Many young adults are gravitating towards a styling of clothing that reflects an oversized, kind of ugly, doesn’t-fit-quite-right aesthetic that is reminiscent of clothing that people would purchase at a thrift store. While some of these consumers are making the trek out to the thrift store and sifting through hundreds of items of clothing in order to find the types of clothing that fit this aesthetic, many consumers do not want to actually put in the time and effort to go thrift shopping. Large brands such as Forever 21, Abercrombie and Fitch, and other fast fashion shops have noticed this trend and have begun producing clothing that fits this aesthetic. They sell baggy, oversized men’s shirts that have been cropped shorter to reflect trendy, feminine clothing aesthetics and ill-fitting “mom jeans” that would typically be a result of consumers not being able to find jeans that fit them exactly right at the thrift store.
While thrift stores are often selling shirts and jeans for less than ten dollars, these name brand companies are selling replica shirts upwards of fifty dollars and jeans upwards of one hundred. One specific example of a company that has began following this trend is Levi Strauss & Co. This jean brand started out as a company that was popular among ranchers in the 1930’s and has since shifted through various subcultures in America as time has gone on. While I’m not sure of the affordability of the brand through time, it’s clear that Levi jeans were originally made for the working man, which shows how they have bubbled up to more of the middle/upper class over time. Now, Levi’s produces a variety of jeans for varied prices, but what I’m most interested in is their mom jean collection.
Mom jeans are trendy among young adult women despite their almost too-baggy appearance. These vintage Levis are what thrifting experts spend hours searching for on the racks because they are able to get the fit and brand of Levis while still purchasing affordable clothing. While the Levi-mom jean look can easily be achieved by purchasing jeans from a thrift store, Levis makes it easier on consumers by providing a fail-safe way to purchase jeans that fit this aesthetic without wasting any time. However, Levis sells these jeans at around the hundred dollar mark, versus many thrift store jeans that cost less than ten. People are clearly fetishizing the clothing aesthetic they desire. This is especially prevalent in thrifted clothing because although thrifted clothing was most likely standardized in the time it was released, there is a much greater sense of individuality because thrift stores are a hodgepodge of unique items that would most likely be difficult to track down somewhere else.
People who thrift have the attitude of, “Oh, I found the only good pair of jeans in this entire store and I know I wouldn’t be able to find them anywhere else! It’s a unique find.” On the other hand, Levis has managed to remove this sense of individuality and standardizes a product that is literally based on the fact that the product is unique and somewhat difficult to obtain. This also reflects society’s willingness to conform to capitalism without thought or resistance because Levis is solely capitalizing on a trend the company saw growing amongst young adults in recent years and many people are buying into it. It makes me wonder why it is that people are willing to pay such a high price for a product that is based on another product that is known for being inexpensive.
Not only is the clothing aesthetic being fetishized, but there is also an element of fetishizing lower classes since they are often the people associated with thrift stores. In this modern age, I think the desire to purchase the thrifted aesthetic has more to do with ease of purchase, both because the new Levis can be purchased online as well as the fact that consumers don’t have to waste more time than necessary looking for a good pair of jeans at a thrift shop. We are so used to getting everything on demand that expending too much effort would simply be a waste of our time.
Many consumers have been brainwashed due to the culture industry and capitalism to believe that the more expensive a product is, the higher quality it is. However, the standardization of products due to the culture industry forces us to want the exact same items that our peers have in order to feel like we fit in, meaning that we fork out more money for a name brand product, which is how the culture industry influences us to believe that expensive is better. This underscores the negative aspects of commodity fetishism in the culture industry by demonstrating how commodity fetishism is a detriment to consumers because we often end up overspending our money.
Overall, the desire to have a thrifted clothing style and aesthetic is a nuanced issue and quite frankly, it’s crazy how much people are willing to pay to appear as if they didn’t pay much for their clothing. Style and aesthetic is a commonly sought after commodity fetish in today’s society but despite this, I don’t think it’s a huge detriment to American society because we all do and should have the free choice to spend our money how we please.
aestheticara 