Fashion extends beyond its functional use as clothing, but instead represents a form of self-identity and social commentary. In society, public intellectuals blend their spheres of influence in academia and society to make respected comments on a particular topic. Within American fashion, journalist Robin Givhan explores the relationship between fashion and politics to wield her societal influence as a public intellectual through a myriad of opinion pieces published in the Washington Post. She sees fashion as an industry where everyone, regardless of class, partakes. She noted that “every time we reach into our closet…we’re participating in the fashion industry” (Mukherjee 1). In the same vein as the infamous Miranda Priestly from the movie The Devil Wears Prada notes, even those who think they are avoiding “fashion” participate, even unwillingly. Givhan focuses most commentary on the fashion within politics, discussing the attire of individuals including Hillary Clinton, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Michelle Obama. This commentary has led to several awards like the Pulitzer Prize and helped her gain influence as a public intellectual with academia respecting her awards and society respecting the importance of her subjects. Givhan solidifies her place as a public intellectual through honest, critical discussions on fashion pieces worn by American politicians. Givhan does not shelter these leaders with her words, but instead explains the downstream societal consequences of such outfits. Throughout her career, Robin was able to combine and explain the relationship between both of her interests, writing and fashion, to help transform fashion criticism into cultural criticism.
From an early age, Robin Givhan has always loved writing. Her childhood English teachers made her fall in love with writing when they showed her the power of expression and being able to use her voice. She discovered fashion writing when working at her first job in the Free Press, where she learned about the construction of clothes, allowing her to get a deeper understanding of the mechanics within the industry. It was at Free Press where Robin was able to get “the real understanding of the foundations of fashion without all the smoke and mirrors and fluff and drama and noise that accompanies the women’s industry” (Conlin 1). She later joined the Washington Post where she wrote for their lifestyle section: a section where she was able to tie in fashion since it didn’t have its own. It was here Givhan really came into her own and she was able to write about fashion in the most “expansive” way she could. As a black American woman, it was important to Robin to stay impartial and avoid her own implicit biases when writing fashion critiques. Over the years, Robin has won several awards for her work, especially in the fashion sector. These include awards from the American Association of Sunday, Featured Editors, and the Eugenia Shephard journalism award. The most notable award won was the 2016 Pulitzer Award for her fashion criticism throughout her critical essays.
Robin’s honest written works of clothing reinterpretation has been appreciated and read by many people across the world, opening the readers eyes on the political issues that we are currently facing today. Writing about political fashion captures a larger audience and introduces them to the current political events occurring. The clothing worn by these politicians, whether it be Hillary Clinton, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Michelle Obama, tell a greater story than just their fashion sense but instead serves as commentary on their political role. Often, Givhan looks past the logos and brand worn and instead focuses on the downstream effects these fashion choices have on society. She is known for writing without a filter and “she is a welcoming interpreter of a world that sometimes seems to pride itself on not making sense to anyone outside of its glittering, archaic walls” (Lacombe 1). In other words, she wants her writing to be accessible and inviting for all readers, even to non-fashion interested individuals. Further, her fashion criticism “weaves bigger issues into its fabric seems to better reflect the changing reality of the industry—and of our world” (Lancome 1). This is because Robin uses fashion clothing as a tool to explain the bigger issue she is writing about. Robin Givhan’s writing is more than just fashion criticism; instead, it brings political fashion into the homes of the everyday reader.
Givhan solidifies her role as a public intellectual for the layman by providing the framework for how she draws her criticisms in her writing. She knows that criticism is not valued without clear writing. Robin believes “if you are offering up an opinion, the greatest gift that you can give to readers is, as they used to say in math class, to show your work” (Lancome 1). Mack highlights that the inherent distrust with modern public intellectuals comes from the distrust of academia and the classism that exists within its walls. Academics don’t always communicate their messages to the public, and instead operate within their tight circles to create social commentary. Thus, the everyday reader is unable to participate in the social commentary by these “elite academics”, furthering the anti-intellectual distrust (Are Public Intellectuals a thing of the past?). Instead, Givhan provides her evidence for her criticism directly in her magazine publications, helping break this cycle of “academic only” intellectual pieces. The introduction of this evidence is how she is able to communicate beyond the academic or political spheres, but instead is able to bring the public in for fashion commentary. Elshtain notes that “public intellectuals, much of the time at least, should be party poopers” (Are Public Intellectuals a thing of the past?). Since Robin does not exclude the public from her criticism and logic, she opens the door for other individuals to start asking questions and draw their own criticisms, even though they are not in academia. Elshtain further states that the reason academics are often public intellectuals is the “learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularities are requisites for intellectual employment” (Are Public Intellectuals a thing of the past?) and thus happen every day. Anyone can provide criticism for the public discourse, but groups that do so in daily life have an advantage for providing meaningful criticism as they have practice. Givhan’s explanations of her criticisms bring the public into the practice of criticism, helping further her own commentary on political fashion while giving the public their own voice. Robin, she uses her role as a public intellectual to educate her audience on criticism and the logic to get there.
Givhan’s criticism on political fashion is crucial because political leaders not only represent themselves, but the people they govern. Robin’s opinion piece on Hillary Clinton’s outfit choice for her presidential candidate speech criticizes both her fashion choice as a political woman and her use of fashion as a campaign symbol. Robin believes Clinton’s Ralph Lauren’s pantsuit represents a “fundraising device” since the start of Clinton’s campaign. In some of her speeches, Clinton would refer to them as “my sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits.” The pantsuit being Ralph Lauren can be seen as a luxury brand not everyone has access to, representing Clinton’s sense of power and wealth. Robin questions Clinton’s brand choice by asking: could there be a better example of bootstrapping, entrepreneurial all-American success? Similar to the dependencies between American politics and religion, politician appearances and the laws they govern are dependent on each other. Mack points out that religion and American democracy will always be linked, even though democracy claims to be secular and religion claims to be free of man’s choices (Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual). In another examples, Givhan compares Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s “hiking boots – thick, brown, lace-up ones… [and said he] stood out in a sea of black-coated world leaders because he was wearing an olive drab parka with a fur-trimmed hood.” which she compared to the “kind of attire one typically wears to operate a snowblower” (Dick Cheney, dressing down). Her criticism of every detail shows that the Vice President was more concerned about feeling comfortable than representing his country as their VP. From these outfit choices, Givhan concluded that Vice President Dick outfit choice did not symbolize the amount of respect it should have towards his country. Here she is able to break down the Vice President’s outfit and analyze the mistakes to the people. She continues to point out that as elected representatives, they have a due diligence to society to represent and respect all members living within its bounds. Finally, Givhan criticizes Former First Lady Michelle Obama’s British designed Alexander Want state dinner gown for the China state dinner in 2015. She asks: why did Obama not wear an American designer when representing America? Givhan eloquently questions if the dress “was purely a matter of personal preference and not a political statement of disaffection with Seventh Avenue” (Diplomatic fashion crisis averted: Michelle Obama wears Vera Wang to China state dinner). Michelle Obama wearing a non-US designed statement piece at such an important event can be seen as unprofessional and misleading. Aren’t political leaders are entitled to dress how they want without criticism? In short, no. The argument that political leaders are “people too” ignores the fact that they chose to run and wanted to be elected to represent the people. In doing so, these leaders are responsible for the laws the govern society, and thus, they need to respect that duty at all times. For Givhan, this means thinking critically about one’s attire prior to important events. Further, it is taxpayer money that is used to purchase these wardrobes, furthering the justification that political leaders should dress the part at all times. In all, political leaders are subject to criticism for their fashion choices as they represent the people and country every day.
From criticizing shoe choices to designer gowns, Robin Givhan is able to express her thoughts and criticisms on paper for America’s political fashion show. Through her writing, she is able to weave together the connection between political leaders and their fashion choices and how this directly impacts the public, even if the public may be unaware. Givhan notes that “I don’t feel like I am policing their clothing. I am trying to understand the communicative abilities of clothing” (Conlin 1). In her discussions, Givhan provides her thought process for determining her criticism, allowing for broader understanding of how to critically think about criticism. This allows her to avoid being labelled solely an academic and instead helps her connect with the public and continue to build trust as a public intellectual. As a whole, Givhan is able to solidify her place as a modern public intellectual through her thoughtful criticism on American political fashion by understanding the added importance that political figures have in addition to connecting with the public and further inviting them to start drawing their own criticisms.
Works Cited
Givhan, Robin. “Dick Cheney, Dressing Down.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 3 Jan. 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/dick-cheney-dressing-down/2019/01/02/6a41e1f2-07b5-11e9-88e3-989a3e456820_story.html.
Givhan, Robin. “Diplomatic Fashion Crisis Averted: Michelle Obama Wears Vera Wang to China State Dinner.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 6 Jan. 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2015/09/26/diplomatic-fashion-crisis-averted-michelle-obama-wears-vera-wang-to-china-state-dinner/.
Givhan, Robin. “Hillary Clinton Is Owning the Joke about Her Fashion Choices - and It's Working.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 3 Dec. 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2015/06/16/hillary-clinton-is-owning-the-joke-about-her-fashion-choices-and-its-working/.
Jennifer Conlin and Illustration By Rachel Idzerda -, et al. “Robin Givhan on 'The Washington Post,' Her Detroit Childhood, More.” Hour Detroit Magazine, 12 May 2022, https://www.hourdetroit.com/fashion-topics/robin-givhan-on-writing-for-the-washington-post-her-detroit-childhood-more/.
Miller, Stephen L. “Melania Stiletto-Gate Is a Showcase for Media Pettiness.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 25 Sept. 2017, https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/melania-stiletto-gate-is-a-showcase-for-media-pettiness.
Mukherjee, Debjani. “Washington Post Fashion Editor Robin Givhan Talks the Politics of Fashion.” The Michigan Daily, 20 Apr. 2021, https://www.michigandaily.com/uncategorized/wash-post-fashion-editor-robin-givhan-talks-politics-fashion/.
The New Democratic Review: Are Public Intellecuals a Thing of the Past? (Repost), http://www.stephenmack.com/blog/archives/2012/08/are_public_inte.html.
The New Democratic Review: Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual, http://www.stephenmack.com/blog/archives/2007/08/religious_intel.html.
Comentarios