, politician, woman,
mentor and many others. The roles we play in society dictate our identities and our identities prescribe our
feelings, mannerisms, thoughts and general behaviour. Our identities are inextricably linked to our society; we
cannot be understood outside our societies, as Erik Erikson postulated. Personal identities are tied more to
individuals than they are to social and role identities. The three bases of identities social, role and personal
are interrelated but expressed separately in separate contexts (Burke, Stets, 2000).
Role identity the core of our identities lies in the categorisation of the self as an occupant of a particular
social position and adopting the meanings and expectations that are associated with the given role and its
performance (Stets & Burke, 2000). Although different people may have different meanings and different
expectations for the same role identity, we can explore some of the more universally accepted role meanings and
expectations for women. Women play roles such as mothers, wives, students and professionals. Role identities
are only ever expressed in relation to the society or to other identities. There are fashion choices that are
considered appropriate and inappropriate for mothers in the society respectability and modesty are generally
guiding principles for fashion among mothers and wives but there is leniency towards younger women who are
allowed to make bolder and more provocative fashion choices for which they are not judged. Such younger
women are simply called eccentric personalities. A mother who makes a young girls fashion choices is frowned
upon in society, gossiped about and ostracised in some cases.
Occupational attributes are also affected by what women choose to wear. These attributes include honesty,
professionalism, efficiency, reliability, intelligence and competency (Kwon, 1994). In work places, successful
women who wear mini-skirts and high heels generally have a negative reputation and the notion is usually that
they gave sexual favours to achieve their success. On the other hand, women at work who wear clothes that are
considered decent are associated with positive values and attributes, such as being hard working, focused, honest
and trustworthy. With knowledge of social norms and the culture of the society they live in, womens role
identities tend to lean more toward the socially acceptable values even if they are in conflict with their social or
personal identities.

Personal identity is the lowest level of self-categorisation according to the social identity theory (Brewer, 1991).
Personal identity is how we see ourselves distinct from other people in the groups to which we belong. Our
personal identities focus on our own beliefs, goals and value systems, and our fashion comes in all forms. At this
level of identity, women often wear whatever they like because it makes them feel good about themselves and
makes them feel happy, confident, less self-conscious and free from social expectations and constraints.
Similarly, fashion restricts womens freedom and self-confidence because of the image of perfection
synonymous with fashion marketing. Hence, some women will work hard to become as close to the perfection
advertised in the fashion industries, while others will decide to peg their self-confidence on other things outside
of fashion. In this case, the aspects of womens personal identity that are affected by fashion tend to be selfesteem, self-confidence and self-acceptance.
Is fashion anti-feminist?
A girl should be two things: who and what she wants. - Coco Chanel
So what do feminists say about fashion trends and the fashion industry? Feminisms overarching credo is that
women must be allowed the right to be who or what they want to be and to do whatever they want to do, as long
as they are not breaking any laws or infringing anybody elses rights. As such, it is not surprising that some
women hold the belief that fashion is anti-feminist. Some feminists argue that the fashion industry has for
decades favoured one female body ideal over all others and peddled the notion that a woman is not much if she
isnt adorned in the latest fashion. Indeed, it is easy to understand how and why most people think of feminists as
being anti-fashion and of fashion as being anti-feminist. This is mainly because of how fashion models tend to be
objectified and how they represent only certain body types. This objectification can be blamed on what drives
and motivates most designers: sex appeal. Models will often present designs worn without bras, extremely short
shorts, transparent clothing, backless dresses, pelvis-high slits and barely-there blouses, which wouldnt be a
problem in a perfect society. However, it is important to note that these body revealing designs are solely for
the pleasure and gaze of men. Thus the sexist nature of the fashion industry aggravates feminists, who struggle to
curb the objectification of women. Women are forced to believe that unless they resemble as much as possible
the ideals advertised in magazines, advertisements and runway shows, they are simply not attractive or appealing
to men.
However, not all fashion is overtly sexual and objectifying. Feminists can enjoy fashion without being vilified
for it. After all, women should be able to do what they want and be whomever they choose to be. The idea of
women formulating rules to control other womens freedom by dictating what they are allowed and not allowed
to be interested in, even if these preferences are negative products of patriarchy, is itself an anti-feminist idea.
Not everything born out of patriarchy and not everything born out of fashion is oppressive to women. Fashion
may be considered by some women as superficial, sexist and oppressive, but if feminists refuse to participate in
it, we are signing away our power to influence it.

And differences over fashion should not be a divisive issue among feminists. Instead, our differences should be
addressed comprehensively to unify feminists and bolster feminists efforts to achieve their goals. As Audre
Lorde says in her essay, The Masters Tools will not dismantle the Masters House (2007):
As women, we have been taught either to ignore our differences, or to view them as causes for separation and
suspicion rather than as forces for change. Without community, there is no liberation, only the most vulnerable
and temporary armistice between an individual and her oppressionin our world, divide and conquer must
become define and empower.

Fashion, like so many other things associated primarily with women, may be dismissed as trivial, but it shapes
how were read by others, especially on the levels of gender, class and race. In turn, how were read determines
how we are treated, especially in the workforcewhether we are hired, promoted and respected, and how well
we are paid. That most ordinary and intimate of acts, getting dressed, has very real political and economic
consequences.
If feminists ignore fashion, we are ceding our power to influence it. Fortunately, history has shown that feminists
can, instead, harness fashion and use it for our own political purposes.
When the rhetoric of equality fell on deaf ears, suffragists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries made quite
literal fashion statements. Green, white and violet jewelry was a favored suffragist accessory, but not because of
any aesthetic imperative: The first letters of each color G, W, Vwas shorthand for give women votes.
A century later, in the 1980s, women appropriated mens styles of dress in an attempt to access the social and
economic capital that lay on the other side of the glass ceiling. So-called career women practiced power dressing,
wearing tailored skirt suits with huge shoulder pads, approximating the style and silhouette of the professional
male executive.
Yet such adaptations of mens fashion and styles are rarely without small feminine touches. Sociologist Jan
Felshin coined the term feminine apologetic to describe how the pearls or ruffles on a womans professional
attire serve as disclaimers: I may be powerful but Im not masculine. Or (gasp!) a lesbian.

Feminism is not a matter of appearances. Feminism is about building a world where womenall of themhave
the opportunity to live rich, satisfying lives. It's about making womenagain, all of themsafe from violence
and other forms of coercion, and ensuring they have access to education, family planning including abortion and
birth control, and careers wherein they are paid and promoted on par with men. Feminism isn't about improving
women's self-esteem, it's about giving proper value to the various kinds of work women do, on the clock or at
home. It's about restructuring our society such that youth, beauty, and sexual availability aren't a woman's most
vital currency.