Fashion is often dismissed as superficial, don’t you think? A matter of personal taste, fleeting trends, or aesthetic indulgence. But this view misunderstands the deeper role that clothing plays in social life. Fashion does not ask for permission. It speaks - for us, about us, often before we’ve said a word. Whether you care about it or not, fashion absorbs you into its language. To get dressed is to make a statement, however subtly. You are participating in a system, even if you’d rather not RSVP.

Fashion is not just about what we wear; it is about what we signal. Across cultures and eras, garments have served as visual shorthand for power, gender, class, aspiration, and belonging. Studying fashion is to examine how societies communicate their values, their systems, and their evolving sense of self.

Fashion acts as a cultural mirror - one that reflects historical shifts, political structures, and social hierarchies. What began as a practical or status-based necessity has evolved into a visual language, capable of encoding complex ideas about identity, aspiration, and belonging. As societies grew more symbolically organized, so did fashion’s role: no longer just material, it became metaphorical. Clothing began to “speak” - about power, values, rebellion, and restraint.

As anthropologist Alfred Kroeber argued in his theory of historic continuity, fashion evolves in long cultural cycles, shaped less by individual whim than by inherited aesthetic momentum. Silhouettes, fabrics, and styles reappear not as random revivals, but as responses to shifting cultural needs - forms embedded in collective memory. Drawing on symbolic interactionist theory, scholars like Andrew Reilly have shown that clothing communicates meaning within social contexts: it encodes identity, negotiates status, and reflects what a given society considers permissible, aspirational, or deviant. Together, these frameworks reveal fashion as both archive and performance - shaped by historical continuity and decoded through lived interaction.

By this logic, clothing doesn’t simply reflect the current mood; it echoes what has come before, filtered through new social and political conditions. Trends carry historical residue. The empire waist of the Napoleonic era revived classical Greek and Roman aesthetics as a rejection of royal extravagance, signaling a shift toward democratic ideals. Similarly, later minimalist movements used restraint and pared-down design as subtle critiques of mass consumption and capitalist abundance.

Victor Viger du Vigneau - La Rose de Malmaison 19th century (© of the photography of the painting: Edie Lou)

The Functions of Clothing: From Necessity to Symbolic Code

Clothing has never been solely about covering the body. Across time and cultures, garments have served multiple purposes - practical, psychological, and social. Scholars often group these into four primary functions: protection, modesty, adornment, and communication. While these may appear distinct, they operate simultaneously, shaping how individuals navigate both material conditions and symbolic environments.

The first function - protection - is the most instinctive. Clothes shield the body from external harm: weather, climate, terrain, and later, from industrial hazards or urban environments. From fur-lined cloaks to fire-retardant fabrics, garments extended the body’s capacity to survive. But even in their most functional forms, protective garments carry symbolic weight too - military uniforms, for instance protect while also communicating authority and national identity.

Modesty, often mistaken for a universal impulse, is deeply cultural. What a society deems appropriate or shameful to reveal varies widely across geography and history. In some eras, exposed ankles were scandalous; in others, they were ordinary. Modesty is not rooted in nature or physiology, but in cultural values, power structures, and social control - an unwritten contract between clothing, morality, and visibility. In this sense, garments help regulate bodies: who may be seen, and under what terms.

The third function, adornment, acknowledges clothing as a medium of aesthetic expression. From jewelry and embroidery to avant-garde silhouettes, garments allow the body to become a canvas. But it is not mere ornamentation. It communicates identity, signals status, reflects cultural norms, enforces gender roles, and expresses power or resistance. Whether one dresses with restraint or opulence, the choice is inherently communicative - it signals how one wishes to be perceived and positioned within a social context.

Finally, clothing serves a communicative function that extends far beyond visual enhancement. While adornment emphasizes aesthetic embellishment or symbolic display - often for ritual, status, or simply for beauty - communication engages shared social codes. It is not merely decorative; it is interpretive. Garments operate as signifiers within a cultural semiotic system, conveying information about gender, ideology, class affiliation, mood, or resistance. A sharply structured blazer, a torn band tee, or a deliberately austere silhouette each carries embedded meaning, legible only within specific social contexts. In this sense, clothing becomes not only a reflection of identity, but an active tool in its negotiation and performance.

Fashion as Historical Continuity

Fashion is perceived as cyclical, but this cycle is not random. According to historic continuity theory, change in fashion is largely evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Fashion evolves gradually over time, rather than through abrupt, random changes. It emphasizes continuity, memory, and cultural inheritance as key divers of stylistic transformation. New styles emerge in dialogue with existing ones. Trends do not appear out of nowhere; they are shaped by past aesthetics, societal values, and cultural references. The theory was introduced by Alfred Kroeber, a cultural anthropologist, in the early 20th century, who analyzed long-term trends in women’s fashion - particularly silhouette - and found clear patterns of gradual transformation over decades.

A skirt may rise seasonally until it becomes a mini (© of the original picture belongs to the rightful owner)

As historic continuity theory explains, fashion rarely moves in dramatic breaks. Instead, individual details - hemlines, necklines, silhouettes - shift gradually across seasons, each iteration adjusting proportion or emphasis until it reaches a stylistic limit. A skirt may rise seasonally until it becomes a mini, or balloon sleeves may expand until they dominate the silhouette. Once a form reaches its expressive maximum, the trend typically reverses, stabilizes, or mutates into a new direction. This cyclical transformation reflects not just the industry’s mechanics, but the way humans metabolize change: through familiarity stretched to its edge. In this way, fashion traces a cultural pulse, not by replacing the past, but by modulating it - detail by detail.

The reason fashion changes gradually, and not all at once, is because human beings are meaning-making creatures who rely on recognition to feel oriented. Sudden shifts in appearance or form can be cognitively jarring - they create a sense of rupture, which people often experience as discomfort or even rejection. Continuity eases that discomfort. By modifying just one element at a time - a sleeve shape, a neckline, a fabric - the fashion system introduces change in a way that feels comprehensible and emotionally manageable.

There is also a social logic: if fashion changed too drastically, it would fail to communicate. Clothing is a semiotic system - it works because others can read its signals. Gradual transformation ensures that signals remain legible across time, even as they evolve. A skirt’s slow rise from ankle to mid-thigh tells a story; an overnights shift would feel like noise. And culturally, the slow modulation of form allows new meanings to layer onto older ones, building depth and resonance.

In short, gradual evolution allows fashion to remain both expressive and readable - which is why, as historic continuity theory suggests, most trends develop through incremental change until they reach a visual or symbolic extreme.

This continuity reflects how culture itself operates: not through abrupt erasure, but through accumulation, revision, and recontextualization. Fashion trends, even when they appear new, often echo earlier expressions also - signaling both continuity with and distinction from the past. The Napoleonic revival of classical Greek and Roman aesthetics, for instance, was not mere imitation. The empire waistline, flowing white fabrics, and minimal ornamentation popularized by Joséphine de Beauharnais evoked the virtues of antiquity - reason, order, and civic virtue - in a time of post-revolutionary redefinition. Similarly, the tailored sobriety of post War II Dior silhouettes recalled Edwardian elegance, offering a nostalgic return to structure and femininity after years of wartime austerity. These revivals served symbolic purposes: they communicated cultural ideals by visually aligning new regimes with the authority of historical forms.

What historic continuity theory reveals also is that fashion functions not just as a visual trend, but as a dialogue with memory. The choice to revive, quote, or subtly transform earlier styles becomes a method of embedding meaning into dress. This is evident in the minimalist aesthetics of the 1990’s, which drew on early 20th-century modernism as well as the refined simplicity that emerged after the Belle Époque - both historical moments where excess was followed by restraint. Just as those earlier periods responded to indulgence with clarity, the 1990s offered a pared-back reaction to the flamboyance and consumerism of the 1980s. Likewise, today’s reappropriations of Y2K fashion reflect not just nostalgia, but reinterpretation - filtered through the anxieties and sensibilities of a new generation. The past becomes a resource for navigating the present.

In this light, fashion can be understood as a form of cultural inheritance. Each garment carries traces of what came before, even when consciously attempting to depart from tradition. Historic continuity does not imply stagnation, but rather that innovation is often rooted in familiarity. By studying these through-lines, we see that what we wear is never isolated from history - it is part of an ongoing visual conversation that defines, redefines, and ultimately preserves culture through form.

Clothing carries meaning through shared cultural codes (© of the picture & design: Edie Lou)

Fashion as Symbolic Interaction

If historic continuity theory explains how fashion evolves across time, symbolic interactionism helps us understand why it is socially and psychologically significant. Developed in early 20th-century American sociology, particularly through the work of George Herbert Mead, symbolic interactionism holds that identity is not simply an internal truth but a product of social process. We come to understand who we are by engaging with others, reading their responses, and adjusting our behaviors accordingly. Within this framework, clothing functions not merely as protection or decoration, but as a medium of communication - a set of symbols we wear to express, perform, and negotiate identity.

Clothing, in this sense, becomes a language. It carries meaning not inherently, but through shared cultural codes. A black suit might convey formality, grief, professionalism, or elegance - depending on the wearer, the setting, and the observer’s interpretive framework. The meanings of garments are never static; they are socially constructed and constantly shifting. Mead emphasized the importance of the “generalized other” - the internalized sense of societal expectation - and fashion plays directly into this mechanics. We dress not only for ourselves but for the imagined audience that will interpret us. What we wear is an anticipatory act, crafted in dialogue with the social gaze.

This is why dissonance in dress can feel jarring. When the signals embedded in clothing do not align with their cultural context, they generate discomfort or confusion. A Napoleonic military coat, worn today on a city sidewalk, does not convey historical power - it reads as theatrical, eccentric, or satirical. A miniskirt, unremarkable in New York, might be seen as defiant or even dangerous in other places in the world. These examples highlight the situated nature of fashion’s meaning: a garment becomes legible only when its codes are recognized within the norms of a given environment. In this way, fashion is not simply an aesthetic decision - it is a social contract.

And yet, this contract is flexible, which is what makes fashion such a potent site for agency and resistance. Because clothing invites interpretation, it also opens the door for reinterpretation. Through subtle shifts or bold subversions, individuals use fashion to affirm, blur, or challenge the roles assigned to them. Symbolic interactionism helps us see that fashion is not just about visibility - it is about relational recognition. What we wear tells the world not only who we think we are, but also how we wish to be seen, what affiliations we claim, and which expectations we refuse. Fashion, then, is not a superficial detail - it is a foundational mechanism through which we participate in the social world.

Today, anyone with a smartphone can become both, participant and broadcaster (© Edie Lou)

Dressed to Be Understood

So, what did we learn? That we’re not naked - not in the literal sense, and not in the symbolic either. Fashion may seem like the most fleeting of cultural forms, but its impact is anything but superficial. Most of us choose what to wear without a second thought - yet those choices speak volumes. Consciously or not, we’re participating in a system of signs, shaped by time, tradition, and social context. Even when we think we’re opting out - dressing down, rejecting trends - we’re still speaking the language. Fashion is never silence - love it or hate it -it is a mirror, a code, a performance - and we are all fluent, whether we admit it or not.

Beneath the surface, clothing draws on deep cultural memory. It builds on familiar silhouettes, recurring motifs, and inherited meanings, reframing them for the present. What feels contemporary rarely arrives from nowhere - it arrives through evolution, through reinterpretation. Historic continuity ensures that change feels legible, that innovation is grounded in something we’ve seen before. We care for novelty, yes - but only when it comes wrapped in echoes. This is how fashion keeps moving without ever fully breaking from its past.

Just as what feels contemporary draws power from what is historically legible, even acts of defiance depend on shared visual codes; disruption only works when there is a grammar to break. The key idea, for instance, that punk was effective is not because it rejected fashion and society altogether, but because it manipulated the very fashion and societal codes that people already recognized. The signal was clear. The message - we are rejecting your norms - was legible because it played with familiar signs. The rebellion was visible and communicable within the system of fashion and society, not outside of it. That is what gives movements like punk their friction - and their cultural staying power. This reinforces a central premise of fashion’s function: it operates through recognition. Whether conforming or defying, clothing draws its power from shared cultural understanding.

At the same time, symbolic interaction reminds us that what we wear isn’t just about lineage - it is about interaction. Identity is not a fixed truth we carry, but a signal we send, a story we tell, and a response we shape in return. Fashion becomes a social interface, interaction is amplified through digital media: social platforms turn clothing into content, symbols into hashtags, and trends into flashpoints. Meaning travels faster than ever, visibility heightened, its context collapsed. A look designed for one setting can go viral in another, stripped of nuance, politicized in ways the wearer never intended.

But the digitalization of fashion also radically destabilizes traditional culture gatekeeping. Once, the aesthetics of identity were largely dictated by institutions: designers, magazines, state norms, or local communities. Today, anyone with a smartphone can become both, participant and broadcaster. Subversive styles, non-normative gender expressions, or regionally taboo dress codes can now be seen - and emulated - across the world. this weakening of local control is a liberation, don’t you think? It disrupts systems rooted in tradition, religion, or class hierarchy - systems that have long enforced narrow standards of visibility and legitimacy. Yet in that disruption lies opportunity: a more democratic, decentralized space in which individuals assert agency over their image, and where new forms of cultural authorship and belonging can take root beyond inherited boundaries.

So…we keep dressing. Keep performing. Keep signalling who we are, who we were, and who we might become. Shaped by centuries of continuity and through the lens of symbolic interaction, fashion remains a living grammar of identity - evolving not just through fabric and silhouette, but through the platforms that now mediate visibility itself. In an era where social media collapses distance and accelerates meaning, clothing becomes both personal declaration and public discourse. We do not just wear garments, obviously, we code ourselves into culture. And in doing so, fashion persists not as surface, but as a cultural mechanism - one that negotiates between personal identity and collective meaning, adapting across time. Through fashion, we shape culture as much as it shapes us - each garment a signal, each choice part of the ongoing dialogue between self, society, and the symbols we live by.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/in/key-concepts-for-the-fashion-industry-9789388002882/

http://tankona.free.fr/mead1934.pdf

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.275359

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mead/

https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4014/1/Essay_Kroeber_phisci.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/660477.pdf

https://courses.ecampus.oregonstate.edu/aihm577/two/b-index.htm

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4104916

https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.commons.gc.cuny.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/1122/files/2014/11/The-Fabric-of-Cultures-Catalogue-.pdf

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/paris-fashion-9781474245494/

https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300270952/fashion-at-the-edge/

https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/most-beautiful-job-in-the-world-9781350110137/