Gucci Goes Wrong
During Milan Fashion Week, Gucci made waves — but not for the right reasons. Parading white models wearing turbans on the catwalk, Gucci featured other cultural headdresses, makeup, and accessories. Gucci’s actions fall in line with a trend of brands using cultural fashions as a way to be “exotic” and “original,” by trivializing the pieces and the cultural experience of wearing the pieces as the latest fashion trend. The line between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation can be hazy, especially since cultural appropriation is such a hotly debated subject. However, Gucci’s commercialization of turbans, along with other cultural garb, is a clear act of cultural appropriation. Even if the fashion house did not have the intention of diminishing the cultural significance of turbans and the discrimination people face for wearing them, it doesn’t excuse the tone-deaf act of portraying turbans as a commodity.
Creative Director Alessandro Michele designed the show centering on identity, drawing inspiration from a range of ethnicities, social classes, and cultures. Michele has received high praise for reinventing Gucci’s image as revolutionary and idiosyncratic. His FW18 collection shown in Milan referenced a 1984 essay written by prominent scholar Donna Haraway, titled “A Cyborg Manifesto.” The essay, which criticizes identity politics, focuses on discarding rigid and predefined boundaries in favor of an open discourse that prioritizes the fluidity and and ambiguity of identity, from sexual and gender identity to cultural and ethnic identity. Although the show featured two severed heads made by special effects company Makinarium along with a pagoda hat and South American patterns, the turbans had the most impact online, with an instant pushback on Twitter.
Cultural appropriation is a term that sets people on edge because it calls into question the fundamental rights of self expression. The idea that some groups cannot wear or say certain culturally significant fashions and words is very controversial, because it limits those rights of self expression through social consequences like ostracization and in Gucci’s case, public opposition. However, cultural appropriation is not meant to obstruct self-expression, but rather to inform it, so those expressing themselves are aware of the significance behind what they are portraying. The main points of cultural appropriation that make it distinct from its positive counterpart, cultural appreciation, center on the historical and economic significance, as well as the execution. According to Briahna Joy Gray, contributing editor of Current Affairs, cultural appropriation applies to cases in which the originator has a history of being exploited by the appropriators, the originating group is negatively stereotyped, the appropriators redefine the origin, and the appropriators receive a disproportionate economic benefit from exploiting the originating group’s culture. In simpler terms, are you using someone else’s culture, or are you learning from and acknowledging it?
In America, those who wear turbans and hijabs experience significant discrimination. These cultural pieces carry a story of prejudice and ignorance, and to treat it as the latest fashion accessory diminishes the meaning and suffering of people who wear turbans and hijabs every day. While the models and the people who buy Gucci’s pieces have the privilege of being separated from the negative stereotypes and can take their headpieces off, many others don’t. However, some Sikhs embrace the idea that their cultural fashions can be seen as high-fashion, saying that Gucci did not juxtapose the cultural headdress with actions or images that go against Sikh values, like smoking and drinking. Hijab-inspired pieces also appeared at Max Mara, Maki Oh, and Marc Jacobs. While some people are excited at the prospect of their fashions becoming more mainstream and hence normalized, many others feel that there is a lack of credit and acknowledgment given to the people who actually wear these cultural pieces and withstand the discrimination or stereotypes that come with wearing them. In any case, cultural appreciation is distinct from cultural appropriation, and although some people may accept and welcome the turban and hijab “trend,” many more feel slighted and commercialized. Why is it that a Caucasian model wearing the turban on the catwalk is seen as trendsetting and hip, while a Sikh person wearing a turban in daily life is treated with distrust and prejudice?
Personally, I can respect Michele’s desire to reach out to different cultures and identities because I believe it’s a necessary and belated step in the fashion industry to acknowledge what exists outside convention. I can understand why certain Sikh people would be enthusiastic about seeing their cultural attire on the runway, where people view it as high fashion and artistic, not as a symbol associated with negative stereotypes. However, I believe that Michele could have showcased and honored these cultural fashions while opening the door to non-mainstream models. Why not give Sikh models a chance to show their own cultural fashions? Yes, Michele broadened the fashion industry’s ideas of fashion, but he did so only halfway. To truly set precedent through honoring the spectrum of identities means honoring not just the superficial aspects of clothing and accessories, but also honoring the people who wear these clothes every day. Ultimately, fashion is part of the larger fabric of a society, culture, and people, and separating the two means losing the significance of what fashion is and can be.
Cultural appropriation is very real in the fashion world, and unfortunately very real in everyday life as well, from kimonos sold at Forever 21 to Zara’s lungis. However, awareness is the first step. Since the massive backlash against Marc Jacobs using dreadlocks at his SS17 show, brands should start to step up. Amid the wave of fashion activism in the #MeToo and other social and political movements, fashion houses need to realize that awareness and activism is not just a garment to be put on when convenient.