Clothes are how we present ourselves to the world, they can be a political statement or a sign that we belong to a specific ethnic or religious group. What people wear can reveal a shared musical taste as in the case of urban subcultures. In the U.S during the 1940s suit zoots became popular oversized suits that black performers wore allowing them to move better on the dance floor. Chicanxs, who are Mexican American people born in the US, quickly adopted these and Pachuco style was born. These youth were at the margins of a dominant culture that often discriminated against them in a context where segregation was the norm. At the time in places like California, parks, cinemas, schools, beaches had signs that read “only white” or “not for Mexicans and Hispanics”.

Scholar Caitlin Hamilton wrote “it isn’t possible to know world politics without knowing the everyday; and one way in which the everyday can be apprehended is through everyday artefacts”. Clothes are an example of these “everyday artefacts” that can give a deeper understanding of the political. Are all clothes fashion? How or who decides that? And what is our relationship to fashion? Not only in terms of what is trendy, but perhaps in that which is not, that which has been deemed as “unfashionable” because it belongs to another region of the world or system of knowledge. And what does that have to do with decoloniality and social justice?

Researcher Sandra Niessen writes about how fashion creates “sacrifice zones” which she describes as: “physical locations that are designated expendable for the sake of economic activity. The zones entail both ecocide and racism because the landscapes and their associated populations are destroyed in the process.” For Niessen, these involve a lack of care of peoples, their territories, the ecological impact of the mass scale production as well as the cultural loss of traditional textiles like embroidery that have been constructed socially as “non-fashion” through the dominant lens which is culturally western.

In colonized territories what was imposed was not only a government or an economic system, but a hierarchy that marked some people as better than others based on the ideas and standards of the colonizers who became the dominant group. What became vital was to distinguish “them” from “us”, what role have clothes placed in maintaining these hierarchies? To be “civilized” meant to know, act, look and wear certain styles of clothing. Cultural imperialism also meant that clothing from the U.S and Europe became desirable in other regions that previously held their own culturally specific textiles and fashion as the norm. These clothes are often referred to as “traditional” , a term that often excludes formerly colonized peoples from the present.

Embodied/enfleshed resistance has to do with the forms of resistance that happen in the body, which may not be easily perceived through a dominant understanding of resistance that mostly considers big events instead of everyday experiences. An example is how indigenous peoples continue to wear their clothes which hold symbols and knowledge passed down from generation to generation. Genocide meant the rupture of relations with the territories they had historically inhabited through internal displacement and violence. This is why wearing their traditional clothing, often carrying symbols of the relationality between the community, the other than human and land, is a form of embodied-enfleshed resistance.

An example of this is the Palestinian embroidery named Tatreez where each region had its own style based on the land, its plants, and landscapes. After Palestinians were prohibited from using their flag or showing the colors in art, women created a type of dress that incorporated these. It is often referred to as “intifada dress”.  Mimi Droeshout mentions these dresses “were embroidered with iconography steeped in Palestinian symbolism: national flags, territorial maps, and natural motifs like olive branches and orange trees. Even the phrases 'We will return'. This is why she mentions, “tatreez became not just an art form but a powerful tool for political expression and resistance.” And adds, “as the stitches continue to interlace threads of the past and present, each piece becomes not only an artwork but also an identifier of its history as an economic tool, historical presence, and political statement”.

Cultural appropriation happens when embroidery or elements that come from the living histories and experiences of marginalized and racialized communities are taken from their context and uprooted to be commodified and benefit economically (or otherwise) a person belonging to the dominant group. An important reminder from scholar Rolando Vázquez is that appropriation has always been part of the way in which modernity/coloniality operate. What we consume and what we wear is linked. The consumption of the other is something that also happens through fashion whether it is in the appropriation and negation of other people’s fashion/clothes/knowledges/land or in what and who is deemed dispensable in the name of fashion. 

An example of the former is a TV show about fashion I once watched where designers starting their careers were brought together to compete during a series of episodes. They had different styles and approaches to solving the problem each episode entailed. Only one winner would remain. A few episodes in, I started to feel a sense of discomfort and was wondering what exactly was going on. I realized; the two black women who were successful in their urban style fashion work (outside the show), seemed to not quite please the dominant aesthetics deemed “fashionable”. They were constantly overlooked. 
The former was recognized by a black designer who was invited as a judge in one of these episodes. He pointed out how black people’s style and designs are appropriated by expensive brands and sold to elite consumers while those who create these and the communities these come from are systematically ignored and discriminated against. In this show it was quite clear whose aesthetics marked what fashion is or could be, reflecting who can be a “top” fashion designer. This is often related to where one is located across the colonial difference which has historically marked those who have been dehumanized from those whose humanity is not in question.

I want to end by emphasizing that our stories of resistance-oppression are entangled and indeed the “everyday artefacts” can make these histories and links visible. This is how social justice, fashion, and clothes become part of the larger story. What stories do you wear?

References
1. Droeshout M. The Art of Tatreez: Palestine’s Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Savoir Flaire [Internet]. 2023; Available from: https://www.savoirflair.com/article/the-art-of-tatreez/e86c1d00-4cd6-4732-b647-190ad8a67e70
2. Hamilton C. The everyday artefacts of world politics: why graphic novels, textiles and internet memes matter in world politics. University of New Southwest Australia; 2016. 
3. Niessen S. Fashion, its Sacrifice Zone, and Sustainability. Fashion Theory the Journal of Dress, fashion and Culture - J Dress Body Cult. 2020;24(6):859–77. 
4. Trejo Mendez P. Politics of knowledge, weaving stories of dehumanization, erasure and resistance in the highlands of Chiapas. Erasmus University Rotterdam; 2019. 
5. Vazquez R. Vistas of Modernity. Te Velde R, editor. Amsterdam: Mondrian Fund; 2020.