Fashion, Self-Expression and Goth

Fashion can be a symbol of resistance and rebellion, of rejecting mainstream values, but sometimes that symbolism is a projection from those around the wearer, not the wearer themselves. Sometimes it is from the wearer - hippies utilised this as a tool by wearing clothes they made themselves or made from costumes to be walking symbols of what they believed in, wearing CND logos (Peace symbols), natural designs, or vivid, almost lurid colours full of vibrancy and conveying an experiential zest for life. Punk, the subculture that is Goth's antecedent, became stylistically manifest in deliberately ripped and tattered clothes, a D.I.Y ethos and unnatural hair colours and fierce styles that made the wearer immediately visible as a Punk and thus making the wearer carry everything that such a style stands for. Punk style started as a visual manifestation of an anarchist attitude, of a D.I.Y ethos that rejected the consumerist materialism of high fashion, of colourful and and sometimes painful self expression, of being oneself at any cost, even if over the decades, like Goth, it has slowly become something that is bought and copied. Goth inherited a lot from that, especially styles like Deathrocker.

Anyone going out in public in the complete regalia of any subculture is marking themselves as visibly outside the mainstream, as visibly part of a different 'tribe'. Goth is no exception, and if anything, less socially acceptable than being a Hippie or Emo, as Hippie has gradually become accepted as an extension of being "a bit Bohemian" and Emo fashion in terms of actual garments, is more a darker turn on mainstream garments such as hoodies and skinny trousers than something wildly different. 

If a Goth walks down the street in leather trousers, knee-high stompy boots, a leather corset with steel bones and steel studs, a short-sleeved shirt and torn fishnets for an under-shirt, with spiked cuffs adorning their neck and wrists, leather fingerless gloves adorned with even more studs, hair dyed black and purple and wildly styled, face pale and painted up with black designs that accentuate their eyes, and with ears and face full of metalwork, that Goth is expressing their inner beliefs and selves externally; one that to a degree, because it is so removed from mainstream fashion, includes a certain amount of defiantly doing your own thing. They become immediately visible by how different they look to the majority of the people around them, and while they are probably not dressed that way to garner attention, they know they will receive it. A lot of the attention they will get will be negative, and sadly a lot of young Goths eventually give up the subculture because they do not want to face the harassment and sometimes violence that will be heaped upon them for their choices. 

While Goth is not something to take up in order to rebel, anyone who is a Goth is innately going to be seen as a rebel because they are, with varying levels of deliberation, taking the alternative path and not choosing the mainstream, popular options. It may not be the active rebellion of Punk, but it as an act of separation. Even if it is merely a rejection of mainstream fashions, aesthetics and music, it is still an act of separation. It's not always a case of drawing a line in the sand to say "I am not like them", but by looking different, it often becomes regarded as such from those outside of the subculture. Goth is a path where those who live it tend to end up walking a very self-determined road, something inherited from its punk ancestors. Personally, my rejection of the mainstream goes further than a rejection of mainstream fashion, aesthetics and music. I am opposed to to quite a few aspects of modern society that have become all-prevalent and which I find insidious, worrying and are not something I wish to be part of, but how much individual Goths reject mainstream values really depends a lot on the individual Goth; a lot of us tend to be quite strong on the idea of people thinking for themselves and not defaulting to what is popular or given media prevalence, but other than that Goth doesn't really come with any ideology beyond an appreciation for the darker things in life. 

Goth is not a political movement, and so it does not carry the same anarchic connotations as punk, or the same pacifist, environmentalist and psychedelic connotations of the Hippies, if anything it is a philosophical or artistic movement that seeks beauty in the darkness, as inspired originally by the songs of certain bands, but with a history that draws on creativity from many periods. Goth is not about railing energetically against mainstream society, the systems of authority, or the many injustices of the world, but it does have that strong individualist ethos within it. Goth is also about looking in dark places, and if you look in the dark corners of the world, you will be moved by what you see there. Each Goth will believe their own creed, politics, spirituality and vision of the world, and generally allow other Goths, and other people in general to also have their own opinions - that said, Goths can turn political, philosophical and religious debate into a flame-war or argument too, as we are after all a collection of strong personalities that will sometimes clash, and no group of people is perfect - but overall, we seem to have too strong a sense of individuality to all come with a similar set of opinions. 

Goths tend to see their clothes as part of their identity, an outward manifestation of their inner selves as much as an identifier of membership of the subculture. The clothes we wear within the broad umbrella of Goth are hugely diverse, especially as, despite the fact there are now goth 'brands', that there is a huge creative element that hand-crafts, hand-sews, modifies and designs things for themselves, and those clothes will often be very carefully thought out before being worn, dressing to match the person's mood, their self image, the the values they hold, the place they are going to. Goths do not tend to wear something to "fit in", nor do they generally wear things because they are popular amongst other Goths (although in the age of the internet there has been an increase in 'trends' within Goth - a couple years ago it was wearing horns, probably inspired be Maleficent, then it was wearing buckled and studded 'harness' inspired straps, currently it's the "witchy" or "occult" trend, which I have strong opinions on, etc.). Goths, while often dressing in sexualised ways, tend to do this to express their own sexuality rather than to pander to someone else's.

Goth fashion can be highly gendered, but at the same time, gender-bending, androgyny and transvestitism are generally accepted within the Goth community. Men can wear skirts and make-up without the assumption amongst other Goths that they are doing so because they are gay, and they can also do so in ways that are not traditionally un-masculine - for example wearing a Rivethead utility kilt/skirt and black eyeliner and black nail-polish, in an outfit clearly inspired by dystopian science fiction rather than by drag queens. The Goth community tends to towards equal standards and expectations of behaviour  amongst gender; women are encouraged to be strong, men are allowed to be emotional. The confidence gained from outwardly flouting gender norms in terms of dress within the Goth community often translates to a confidence to continue doing so in a wider context. 

As Goth encourages visible self expression through fashion, piercings, tattooing and other personal, aesthetic avenues, it fosters an atmosphere where people are proud to be themselves, something at the core of every civil rights movement. It also allows people who are trying to be the change they want to see in the world to be a visual manifestation or representation of that change, in the way of being a walking work of art. Also, once someone is visually different, that often gives them the confidence to be behaviourally different - it is often the start of acting according to one's true self rather than according to the expectations of mainstream society as once someone is visually part of the "other" then they feel freed of the constraints of being part of the norm. This though, is not linear cause and effect, as it takes a certain amount of confidence to so visibly reject the norm, as the mainstream can be particularly cruel over things as seemingly unimportant as clothes, because clothes are a manifestation of the inner self, and are therefore some of those in the mainstream act out against people they think do more than look different (otherwise 'edgy' hipsters misappropriating Goth would  get the same harassment Goths do) especially if there are prejudices and assumptions about the specific kind of "looking different". Being visually different does not necessarily mean being as radically different as taking on a subculture such as Goth, Punk, Hippie or Lolita, or even dressing in a way culturally attributed to another gender, it can be as simple as wearing clothes that belong to the mainstream, but are ones that you like from a few years ago, and not updating your wardrobe every six months because last season's clothes are out of fashion, or simply dressing in less gendered or less sexualised way. 

If you approach clothes, personal aesthetics and style from the standpoint of using it as a form of self expression, as a manifestation of the inner self and ones tastes, rather than from the standpoint of worrying about trends, "being fashionable" or from the standpoint of trying to fit in, look "normal" or caring about what others think of your appearance, then you become freed from the effects of fashion advertising. You cease to think in ways that most advertising targets - adverts generally work by trying to sell the product as being part of a lifestyle, or by targeting insecurities, and once you are no longer interested in those lifestyles and no longer have those insecurities, you begin to see through advertising. If your beauty ideals are based on your own tastes rather than on the appearances of celebrities and models, then the products those celebrities and models endorse no longer seem better by association. This does not necessarily entail being Goth, but it does entail thinking for oneself, which is something Goths tend to be good at - I'm probably going around in circles in saying we tend to be ardently individualist! A lot of people who aren't Goth tend to be good at it too, though, and being Goth is by no means a mark of superiority above "sheeple" masses. 

Once you see clothes, personal aesthetics and style from the standpoint of self expression, and tend towards creativity, then it provides a way of being a walking artwork, from designing clothes to designing tattoos and everything in between. As clothes are an outward manifestation of my inner self, I'd rather make that statement myself instead of mass-produced designs. This does not necessarily mean making clothes from scratch, but includes modifying things and customising them. Having a broad choice - and the main chains and high-street stores do actually sell a good variety - is not the same as getting your own vision fulfilled, and that is where making and customising has its greatest strength: you are in control of the project. Yes, there are still the limitations of findings and materials, although even those can be overcome, albeit sometimes at quite a cost, but there is still so much more scope for fulfilling personal vision. 

I'm probably going to write at length in future about how my clothes express my inner self, and about some of the choices I make - for now, here's ::a post:: from a while back that covers that to some degree (and in general, don't be afraid to read and comment on older posts; I do still get informed about comments, and I do tend to reply!) 

Politeness And Goth Part 1: Why Be Polite?

In many ways, I feel like I shouldn't have to write this, and that everyone should be polite and well-mannered anyway, but the world doesn't work like that, sadly. A lot of rudeness gets directed at us Goths by people who are prejudiced, judgemental, and ignorant of who we are, but sometimes we Goths don't act politely either. 

I know that Goth, as an offshoot of Punk, has its roots in a subculture that used profanity, rudeness and shock tactics as means of political and societal protest, but Goth was a departure from Punk, and most of us are not engaged in a countercultural protest, in fact quite a few of us, myself included, are quite keen to point that our dress and lifestyle is not an act of deliberate rebellion, that we aren't trying to be some sort of non-conformists, or acting like this for any kind of audience or attention, but rather that we are just have a different set of tastes and values than the mainstream. 

Anyway, when wider society has a negative opinion of us anyway, confirming that opinion by acting rudely does not really shock; it is far more unsettling for us to be pleasant, nice people because then that forces them to confront that their pre-conception was wrong, and depending on what sort of framework of notions about the world that this pre-conception rested on, forces them to confront to some degree the under-pinning ideas. Jillian Venters of the amazing ::Gothic Charm School:: calls this concept 'subversion by politeness' and it was reading her articles that gave me something to coalesce my own ideas about this topic. 

If you go out dressed visibly Goth, then people will, on some level, see you as representative of the subculture as a whole. If they associated Goth-looking (and most mainstream people can only do a best-guess at subcultures from appearance) people with rudeness and anti-social behaviour, then it will reflect badly on the rest of us, even those that are not involved - also, people tend to assume that all local Goths know each other (I very frequently get strangers ask me if I know someone specific because that person is also Goth... I'm pretty well connected to the local subculture, but I don't know every Goth between Fort William and Aberdeen!) and therefore if you do something that upsets people, that can have repercussions on other local Goths, or if over the internet, Goths in general. 

Being a polite can genuinely change people's perceptions of Goths, or at least the individual being polite. A while ago, before I moved to Scotland, I used to frequent a little cafe with Raven. I went there more than he did, because it was where I was living at the time, and he was still living in a different country! Anyway, we'd still go there whenever he came to visit, and I would go there in-between times for take-away hot drinks and rather yummy cakes. Initially the owner was a bit afraid of me; she saw someone who looked spooky, with a coffin-shaped hand-bag (apparently that was particularly spooky) and all the anachronistic fashion I usually wear, but then, because I was always friendly, polite and cheerful, she realised that I wasn't a scary person after all, just a spooky-looking eccentric, and neither was Raven. Raven and I made it a tradition that on the last day of his visits to me, we would go there for afternoon tea, complete with cakes, etc. and with regular custom began to build something of a rapport with the staff. I think this is part of why people like Jillian Venters of Gothic Charm School and I want to encourage good manners so much; when people assume the worst of you on sight, you have make it very obvious that the worst isn't true, and it can change people's minds about old assumptions. 

If it is likely that people assume the worst, then you have to put in a bit of extra effort into making the good parts of your personality shine through, because people's prejudices can blind them. I am not suggesting being fake, only that it is important to take into account how others around you will react, and to consider what will be the most beneficial course of action to all involved. 

The Synthetic Aesthetic & Hypocrisy

Recently, Amy of ::Stripy Tights and Dark Delights:: wrote ::this:: post on Goths that denigrate people of a certain popular aesthetic (Essex Girl in the UK, Jersey Shore to an American, I would guess that a lot of places have their equivalent) for being "fake" because of the fake tan, fake eyelashes, bleached hair, fake nails, hair extensions, heavy makeup, bust augmentations, etc. etc. I am probably repeating what she said here, but it is an important message, so I feel like reiterating it in my own words on this blog 

A lot of Goths and other Alternative types are just as "fake". I certainly go around with a corseted waist, a wig, fake eyelashes, heavy makeup, a pallor that is partly nature and partly makeup (more to even it out than make me paler), high heels, piercings etc. My waist is not naturally that thin, my hair is is not actually red (not even by dye), my eyelashes are pretty long, but they don't come with feathers, and I got all those jewellery-attachment-points through having someone poke holes through me! I go to great lengths to achieve a particular aesthetic, and that is all that these 'Essex Girls' are doing. There are people who have had far more extensive body mods than me; more piercings, elaborate tattoos, and even fangs, pointed ears and horns, all in search of a particular aesthetic. This is certainly a synthetic aesthetic, one that is created through artistry overlaid on nature. 

Usually someone comes in with the justification of something akin to 'oh, but they are following a trend, to them it's about fitting in and appealing to men and getting attention, they must be really insecure! We do it in the pursuit of our own personal aesthetic!' 

Who are we to judge? 

Unless you know someone well enough to have good estimation of their real motivations, you have no business judging someone. It is the same sort of prejudicial assumption as when mainstream people assume that we dress and look the way we do for attention or to rebel against our parents or to opt out of decent society. Considering the time and money and effort spent on a lot of these women's looks, I would say that there has to be a significant proportion who really are chasing their dream aesthetic. Yes, there certainly are those who follow that aesthetic to be trendy, to get attention, to impress men, because they are insecure with who they are under the fakery, etc. but there are also people who co-opt the Goth aesthetic in order to get attention, to impress men, to be rebellious, to try and shock people, because they are insecure with who they are under the fakery, etc. It is unfair to judge a group by the action of individuals who are not necessarily representative. It is easier to distinguish a Goth from someone co-opting the aesthetic, because there is some broader definition of Goth, but the 'Essex Girl' aesthetic is just an aesthetic (the party animal lifestyle, drinking, etc. are not inherent; plenty of people who don't follow this look behave like that, and not all who follow this look behave like that); there is no co-opting it away from a broader subculture. 

Basically, this is an encouragement not to judge; instead take people on their individual merit, on their own actions and behaviour. How somebody looks is not necessarily and indicator of what they are like, as we should all well know. A dose of humility and an open mind are good things to have. 

Goth, Subcultures and Conformity

I originally published this on Dec 18th, 2008, on a previous blog, but over 3 years on I still find it applicable, especially as I still get the accusation that I'm failing to be nonconformist by conforming to a subculture, as if I actually adhere to the conformist/nonconformist duality nonsense.

I read a blog entry that now seems to have moved, or ceased to exist, originally at Subculture.Blat. I can no longer remember reading it, and appeared to be mostly in agreement at least at the time, although my opinions may have since changed and I can't remember what it was I previously agreed with, but there is one point I objected to. It is not paradoxical that we Goths look for acceptance in a Gothic community while distancing ourselves from the mainstream.

Most of the Goths I know are neither trying to deliberately distance themselves or deliberately join a group. Most Goths are Goths because they like the fashion, music and lifestyle.

Some Goths do make a point of rejecting the mainstream, of putting distance between themselves and wider society. I do. I have found popular culture vacuous at best, and dangerous at worst, and would like to have nothing to do with it. That is not to say that all people in mainstream society are bad people, they are not, it is just that mainstream society is centred around ideals that are often the polar opposites of my own, such as materialism, celebrity worship, consumerism, selfishness and instant gratification.

This rejection of these conventional ideals is not a purely Gothic phenomenon. It has been passed down through all the various subcultures from the Romantics onwards. It is why subcultures exist. Yes, some subcultures have replaced these 'mainstream' faults, and I do think they are faults, with faults of their own, but the thread of realisation that living a self-serving life of materialism, greed and instant gratification is a path to ruin has been kept. Some of these subcultures have changed the world. Modern society, modern conventional society as well as modern subcultural society, has been forever changed by the hippies of the 1960s, for better and for worse.

But rejection of the mainstream does not mean rejection of any form of society. We may have been outcasted by ordinary society, and we may have deliberately distanced ourselves from ordinary society, but this does not mean we do not want to be in a community, and do mot value altruism, friendship and participation in the wider world. No, all it means is we do not want to be a part of a culture whose values we reject, and are quite happy to form subcultures, and interact between various subcultures, in groups that are almost contemporary tribes formed by common ideals, fashions and mini cultures rather than by nationality or heritage.

It is not that we reject being accepted, it is that we reject being part of the majority, or at least this is true for me. It is not that I think myself "better off alone", just better off away from the annoying banality of the ordinary, away from an empty popular culture and a society that is consuming itself. Rejection of one group does not mean a rejection of the idea of groups. It also does not mean we want the mainstream to hate us. Actually, I, at least, would like to see popular society accept Goths as part of the world, and take on positive values from all the subcultural and counter-cultural communities.

Goths who are desperately trying to be as alternate as possible, with the sole intention of being as different as possible from everyone else are not the majority of Goths, and it is not a case of just trying to avoid conforming to anything. Most Goths realise that they are conforming to what is expected of Goth, and most of them aren't doing it to fit in, they're doing it because they genuinely like it. I still wear colours occasionally, and I listen to folk and classical music, and I don't think it makes me any less Goth, I think it just makes me more me...

I don't like people who deliberately try to be as different from everybody else as possible, trying to distance themselves and reject everyone, usually because they have been rejected by everyone, dressing "to shock others... ...forcing the world to recognise them, but refusing to be a part of it", simultaneously crying for attention and pushing the world away. It does not seem to me a mature way to deal with the situation. I acted like that when I was about 13 or 14, and it does no good. Thankfully most of those people, like me, grow out of it. Thankfully most of them grow to have enough true self-esteem to not require such social coping strategies.

I may be openly walking a different path to the mainstream, but I do not do so out of bitterness and a desire for attention. I do so because that is the road I wish to walk. I accept that I am human, completely human, and I do not think holding something in common with other human beings a fault. I realise that I have my faults. I suspect my road probably has faults I cannot see from where I stand. I do not see difference as a virtue, nor as a vice, just as something that is.

I may reject mainstream society, but I do not reject humanity, and I think a lot of people are good people, and a lot of people are moving away from the faults of modern society as those faults become ever more apparent. I have also noticed that what was the mainstream is slowly holding less sway. Progress seems to be being attained by inches, but there is progress.