What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

Free Newsletters

books we're reading



« Does Religiosity Encourage Teen Pregnancy? | Main | Redeeming Roman Polanski »

September 30, 2009

'Homeless Chic' and the Homeless

Does the 'poorgeoisie' fashion trend trivialize a serious reality?

Laura Leonard

One million children in the U.S. currently face homelessness, and one of the fastest growing segments among the homeless is families with children. Despite these alarming statistics, it’s the fashion industry’s fixation with "homeless chic" that has sparked the most public debate as of late.

20090828_voguespivovarova_250x342.jpg

W. magazine's September issue featured a spread called “Paper Bag Princess.” It depicted models on dingy streets wearing high-end shopping bags fashioned as clothes. Italian Vogue's September cover showed two models in tattered layers with dirty faces, hobo sticks in tow. Indeed, Details magazine heralds the arrival of the “poorgeoisie” in “How Looking Poor Is the New Status Symbol.” Steve Kandell writes:

Just because the cultural moment is dominated by bloodlust for the heads of AIG executives doesn’t mean public sentiment has turned against the accumulation of material possessions — it’s just that the material in question is likely to be double-brushed flannel. And that’s the advantage guys who look like Devendra Banhart have over guys who look like Patrick Bateman: The poorgeois are in cultural camouflage, blending in perfectly with a landscape full of genuine privation. The fact that their accoutrements may cost more than many suits is their secret pride.

This isn’t the first time homeless chic entered the fashion lexicon. In spring 2000, designer John Galliano created a stir when his newspaper-clad models took to the runway carrying empty bottles of liquor, tin cups dangling from their backs.

But some industry insiders have found more sensitive ways to approach the new reality of so many. Alongside shots of socialites, fashion editors, and the affluent in cities around the globe, street style photographer Scott Schuman featured a striking photo of a homeless man on his popular blog, The Sartorialist. While his shots don’t usually include commentary, he provided three paragraphs defending what he knew would be a controversial photo. He says:

I don't usually shoot homeless people. I don't find it romantic or appealing like a lot of street photographers, and if you asked homeless people they are probably not too happy about their situation either. That's why I was surprised to be so drawn to taking a picture of this gentleman. . . . Usually people in this man's position have given up hope. Maybe this gentleman has too, I don't know, but he hasn't given up his sense of self or his sense of expressing something about himself to the world. In my quick shot I had noticed his pale blue boots, what I hadn't noticed at first were the matching blue socks, blue trimmed gloves, and blue framed glasses. This shot isn't about fashion — but about someone who, while down on his luck, hasn't lost his need to communicate and express himself through style.
0026-doll-knitting-patterns-american-girl-gwen-doll-sporting-outfit.jpg

In August, Elle offered Brianna Karp, who is living out of an RV, an internship with advice columnist E. Jean, promising her that “at the end of the four months, if you don’t have a job and an awesome place to live, I will become your intern.” And the American Girl company made waves when it announced the arrival of Gwen, a $95 doll whose story depicts her as a homeless girl living in 2009. Gwen seems meant to teach girls about the reality of homelessness — that, as the statistics suggest, “homeless people” may look like the girl sitting next to them in class. But the doll has been criticized for the high cost, none of which goes toward programs tackling homelessness. [UPDATE: American Girl released a statement about its ongoing work with HomeAid America, a "leading national nonprofit provider of housing for today's homeless." The two companies work together on HomeAid's Project Playhouse, "an annual key fundraising event that raises money and awareness for the organization's shelter development program."]

Representations such as these remind us that homelessness has many faces, all worthy of the compassion to which we are called. And they beg a question: Why are we so worked up about these images, yet often so negligent of the actual homeless people among us? As Shannon Moriarty at the End Homelessness blog writes, “The only thing obscene about this American Girl controversy is that it takes a plastic doll and her fictional biography to have everyone up in arms. Yet, the real stories of homeless children crowding shelters and schools are accepted without an ounce of outrage.”

I believe the best attempts to represent the many faces of homelessness demonstrate the dignity of all humans, regardless of their wealth or living situation, without romanticizing the difficult reality. Fashion is just one of the many ways we access a cultural conversation. It reinterprets culture and connects it to our core identities as expressed through the way we dress. But the controversy surrounding so many of these images raises interesting questions: Is it insensitive to recognize beauty in the situations of suffering people? Do attempts to depict homelessness visually end up glamorizing or marginalizing a serious issue? How can we best access and respond to stories like these?

Share |

Posted by Katelyn Beaty on September 30, 2009 11:57 AM

Comments

I find portrayals that diminish (glamorize) the reality of the very real suffering of people to be disturbing and disrespectful.

Posted By: Robyn | October 1, 2009 10:16 AM

That none of the proceeds go to help the homeless children or to programs to actually bring a reality check awareness to people is absolutely APPALLING!

Posted By: Debra | October 1, 2009 1:32 PM

"Is it insensitive to recognize beauty in the situations of suffering people?"

Hmm. I don't see how, as a general rule, visually depicting suffering trivializes it. A print article about the horror of landmines and IEDs is made more potent when accompanied by a photo of someone who has been maimed by one of those devices. But an embedded Reuters/AP photographer and a high-end fashion magnate are two very different people, with very different goals, seeking to provoke very different reactions.

It's interesting to see where people draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable depictions of suffering, and the assumptions that are made based on who's doing the depicting (victim's depictions are brave and powerful, outsiders are just trying to profit off of someone else's misfortune). "The Pursuit of Happyness" was hailed for its portrayal of hope and love in the midst of homelessness - especially in the scenes between father and child, it "found beauty" in suffering. However, it was judged through the lens of being based on a true story, which is what gave it legitimacy despite the fact that it was made by wealthy outsiders. I wonder if the reception of this film would change if it were pure fiction, written by someone whose only window on the experience of poverty was a keen sense of observation and empathy.

In that vein, I think there's something interesting brewing in the consideration that there's been only one WWII film made in the last 15-20 years (or perhaps even earlier) that everyone remembers or has heard of as an important story: Saving Private Ryan. Not made by or starring people who had fought in Europe or the Pacific Theater, as the most memorable war films of the 50's and 60's were, Saving Private Ryan remains an anomaly as a WWII story that was successfully told by outsiders. I say it was successful because veterans I've asked about it say "this is what the war was like for me", and because when I saw it in theaters as the only non-senior citizen in the room, the crowd was nodding and crying and alternated between memorial silence and applause when the credits rolled in a way that I'll wager no one did at the end of The Thin Red Line (released the same time as SPR) after 2+ hours of being told by a very different set of outsiders that their sacrifices were probably ignoble and meaningless, accompanied by the suggestion there was no pride in having served in the war. I consider The Thin Red Line to be an exploitation film.

What sets Steven Spielberg apart from John Galliano and co. is the way he's made himself an outlet through which other people can tell their stories. Pretty well every historical story he tells as an outsider is considered by insiders to have "hit the mark." He's known for extensively interviewing regular people who had a part in the stories he comes across as telling for their sake. When he depicts suffering, and the conflicting moments of beauty found therein, the impression given is that he is doing it for a purpose far more metaphysical than selling $900 T-shirts under the maxim that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Like everything else in the media world, the question seems to be not what you have, but how you use it.

Posted By: elly | October 1, 2009 1:41 PM

There is a big difference between depicting the real suffering of people who are ACTUALLY SUFFERING (the landmine victim) and dressing up models and photographing them pretending to be homeless and turning it into a fashion trend. One is acceptable. The other is not.

Posted By: Robyn | October 2, 2009 10:28 AM

I'm a little surprised that this is seriously happening. Doesn't anyone remember "Zoolander"? It was very much a spoof film, but in it the whole fashion industry went ga-ga over Mugato's "Derelict" (der-ah-LEECHT) fashion campaign. The whole thing was deeply satirical, and now it's being played out in real life.

I can't even take the industry seriously (though I'm not sure I ever have been able to).

On the flip side, I loved the photographer's observations about his subject. I am deeply moved when I encounter a homeless or dispossessed person who refuses to let that sort of status/label define them.

Posted By: jr. forasteros | October 6, 2009 8:49 PM

Hello
I just read your post and this is really insensitive. I really did not have any idea about this. We all should care for those homeless children.

Posted By: homeopathie | October 7, 2009 1:44 AM

Post a comment:





Verification (needed to reduce spam):

tags

February 2012
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29