Dressing to distract: Using marxist lens to reveal hidden labour
According to Karl Marx, there is an economic intention
behind every structure. Looking at this video in a Marxist lens, we must
critically analyze it. The video shows how black people are used to publicize a
big brand [Gucci]. For example, we see that they are dressed in Gucci designs,
posing and giving different types of style. Dapper than who is a designer from Harlem.
But aside from that there is more to the
kind gestures of looking at the video ordinarily. We should look at this in a Marxist
lens and ask, why black people? So therefore, the economic intentions of most people’s
intention is for selfish reasons and just to make profit. Also, what we see and
what we don’t see in this video. I mean let us locate the labor put in place.
This video just shows glamour, luxury, the behind-the- scenes of models putting
on expensive GUCCI clothing. What of the things we don’t see or the real labor
that made it what it looks like today. For example, the garment workers, the
designers who made the GUCCI logo, the models themselves, and so on. It is more
like a chain of how far it went for it to stay, which is the raw material- to the
garment makers- to the designers- to the marketers/media and so on- to the distribution
team- then to the consumers or viewers who are interested. In the Marxist lens,
this matters because it makes the commodity (the clothes) look magical, as if
it appeared out of nowhere (this is commodity fetishism). So therefore, the
video hides the labor and presents only the fantasy.
Additionally, talking of fetishism or commodity fetishism,
it is first of defined as people who start to see products (commodities) as
magical or powerful, and forget the human labor and exploitation that went into
making them. For example, the camera focuses on clothes more than on the
people, this shows that it has grown in more value than the hands who made it
too work. These Gucci Clothes are treated like
they have power, and meaning on their own, when their value comes from human
labor these are the designers, tailors, photographers, factory workers, etc. But
that labor is invisible in the video. After gathering much, by hiding the labor
behind the product, the video encourages viewers to worship the brand
instead of seeing the hard work put in place to make it work. People admire the
Gucci outfit without thinking about the people who sewed it, packed it, or got
underpaid for it. So, the video turns fashion into fantasy or a daydream kind
of thing, this is fetishism. It keeps people dreaming about luxury, rather than
questioning the unfair system that makes it possible.
Aside from all, we also see that the only thing
visible as in related to class are the consumers, or those who performs luxury
lifestyle, for example, Dapper Dan who is into a luxurious industry. This shows
what it means to be successful in a capitalist society, especially black
society. While the ones who are invisible
are the ones who are the working class, the one who did the real work. Removing
or hiding the labor of this class shows that there is inequality in showing
what it really means to build up something with the help of people. But rather this brand or brands like this
were built on global class exploitation. Facts proves so that “Gucci has been
accused of maintaining inhumane working conditions, including long hours, low
wages, and unsafe environments, in factories and stores, particularly in
China. The
Guardian reported on a lawsuit alleging Gucci maintained such
conditions between 2010 and 2022.” It is more like saying that this brand is
built based on power and beauty, power in the sense of holding a high class and
we see that people in high class speak a lot even without saying a word.
Also, how does this video show like the world is
normal or natural with what they do? This video normalizes the status quo. We
know that Gucci clothes are expensive, but this video normalizes it like it is
a cloth you could pick. Apart from that it shows that luxury is part of
success, while success is not determined by what you wear. Also, the video
hides labor and inequality, the video just keeps our attention on the
photoshoot, the glamour, style, they are enjoying it, celebrating it, instead
of questioning it. It supports capitalist ideology; this is defined as a belief
system that supports an economic system where private individuals or business owners
own and control the means of production, just to make profit. These people
treat production as invalid and consumption as everything. The video looks
progressive, but ideologically it protects the same capitalist system—by making
it look natural, fair, and glamorous. That’s how ideology hides inequality
while keeping people emotionally connected to luxury and capitalism.
Before we conclude, there are contradictions, like
behind thsose smiles, laughter, there is more to it. What do I mean? Let see
using Joy and laughter as an undercover to what is yet to be unveiled. This was
done so that we would see people filming each other, laughing, showing off
outfits. The contradiction here is that joy distracts from what’s not shown:
global wage gaps, unpaid interns, sweatless labor not recognized. They make
capitalism feel cute and cool. Also, the video glorify glamour, not labor. It glorifies
Gucci outfits, aesthetics and so on. The contradiction is that where are the brain
behind the dress or outfit, the designers and so on, they are not part of the
story, but they made it possible. The more beautiful the video keeps looking the
more they hide the ugly truth. It show the product of labor not the labor
itself.
In conclusion, as much as the video was celebrating
and you know maybe advertising the brand. Looking at it in a deeper lens, using
Marxist lens, it reveals a lot about how labor has been shut out because of the
major aim the brand is trying to achieve which is to make profit. The
video’s beauty, humor, and coolness all serve a deeper purpose, to make inequality
feel normal. This is the work of ideology. It tells us that success means
wearing designer brands, not changing unfair systems. It offers representation,
but not liberation. In the end, this video is not about fashion, but how capitalism
sells dreams, and we begin to ask better questions rather than just admiring
and forgetting the labor that made what you love what you see today. We ask
questions like; how did they get here? What and what was put in place to make
this happen. Where are the people who came together to make this plan a big thing
today? Success should not be defined by what you wear, but in my owns words, Success
should be defined by how far you went with things and people to make your idea
visible.
Comments
Post a Comment