Voice in the Void: Dressing with Sartre
In the post-war cafés of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, the existentialists insisted that freedom came with a burden: the radical responsibility to become ourselves. Jean-Paul Sartre believed that identity was not something we inherited - it was something we enacted, moment by moment. Without a predetermined human essence, identity had to be constructed from the ground up - deliberately, responsibly, and, above all, visibly.
Let´s face this: clothing is never neutral. It is the first language we speak when we enter a room, the most visible signifier of our interior lives. The most immediate ways we construct ourselves in public. Before we speak, we appear. If, as Sartre argued, we are condemned to choose how we appear - every morning, in front of a mirror, in front of the world, and in a culture where identity is increasingly performative, fragmentary, and fluid, in an age of visual saturation, these choices are more charged than ever.
Obviously, not all garments function equally. Some carry more weight, they transcend trend or season, - what we might call ontological texture. A well-cut white shirt. A black tuxedo. A trench coat. A slip dress. A bomber jacket. A Tee. These aren´t merely fashion items; they are visual declarations, loaded with history, coded with subversion, and capable of articulating gender, class, power, and selfhood in ways language sometimes can´t.
This is the existential wardrobe. Not a capsule collection of neutral basics, but a carefully considered archive of meaning - pieces that endure because they allow us to say something real, even when we’re still figuring out what it is. But why? What makes certain pieces more than just clothing? Why do these specific items, again and again, anchor personal style and so a shorthand for identity? And what does existentialism have to do with this?
The idea that identity is not something we’re born with. (© of the original picture belongs to the rightful owner)
Sartre´s Existentialism
Sartre argued that we are condemned to be free - that is, there is no script, no divine blueprint, no fixed nature. We exist first, and only afterward define ourselves through our actions. The burden is immense, but it is also generative. It means we must choose - repeatedly, intentionally, and without guarantee. Freedom is not easy. It comes with responsibility. In the absence of external rules or absolutes, we are the ones shaping who we are.
At the heart of Sartre´s philosophy is the idea that identity is not something we’re born with - it is something we create. He famously wrote that “existence precedes essence”, meaning that we first exist, and only later define ourselves through our choices, our actions, and the commitments we make. There is no fixed self, no internal blueprint determining who we must be. That responsibility is ours alone.
For Sartre, this freedom is both liberating and heavy. It means we are radically responsible for what we become. We can´t blame our past, our circumstances, or even our nature for what we do, because each of us has the freedom to choose differently. This is what he meant when he said we are “condemned to be free” - not because it comes with no guarantees. No external force can tell us who to be; we have to invent that meaning ourselves, again and again. Identity then, is a project. It is not just a discovery - it is more - it is a construction. There is no divine plan, no innate character that determines our path. We must choose who we become, moment by moment. And in doing so, we also take full responsibility for the identity we construct.
Identity for him is inseparable from action. He rejected the idea that there is some fixed, inner core - some essential “true self” - that we´re simply meant to discover or express. Instead he argues that we become who we are through our choices, our behaviors, and the patterns of action we establish over time. Who you are is not hidden within; it is externalized. You are, in effect, the sum of what you do in the world. You may feel brave, generous, or artistic, but unless you act accordingly, those qualities don´t exist. Sincerity isn´t about aligning our actions with a fixed inner truth - it is about choosing and re-choosing who you are through what you do.
Le Regard
Let´s talk about “the look” (le regard), another layer of Sartre´s view. He believed that the presence of others - being seen - has a powerful effect on us. When we feel the gaze of another person, we become aware of ourselves as an object in their field of vision. This can make us self-conscious, even alienated from our own sense of freedom. It tempts us to live in bad faith - to act not out of authenticity, but to conform to how we think others want to see us. But this gaze also makes identity social. We don´t build ourselves alone; we build ourselves in a world where others are always watching, judging, and interpreting. Especially in today’s online reality, it is omnipresent. Obviously, this doesn´t mean we should perform for others, but it does mean that how we appear - how we present ourselves - matters.
Clothing is one of the most immediate and visible ways we navigate this space between being and being seen. It is not simply protection or decoration. It is a daily declaration: of values, roles, aspirations, and affiliations. What we wear determines how others receive us, and how we come to recognize ourselves. Since clothing is the surface upon which the gaze lands first, our wardrobe is the most immediate, legible expression of the self in social space.
It is what others read before we speak, and often what others remember. If we don´t dress with intention - if our wardrobe is random, reactive, or purely trend-driven - people will still make judgements - but based on their own assumptions. Without a clear visual identity, we lose control over how we are perceived. Sartre reminds us that we are responsible for how we show up in the world. Clothing, then, becomes a powerful tool: not just for expression, but for authorship of the self.
From Fabric to Framework (©picture: EdieLou)
From Fabric to Framework
If Sartre taught us that identity is not discovered but authored, then the wardrobe is one of the most immediate and visible platforms, where that authorship takes place. Every morning, as we decide what to wear, we are not merely responding to the weather or being protected. We are engaging in practical expression of becoming - a small but consequential act that contributes to the construction of the self. Jean-Paul argued that we are not only free to shape our identity, but that we are also constantly shaped by others through “the gaze” - a concept that describes how we become aware of ourselves as objects seen and interpreted by other people.
Similarly in Ways of Seeing, John Berger emphasized that “to be seen is to be judged,” particularly in how we present ourselves visually. As John Berger wrote in his work, “Men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at.” While Berger was writing specifically about the male gaze and the objectification of women, his point underscores a broader truth: that being seen alters how we see ourselves. And this is not only a question of gender - it is a condition of visibility. Our awareness of being observed shapes our presentation, whether we conform to it, reject it, or try to manipulate it.
Dressing with intention, then, is not performative; it is a strategic self-determination. It is a way to reduce the friction between how we feel, how we’re seen, and how we want to be understood. But how to achieve that? How to build our visual identity within our wardrobe? It is not that easy, I must admit. It takes time and commitment to ourselves. To get to know the self, the mind and the body. Sartre wrote of the mirror stage as a confrontation. When we look at ourselves, we see both object and subject. We see ourselves from the outside and must decide what to do with the image that looks back. Analyzing…
Like everything, it begins with choosing the right foundations. This is where classic, iconic garments come into play. Get the basics! Timeless and iconic pieces - the white shirt, trench coat, tuxedo, bomber jacket, or slip dress - endure because they offer something rarer and more structurally useful: semiotic openness. They don´t impose a singular identity or project a fixed meaning. Instead, they function as a flexible visual tools, capable of being styled in countless ways across gender, subculture, class, and profession. Their adaptability allows them to be absorbed into vastly different identities without losing coherence. They don´t obscure the self; they give it structure.
They don’t assign us a role; they let you play your own narratives (©picture: EdieLou)
The Secret of the Timeless Garment
A timeless garment is not powerful because it dictates identity. On the contrary. It is powerful because it allows you to develop it. These classic pieces function like design elements in a visual sentence: they are stylable, adaptable, and, most importantly, responsive to your intent. They don´t assign us a role; they let you play our own narratives. Their longevity also rests on their historical layering. These are garments that have been worn and reinterpreted by multiple generations. From Marlene Dietrich´s tuxedo to Courtney Love´s grunge slip dress, from the banker´s white button down to David Byrne - each of these pieces has accumulated cultural memory without being pinned down by it. They are coded, but not closed. And in that balance lies their power.
Trendy items, from the outset, are rarely about personal expression. They are calculated artefacts - designed, distributed, and marketed to prescribe how people should look in a given moment. From silhouette to color palette, their meaning is manufactured in advance, then broadcast through campaigns, influencers, and digital algorithms. Worn uncritically, these garments do not express the wearer; they express the system that produced them. In this sense, trend-driven clothing flattens individuality. It objectifies by design - positioning the wearer as a canvas for someone else´s story, aesthetic, or agenda. Rather than opening space for identity, it constrains it within the narrow margins of a market cycle. (That is why we throw them away after they expire).
In contrast, the bssic items, from a psychological perspective, enable something crucial: visual continuity amid personal evolution. Because identity is not static, a wardrobe built entirely on trend-based novelty tends to fragment rather than support the self. But anchor garments - those that are semantically rich yet visually restrained - allow for change within coherence. they become part of a visual language: a repeatable structure that allows identity to be recognised, refined, and reinforced over time.
Trends function by accelerating sameness across time and geography. their job is to generate desirability through novelty, not expression. A trendy piece already comes with its meaning attached - pre-loaded semiotics. It can be bought and worn with little effort. They offer instant relevance. But iconic basics, because they’re stripped of overt signals, demand more from the wearer. To use them meaningfully, one has to develop a consistent visual logic - styling choices, silhouette preferences, proportions, contrasts. That is where identity is built.
And this is the crucial point: if visual identity is a kind of language, then iconic basics are its grammar. They are the anchoring elements around which personal expression can take shape. A punk in a suit is not a banker in a suit, obviously, a minimalist in a bomber is not a skater in the same jacket. The garment doesn´t determine the identity - it hosts it. That is what makes these pieces timeless.
Dressing intentionally is not just about pure self-expression, but about an act of negotiation, defiance and survival (©picture: EdieLou)
Nothing Else Matters - Well, That May Not Be True
By now, we all shall be d´accord: how we appear matters. Jean-Paul Sartre´s notion of “the look” was not just an abstract philosophical idea. It was, and remains, a psychological condition of contemporary life. Our visual identity is one of the most immediate ways we are understood. It is a form of authorship. In today´s visual culture, that look is constant. It is mediated by cameras, filtered through algorithms, sustained by social feedback. Validation. How we appear is how we are known. It becomes cultural positioning. To build a visual identity is to claim narrative control. It is a refusal to be flattened by trends or reduced to aesthetic noise. When our wardrobe is shaped with intention, it becomes a language - our own voice.
What we wear doesn´t simply reflect who we are - it helps structure how we are perceived, and how we perceive ourselves. A coherent visual identity offers stability in a world saturated with visual noice. It gives us throughline. In an era dominated by how we’re seen and understood is shaped by forces outside our control, the wardrobe remains one of the few arenas where we still have direct, personal agency. We can choose - mostly - what we wear. We can decide how to present ourselves. But, of course, it is not absolute freedom. We don´t want to oversimplify.
Let’s face this: authorship does not occur in a vacuum. While existential freedom rests on our capacity to choose, the reality is that cultural, political, and religious constraints shape the very possibilities of self-presentation. Even within so-called liberal democracies, dress is policed, obviously, - formally and informally. Social expectations around gender, race, class, age, and body often dictate what is considered “appropriate”, “professional”, or “legible”. So dressing intentionally is not just about pure self-expression, but about an act of negotiation, defiance and survival.
That is why foundational garments matter. They create space for individual interpretation. They don’t dictate meaning. They absorb it. When selected intentionally, they allow for difference without demanding conformity. They become tools: neutral enough to pass, strong enough to carry individuality, stable enough to anchor evolution. And when layered with more personal, expressive, or unexpected elements, they don´t dilute the message - they amplify it. They give statement pieces something to stand out against. You decide the direction, your hands are on the wheel.
Sartre said even silence is a form of speech. The same goes for how you dress. You can say you do not care, but you are still putting something on - or not. Even if you are naked - I want to meet you in January on the streets of NYC, and talk about this - you are saying something. There is no switch. No neutral. We are being read, whether we curate it or not. So the question is not if we are communicating - it is whether we are the ones writing the sentence.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300115468/existentialism-is-a-humanism/
http://marcalpozzo.blogspirit.com/archive/2011/01/07/sartre-et-le-regard-d-autrui-1.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN0ysLkGiP8
https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/being-and-nothingness.pdf
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10033.Being_and_Nothingness
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2784.Ways_of_Seeing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDE4VX_9Kk
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19288260-how-to-be-parisian-wherever-you-are
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo3684378.html
Basic Signature Items
Basic Signature Items (©picture: Edie Lou)
White Button-Down Shirt: Crisp, clean, and adaptable across genders, contexts, and aesthetics; it can be everything: professional, rebellious, romantic, or minimalist; from aristocratic undergarment to contemporary essential
Black Tuxedo: Structured, Oversized, Symbolic, and open to reinterpretation; androgyny and control, it stabilizes difference - it holds ambiguity without dissolving into chaos; from Marlene to Le Smoking (YSL) - a gender-fluid icon
Trench Coat: Functional, dramatic, and visually iconic across decades; Casablanca & Breakfast at Tiffany´s…J´imagine!
Bomber Jacket: Rooted in military outerwear, recontextualized by countless subcultures, its semiotic is not always easy though…
Slip Dress: Fluid, minimalist, and open to contrast - can be everything: delicate, confrontational and in-between; from undergarment to punk and Kate, thank you Mr. Klein!
Knit Sweater: Textured, oversized; a grounding layer that holds structure while allowing asymmetry or contrast
White T: Simply the best. A canvas, meaning shaped by what it´s paired with; symbol of rebellion, A Streetcar Named Desire…We love you Brando!
Jeans: Short, long, baggy, skinny (yes…even), hippies, feminists, punks, and activists or in-between; democratic garment, crossing class and gender while staying rooted in defiance