Fashion's Paradoxes: authentic and modernist, serious and frivolous, aesthetic and functional, expressive and deceptive;

my notes from reading Elizabeth Wilson, Sherry Ortner and the Fabien Society 2025

Authentic vs. Modernist Frameworks

Wilson draws comparisons between “authentic” and “modernist” approaches, presenting them as thesis and antithesis in the discourse of fashion.

This reminds me of wider binaries such as culture vs. nature and male vs. female (Wilson.E 2003)

This raises the issue of perspective; whether feminist critiques of fashion arise from different standpoints (women’s, men’s, non-binary), which means consensus is unlikely.

But perhaps consensus isn’t the point; maybe it's better to recognise and include multiple perspectives, encouraging empathy and broader awareness... there must be a connection to Karma here.

I wonder if more contemporary feminist and queer fashion theorists would challenge binary frameworks and would they support or contradict Wilson’s position? ( more on that later....complexity theory?)

Nature and Culture — Sherry Ortner and Fabian Theory

Sherry Ortner (1972) argued that “nature” is symbolically associated with femininity, while “culture” aligns with masculinity and technological modernity.

Wilson references this framework, suggesting that some strands of feminism have drawn on it (Wilson, Adorned in Dreams).

This contrasts with Fabian socialism’s suspicion of “beauty” (as a form of frivolity or indulgence) where culture is sometimes ranked lower than moral purity or simplicity. This inversion complicates Ortner's nature/culture hierarchy.

This links to my argument about the karmic framework; which emphasises cause and effect rather than “natural order”; and challenges both the Ortner and Fabian perspectives.

High vs. Low Culture, and Paradox

Wilson uses analogies between fashion’s contradictions including high vs. low culture.

These highlight the paradoxical nature of fashion: simultaneously serious and frivolous, aesthetic and functional, expressive and deceptive.

On reflection, this tension maps well onto binaries of masculinity vs. femininity but can also extend to non-binary frameworks, echoing similar debates in art where “normal rules don’t apply.”

More on how this links to my argument or what it means to me - karma

References and Citations

Wilson, E. (2003) Adorned in Dreams. 1st edn. I.B. Tauris.

Ortner, S. Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture? Author(s): Reviewed work(s): Source: Feminist Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Autumn, 1972), pp. 5-31 Published by: Feminist Studies, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3177638 .