The Paradox of Hipster Fashion

Perhaps the most salient aspect of the hipster paradox is hipster fashion. Eighty dollar distressed jeans from Urban Outfitters are paired with two dollar t-shirts from the local thrift shop. To the casual observer, hipster attire is effortlessly assembled—“I wear what I think looks good,” the hipster says. “I don’t care about price.” While this addendum might imply some sort of financial humility, it arguably means just the opposite. The hipster, in pursuing the purely aesthetic, has the privilege of making sartorial decisions without thinking about money. Exploring why the hipster wears what she wears is therefore a study of the financial identity that hipsters wish to convey. This identity is a hybrid result of the hipster’s wish to supersede mainstream monetary sensibilities while simultaneously enjoying the privilege their money provides.

The question of enjoying this privilege was especially salient after the 2008 recession. Overt displays of money were seen as insensitive, to the point that even Michelle Obama made a point of re-wearing a dress to her husband’s second-term inauguration. How, then, could one dress “rich” without being insensitive? The answer to this dilemma was one that perfectly aligned with the hipster aesthetic: By eschewing common status symbols, the hipster could further cement her alternative status while simultaneously crafting a unique style, one that was just idiosyncratic enough that so-called outsiders would not recognize this display of wealth (and here the hipster is allowed to save face by not flaunting privilege) but universal enough that it would become the mark of an in-group.

This in-group dynamic is key because it allows hipsters as a group to decide what does and does not imply status. In order to supersede sticky discourse about wealth and privilege in a post-recession period, hipsters seem to avoid financial judgment and focus on the aesthetic. However, the absence of a financial consciousness points either to a total abundance of money or a complete lack thereof. When the very poor don’t think about money, it’s because they don’t have it—but when the very rich don’t think about money, it’s because they do. Take, for example, the oft-repeated line about hipsters looking poor. They can probably afford to dress well, and yet they choose not to. It is this element of choice that is essential for framing something as a social movement and not simply a social reaction. Minimalism is the choice to live with less. Being forced to live with less is simply called poverty.

Thus, the dynamics of hipster aesthetics are mired in the same privilege that they initially sought to replace, or at the very least modify. In order to be blasé about possessions, one must first become desensitized—and there is no better way to become desensitized to materialism than to be surrounded by material possessions. This lack of want is essential, because, as writer Phoebe Maltz Bovy puts it, “To be seen wanting nice things detracts from one’s status.” Therefore, in order not to care about status symbols, the hipster must be able to afford them.

The hipster, with the knowledge that she can afford these status symbols, can wear whatever she wants without jeopardizing her image of financial security. In the same way that men who embody standard notions of masculinity can engage in traditionally non-masculine acts without jeopardizing their image (“Tough guys wear pink” is an excellent example), so too can wealthy people dress as poor people, because they are in no danger of being mistaken as such. Thus, this identity confers a sort of immunity upon the hipster, allowing her to experiment with the symbols of her social status without truly jeopardizing it. The hipster’s attempt to avoid thinking about money while simultaneously enjoying the privileges that wealth provides points to the inseparability of their wealth and social image. After all, if you are trying not to think about something, you are still thinking about it.