Great article and points. I think at the end of the day it’s all about belonging. At the root of it, many people are trying to answer the question: "Where do I fit? And how do I show others that I do?" Logos and luxury serve as shorthand for that answer, even if it’s subconscious.
But what if we flipped the script? What if instead of signaling who we want others to think we are, we began asking ourselves: "Who am I without the signals?" Not just the signals coming from the material things, but the curated images, the captioned identities, the subtle performances we offer up online, etc. In a way, such branding makes us strangers to our own authenticity, where identity becomes borrowed instead of built. Maybe the real rebellion today isn’t minimalism in fashion, but minimalism in self-presentation: being okay with not being seen, or even better, being truly known... first by yourself, then by the few who matter.
I really enjoyed reading your perspective and that question about minimalism in self-presentation. It makes me think that the digital era has maximized self-presentation, in a “one-to-many” platform (as described in The Anxious Generation) vs a one-to-one reality or even a one-to-many reality that is still contained by a finite number of real people in a time-limited setting. The pressure to “signal” and the search for belonging is completely altered in the virtual world.
Yes… I think about this quite often. The audience is infinite, and so is the pressure. What once felt like connection now often feels like performance. It makes me wonder how do we reclaim that sense of belonging in quieter, slower ways.. In spaces that aren’t constantly asking us to prove ourselves, but simply to be. But thank you again for writing on this.
Many great points, I also wonder if the same concepts apply to the new growing trend of “quiet luxury” where certain items may not have a logo and “ just the people who know, know.” Could quiet luxury wearers also want their items to be seen by people who would recognize them?
I don’t think quite luxury is all that different from conspicuous consumption. I think the shift could indicate, or be a reaction to, the growing social tide against capitalism and excess wealth. The function may still the same: indicating class, but within a tighter circle.
The price quality heuristic still applies: the thought that *because* something is more expensive, it is higher-quality (vs the other way around). The Veblen effect still applies too, in that demand would still be raised by that higher price.
Now, one difference I could see, and may also be reflective of another societal shift: sustainability. I think without a logo, an item could potentially have a longer life cycle. The goal on the brand side might be less trend, and more timelessness. The time to obsolescence is increased.
I enjoyed this and gravitated towards reading it because for as long as I remember, for the most part, I resist wearing clothes with words and especially logos. My conscious argument is that I don't want to be advertising for free AND I especially don't want people making judgments about me without knowing me. I do make exceptions eg I have a hat with the XR logo. Even so, I don't wear it without consciously thinking whether I'm entering a space where I'm okay with being known (and can feel safe) as an XR supporter.
It’s great that you’re not just resisting passively but you’re actively curating how and when you’re willing to be associated with something. That kind of intentionality feels rare and refreshing.
When I was in middle school I used to think that Aeropostale was for the kids who were elite and that it was considered a high end brand. I didn’t even know that other kids could pick out their own clothes and I thought everyone just wore what their parents bought them.
That’s a great point about how the perception of a brand also can depend on age, class consciousness, etc. I think there’s a reason most little kids clothes don’t even have brands—they don’t perceive these things the way adults to.
Great article and points. I think at the end of the day it’s all about belonging. At the root of it, many people are trying to answer the question: "Where do I fit? And how do I show others that I do?" Logos and luxury serve as shorthand for that answer, even if it’s subconscious.
But what if we flipped the script? What if instead of signaling who we want others to think we are, we began asking ourselves: "Who am I without the signals?" Not just the signals coming from the material things, but the curated images, the captioned identities, the subtle performances we offer up online, etc. In a way, such branding makes us strangers to our own authenticity, where identity becomes borrowed instead of built. Maybe the real rebellion today isn’t minimalism in fashion, but minimalism in self-presentation: being okay with not being seen, or even better, being truly known... first by yourself, then by the few who matter.
I really enjoyed reading your perspective and that question about minimalism in self-presentation. It makes me think that the digital era has maximized self-presentation, in a “one-to-many” platform (as described in The Anxious Generation) vs a one-to-one reality or even a one-to-many reality that is still contained by a finite number of real people in a time-limited setting. The pressure to “signal” and the search for belonging is completely altered in the virtual world.
Yes… I think about this quite often. The audience is infinite, and so is the pressure. What once felt like connection now often feels like performance. It makes me wonder how do we reclaim that sense of belonging in quieter, slower ways.. In spaces that aren’t constantly asking us to prove ourselves, but simply to be. But thank you again for writing on this.
Many great points, I also wonder if the same concepts apply to the new growing trend of “quiet luxury” where certain items may not have a logo and “ just the people who know, know.” Could quiet luxury wearers also want their items to be seen by people who would recognize them?
I don’t think quite luxury is all that different from conspicuous consumption. I think the shift could indicate, or be a reaction to, the growing social tide against capitalism and excess wealth. The function may still the same: indicating class, but within a tighter circle.
The price quality heuristic still applies: the thought that *because* something is more expensive, it is higher-quality (vs the other way around). The Veblen effect still applies too, in that demand would still be raised by that higher price.
Now, one difference I could see, and may also be reflective of another societal shift: sustainability. I think without a logo, an item could potentially have a longer life cycle. The goal on the brand side might be less trend, and more timelessness. The time to obsolescence is increased.
I enjoyed this and gravitated towards reading it because for as long as I remember, for the most part, I resist wearing clothes with words and especially logos. My conscious argument is that I don't want to be advertising for free AND I especially don't want people making judgments about me without knowing me. I do make exceptions eg I have a hat with the XR logo. Even so, I don't wear it without consciously thinking whether I'm entering a space where I'm okay with being known (and can feel safe) as an XR supporter.
It’s great that you’re not just resisting passively but you’re actively curating how and when you’re willing to be associated with something. That kind of intentionality feels rare and refreshing.
When I was in middle school I used to think that Aeropostale was for the kids who were elite and that it was considered a high end brand. I didn’t even know that other kids could pick out their own clothes and I thought everyone just wore what their parents bought them.
That’s a great point about how the perception of a brand also can depend on age, class consciousness, etc. I think there’s a reason most little kids clothes don’t even have brands—they don’t perceive these things the way adults to.