The Influence of Coco Chanel and Chanel Brand on the Intersection of Feminism and Fashion

Tanner Lunetta

The Influence of Coco Chanel and Chanel Brand on the Intersection of Feminism and Fashion

From popular feminist perspective, fashion is perceived to be the anti­feminism: an industry that teaches women to define themselves by their appearance, holding them to inhuman standards presented on white­washed runways, with advertisements for products to conceal flaws they didn't know they had, and the nearly inescapable vulgar over­sexualization of femininity. While I can absolutely understand this perspective and agree that these complaints are definitely problematic and need improvement, I feel that fashion is in fact feminist, and that by refocusing on the ways that fashion benefits women we can reclaim fashion as a vessel for the liberation of women and the breaking down of stale, false, and harmful societal constructs. I hope to provide supporting evidence for this claim by analyzing the life and work of Gabrielle Bonheur “Coco” Chanel, most commonly known as Coco Chanel, who most would agree is the most influential name and possibly even the founder of the modern fashion industry of today. Through the analysis of Coco Chanel and her personal impact on the fashion industry as well as feminism, I hope to provide evidence that fashion is feminist.

Coco Chanel was born August 19th, 1883 in Saumur, France into poverty and a troublesome broken household with the death of her mother and her father abandoning her to an Catholic orphanage. As she grew older she began work as so many fashion legends do- as a shopgirl, or a female sales associate, for a small boutique. Later, she was a singer for a café which brought her into association with a series of wealthy men, an important and reoccurring theme in her life. The 1

importance of camaraderie with well to do men was first exemplified in 1913 when with financial assistance from one of these men she was able to open a tiny millinery shop, or essentially a hat shop, in Deauville, France that also sold clothing items that were stylish in a “poor girl” kind of way (Lewis, 2014) that included sportswear and simple sweaters made of jersey fabric. Women of the early 1900’s were confined to the “corseted silhouette” leaving them constricted, hot, and taking small, inadequate sips of air, struggling to complete everyday tasks wearing their cumbersome skirts, petticoats, and corsets.

Chanel’s “little suits” became the peak of fashion in the 1920’s which was the new era of uncorseted freedom for women marked by her signature straightforward designs, simple fabrics, and easily mass-produced and copied style, making her looks accessible to all women (TIMES, 1960). The contrasting “poor girl” look provided liberation from the corset predicament and consequently attracted the wealthy and influential women of Paris whose holiday seaside homes were in Deauville. Chanel continued producing women’s luxury clothing remaining strict to her philosophy that “luxury must be comfortable, otherwise it is not luxury”. Although seemingly intuitive presently, this revolutionized the fashion industry, and by the late 1920’s Chanel industries employed 3,500 people and included a couture house, a textile business, perfume laboratories, and a workshop for costume jewelry (Lewis, 2014).

Although Chanel’s story sounds fairytale-esque, there is, as always, a darker side. During this time, women simply did not have the opportunity to be in business, not to mention start their own businesses, especially women from poverty. So, Chanel had to find resources, and she did so via private investors who were also her lovers. Although scandalous and to some, potentially immoral, this was a common way that women gained power in times when they had none.

Controversial, but it showed the insight Chanel had into the patriarchal system which she 2

therefore proceeded to “work”. The first of these male lover/investors was a wealthy military officer, the second a English industrialist, both of whom financed her first shop in Deauville, while marketing her simple hats to the women within their upper class society. In 1922, Chanel launched her fragrance Chanel No. 5 which with it’s popularity became the financial foundation for her empire.

This along with her reputation for her scandalous sexual and professional escapades had obtained her legend status. She’d been to Hollywood and returned, was proposed to by the richest man in Europe- the Duke of Westminster, which she declined with the response of, “There have been several Duchesses of Westminster. There is only one Chanel”. Chanel had revolutionized women’s fashion and in her own small way, the feminine ideal; no longer about finding a man, but finding a passion. This rule breaking, progressive reputation of Chanel is built in and completely associated with the brand itself, functioning as a reflection of Chanel herself evolving with the different phases she went through in life. At this point in life, Chanel had embodied a feminist ideal of independence, success, and pursuit of passion all while remaining single without the legal binding to a man that society of the time pushed so hard for. Chanel had launched her brand so grandly that she now outshone and was more successful than her male counterparts in the male-dominated world that was the France fashion scene. She was so legendary and famous that she herself became fashion; if she wore a trench coat, it became the newest hot item, when she went out with a bronzed face the new “suntan vogue” look began (TIMES, 1960), and her lithe, boyish look became the new chic. Unfortunately, disgrace was added to her reputation and consequently her brand during World War II. Backlash against her for her anti-Semitism, homophobia (although she herself had female lovers), and a number of other very negative accusations emerged. This resulted in her shutting down her fashion business 3

and having a relationship with Nazi officer Hans Gunther Van Dickland who resided with her at the Ritz Hotel. It wasn't until 1954 that she returned to fashion. A still bitter Europe rejected her new designs, but she had obtained success in the United States where her classic suits and portrayal by Katharine Hepburn on broadway had obtained her first name status, known simply as Coco (Lewis, 2014).

Today, this controversy carries on with regard to Coco Chanel as a feminist figure for the undeniable fact that although she has done hugely progressive and amazing things for women, she also had some despicable beliefs about other oppressed groups. While there is no excuse for racism and open hatred of any groups, I feel that this does not remove Chanel’s status as being a good example of a feminist, but merely forces a qualifier onto her title- a good feminist in the fashion and business industry but nowhere else. Why? Due to the fact that she is not intersectional whatsoever. Chanel is the perfect example of how one can be progressive in women’s rights but still hold views that align with bigotry in others due to her hatred of Jews and ambiguous or possibly hypocritical views of the homosexual community. While I would love to pitch Coco Chanel as the perfect feminist, fashion, style hero, it simply cannot be done, for the fact that no matter how many women she has freed from a life of wearing a corset, she also was anti-Semitism, a lover of a Nazi officer, and homophobic.

The relationship of fashion and feminism is an interesting one: while it empowers women it also degrades them, it’s the most female dominated industry yet the top couture leaders are majority men; to put it frankly, its complicated. To give an easy example (at least for those of us familiar with U.S history) of a positive time where fashion and feminism worked together, the suffragists partially defined themselves by what they were wearing while they fought to be able to vote 4

(Picardie, 2015). This sort of external expression of beliefs and identity from those whose voices haven't been heard is a regular pattern from those fighting to liberate themselves from oppression. Even referenced to by significant feminist names like Virginia Woolf who stated that “clothes have more important offices than to keep us warm. They change our view of the world and the world’s view of us” referring to this as “frock consciousness” (Picardie, 2015).

Fashion is a fleeting, dynamic, fluid entity that makes suggestions as to what we might like to wear, but it is also a powerful communication device that brings together, polarizes, and most incomparably projects a silent message, permitting the wearer to let their clothes do the talking.

The beauty of the relationship between fashion and feminism is that most already have a stance on each topic individually and consequently together. For those of us privileged in the context of a democratic society, we are free to reject the aspects of fashion that we do not like, voice our opinions, and debate about feminism with the option of making ourselves heard, finding ways to communicate silently, or create our own form of expression (Picardie, 2015).

This debate of the strange fact that while fashion is a majority female-run industry that empowers women, it is perceived overall as being toxic and harmful by the feminist community does not go unnoticed by feminist women within the fashion industry. For example, Miucci Prada, head designer of both the prestigious and worldwide fashion houses of Prada and Miu Miu. Prada describes her experience of choosing a career in fashion as a feminist during the 1960’s as being in “the most uncomfortable position” (Kelsie, 2012). She decided that fashion could be used as an open space for feminist thought and action, being a “way to investigate all the different universes” by rejecting the idea that fashion inherently has to make the wearer beautiful or sexy; fashion is a way of communicating something, which seeing as not everything is pretty and feminine, neither is fashion.

5

While fashion and the beauty industry’s majority focus is the watered-down, aesthetically pleasing, designed to be “one-size-fits-all” (which is never not problematic) designed to sell well and generate money, fashion is more than this. Fashion encompasses, influences, and is influenced by all other forms of art that are not associated with a gender; no one has ever said “sculpting is feminine”, fashion is singled out due to the fact that those who work within the industry are mostly women alone with most of the consumers.

A continuation of this analysis of fashion effecting women more, leads us to the question of is it truly fashion? Or is it something using fashion as a vessel of patriarchal dominance? Fashion, in my opinion, is not something independent of another force operating it, it does not spontaneously occur and manifest within a collective consciousness. Fashion is influenced by society, and members within society. This gives fashion it’s power; it is the most broad and expansive form of communication extending beyond just one sense to all of them, speaking to us both explicitly and implicitly. There is a biological human need to categorize and attempt to gain mastery of our environments. We do this through forming identities of objects, others, and ourselves, and anchoring our perception of existence upon these things. From these identities is how we determine how to act with others, and how to communicate to them how they should interact with us. A lot of ways that we do this is with our physical bodies both consciously and also unconsciously; the rest of how we emit and receive these signals is through fashion. The societal norm is to dress, but how we choose to dress is an everyday individual intention. We are saying something about ourselves with everything that we choose or choose not to wear, whether that be nothing, a required dress code or uniform, the most generic and normative clothing, goth, conservative, sexy, badly, or trendy (Sika, 2014).

6

What is problematic about the ways that the fashion industry suggests how women should dress is how they go about doing so. The pitch behind fashion advertising more often than not, is sex appeal that is directed towards the male-gaze, done with majority white, underweight, adolescent-looking models dressed in scandalous and not wearable couture clothing that reveals as much or more than it conceals. When people perceive fashion as anti-feminist, I believe they are focusing on this aspect of the industry. What they are missing when using this argument, is the entire world of the intersection of fashion and feminism that has lived and breathed for years, and is presently rooting it’s presence in the mainstream and mass of the industry. Fashion is very rapidly becoming aware of it’s harmful problems: the unnecessary gendering of clothing, it’s perpetual message of fatism, lack of representation of women of color, fat, and disabled people, it’s lack of humane and sustainable manufacturing practices, disproportionate presentation of heterosexual normalcy, and of course being guilty of regular cultural appropriation. While fashion works to fix it’s flaws it is changing in a way that will make it inherently more representative of diversity and beneficial for women; more people from different backgrounds with different intentions are becoming industry leaders. Examples of this are often-times all parts expressed with “Femvertising”, or using the empowerment of women to generate revenue. The obvious risk of this is that those who do not understand the issues of feminism can profit from it’s growing popularity, but this is over shadowed by the importance of broadcasting feminist ideals, and the financial support this trend generates for the feminist movement. Brands such as Birdsong, Sacai, MadeMe, and Rodarte, are all inherently feminist by making brands for women, who’s profit also benefits women (The Trollsen Twins, 2016).

This leads us to the influence of Coco Chanel in the complex, intermingling relationship of fashion and feminism. Chanel never identified herself as a feminist, in fact, in ways she 7

expressed herself as the opposite by emphasizing the financial help she received from men and her adoration for all things distinctly feminine. Her contribution regarding liberating women from strict corsets and skirts, and becoming an icon of female independence by setting up her own business in 1910 were just a start. The messages behind her designs were ground breaking, she dressed women for function and practicality instead of for men’s eyes. She took men’s styles such as trousers, and materials like tweed and jersey, and made them fashionable for women, blurring the lines between the strict gender binary. There is psychology within her clothing articles, ones that not only break down the firm lines of the gender binary but also reduce the caste like qualities of classism that all luxury clothing prior to her reflected. By using her creative talents she made women’s styles comfortable, changing it to be the fashionable style to not wear a corset, this made it literally easier for women to live by simply making it easier for them to breathe (Saharan, 2016). Although from a view point of strict feminist issues, Chanel in no way had a contribution that would rally the likes of providing women with the right to reproductive freedom or finding the solution to the wage gap but she is legendary in the sense that it is due to her that women no longer have the challenge of trying to fight for such basic human rights while wearing a garment that is preventing them from being able to breathe properly. Chanel and her brand are the reason that women now wear clothing that represent fashion norms that dress women for women and their lifestyles and self expressions and not for the male gaze. She pioneered the business industry that was male dominated, choosing a career over the traditional female role, even being quoted saying, “The moment I had to choose between the man I loved and my dresses, I chose my dresses”. By popularizing fashion jewelry, she permitted the less wealthy to have jewelry and wear stylish fashions, and the wealthy wore it also to proclaim their independence as opposed to being “kept” by a man (Audrey, 2015).

8

This theme of making luxury accessible for all extends beyond fashion jewelry with her “genre pauvre” or poor look, by taking a part of all lifestyles and careers beyond the upper class “kept woman” and made clothing inspired by each, something that all members of society, both male and female, rich and poor, could relate to- a simple dress based off of a sailor tricot, a ditch digger’s scarf, a mechanic’s blouse, a waitress’s white collar and cuffs, backless shoes, and cotton dresses. While these things were revolutionary in the fashion world, where prior all seemed to be dressing to emulate royalty and the elitist of the rich and “well-bred”, Chanel went in the opposite direction making it fashionable to be from all classes, representing the invisible and unrepresented, making her clothing line more than just fashion but a social movement preaching a message of inclusivity.

Today, Chanel is still the most well-known influential fashion brand in the world. Now, Karl Lagerfeld, an internationally renowned fashion prodigy, functions as the the creative director of the Chanel brand, and is doing what was thought to be the impossible- bringing back the near dead Chanel brand back to life. After the death of Coco Chanel in 1971, Chanel brand suffered, severely. The loss of the female icon left the brand 10 years of being confused and ambivalent about the image and the business consequently became to fail, rapidly on it’s way to becoming a perfumery. In 1983, hope was found in the form of Karl Lagerfeld. “Don’t touch it it’s dead, people said of Chanel. I found that as a challenge” Lagerfeld stated during an interview. By expanding the demographic of Chanel, making it more appropriate and accessible to more modern and diverse populations, along with reviving the image, he has continued what Coco Chanel started, and pushed it even further; the blurring of lines and demanding attention on topics that have not received enough recognition. He has done this by continuing to push

9

boundaries and tie the everyday mundane into the couture world, all while tying in real life hard hitting issues.

One of the most well-known and famous things done by Karl Lagerfeld was the Chanel 2014 fashion show turned faux feminist protest. While it occurred on a fashion show in Paris, due to the amount of international recognition and adoration he has returned to Chanel brand, it might as well have been on the world stage. The responses to such a bold statement were mixed to say the least. Some felt that a fashion show was not an appropriate forum for feminism and felt that it trivialized feminist issues and many are still debating if it was a tasteless marketing ploy to further revive the always pushing limits Chanel brand.. Karl Lagerfeld responded that he likes the “idea of feminism being something light hearted, not a truck driver for the feminist movement”. Whether feminism being lighthearted is offensive or not, I feel that this sort of representation of feminism is very metaphorical for the messages conveyed by Coco Chanel and how she went about doing so- stripping the ideas of politics, class issues, and supremacy, and making it accessible for all.

What I believe feminists should do regarding fashion is to unite despite our different perceptions of the role of fashion and work in harmony to dismantle the patriarchy’s role in fashion. By remaining divided and shunning fashion, we are giving up our power in the issue and handing it back to the original issue- the patriarchy. When feminism has been the force behind fashion, it’s communication and influence have had tremendous success. I will finish this point with a question: would it not be beneficial for the patriarchy movement to intentionally keep feminists separated from fashion and ignorant of the endless possibilities of good held within the powerful tool of fashion?

10

Biography • "Inside CHANEL." Inside Chanel. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

• Johnson Lewis, Jone. "Coco Chanel, Fashion Designer and Executive." About.com Education.

28 Nov. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

• "Karl Lagerfeld: The One-Man Show." Karl Lagerfeld: The One-Man Show. 21 Nov. 2014.

Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

• Picardie, Justine. "The Language of Fashion." Harper's BAZAAR. 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

• Sischy, Ingrid. "The Designer COCO CHANEL." Time. Time Inc., 1998. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

• Saharan, Sarah. "Coco Chanel: My First Feminist Fallen Hero." Gender Focus Coco Chanel My First Feminist Fallen Hero Comments. 8 June 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.

• Latson, Jennifer. "How Poverty Shaped Coco Chanel." Time. Time, 19 Aug. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.

• TIME. "High Priestess of High Fashion: GABRIELLE CHANEL." Time. Time Inc., 1960.

Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

• Kelsie. "Feminist Fashion: 4 Sites We Love." Feminist Fashion: 4 Sites We Love. Bust. Web. 08 May 2016.

• Twins, The Trollsen. "12 Clothing Brands Perfect for Wearing Your Feminism on Your Sleeve." Teen Vogue. Web. 08 May 2016.

• Sika, Maryanne. "Fashion for Feminists: How Fashion and Dress Shape Women's Identities | Open Society Initiative of Southern Africa (OSISA)." Fashion for Feminists: How Fashion and Dress Shape Women's Identities | Open Society Initiative of Southern Africa (OSISA). 10 Jan. 2014. Web. 08 May 2016.

• Iblamethepatriarchy. "Fashion and Misogyny, Part 3." I Blame The Patriarchy. Web. 08 May 2016.

11