Sartorial Existentialism: Dressing as a Form of Becoming

Fashion is commonly framed as self-expression—as though there's a fixed, authentic self waiting to be accurately represented through clothing choices. But this framework misses something fundamental about how identity actually works. Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialist principle that "existence precedes essence" applies to wardrobes as much as it does to consciousness: you don't have a predetermined self that you're trying to express. You're actively constructing who you are through choices, actions, and—yes—what you wear.

This shifts fashion from passive reflection to active participation in identity formation. You're not dressing as who you are. You're dressing as who you're becoming. That distinction matters because it reframes clothing decisions from aesthetic preferences into philosophical acts of self-definition.

Existence Precedes Essence: Fashion as Choice

Sartre argued that humans have no predetermined nature—we exist first, then define ourselves through choices and actions. This existentialist framework applies directly to fashion: you don't have an inherent style that you're trying to discover and express. You create style through repeated choices that, over time, form patterns that become recognizable as "your look."

This differs fundamentally from the common narrative about "finding your personal style" as though it's hidden somewhere waiting to be uncovered. Style isn't found—it's constructed through accumulated decisions. Each clothing choice is an act of self-definition: not "this is who I am" but "this is who I'm choosing to be today, in this context, with these people."

The existentialist would recognize that this creates both freedom and responsibility. You're free to define yourself through dress in any direction you choose, but you're also responsible for those choices and their consequences. There's no external authority determining what you "should" wear based on your "true self"—because there is no fixed true self preceding your choices.

Fashion as a System of Social Signaling

Roland Barthes analyzed fashion as a semiotic system—a language of signs that communicates meaning beyond the garments themselves. When you choose what to wear, you're not just covering your body or satisfying aesthetic preferences. You're encoding messages about affiliations, values, social position, and intentions that others decode (consciously or unconsciously) when they see you.

Research in fashion semiotics demonstrates that clothing functions as visual communication that operates on multiple levels simultaneously. A single outfit signals profession, economic status, cultural affiliations, political leanings, subcultural membership, and individual taste—all at once, all readable by observers with varying degrees of literacy in fashion's symbolic language.

This communication is bidirectional: your clothing signals to others, but it also signals to yourself. Getting dressed is a daily ritual of declaring (primarily to yourself) who you're being today. This internal signaling influences behavior—the well-documented phenomenon where people's actions change based on what they're wearing demonstrates that clothing doesn't just reflect identity; it actively shapes it.

The Bidirectional Nature of Dress and Identity

The relationship between clothing and identity runs both directions: who you think you are influences what you wear, and what you wear influences who you become. This bidirectional process means fashion isn't neutral—it's an active participant in identity construction rather than a passive reflection of predetermined self.

Psychologists studying "enclothed cognition" have found that wearing specific garments actually changes cognitive function and behavior. Lab coat studies showed that participants performed better on attention tasks when wearing what they believed to be a doctor's coat versus the identical coat labeled as a painter's smock. The symbolic meaning attached to clothing directly influenced mental performance.

This bidirectional influence means you can deliberately use fashion as a tool for identity development. Want to embody more confidence? Dressing in ways that signal confidence to yourself (not just others) can facilitate that quality's development. This isn't superficial or "fake it till you make it"—it's recognizing that external behaviors and symbols genuinely influence internal states and self-concept.

The key is intention. Random wardrobe changes won't create meaningful identity shifts. But deliberately choosing clothing that aligns with who you're trying to become—while doing the internal work to support that becoming—uses fashion as one tool among many in active self-construction.

The Authenticity Paradox in Fashion

The fashion world obsesses over "authenticity"—being true to yourself, expressing your real identity, staying genuine to who you are. But from an existentialist perspective, this creates a paradox: if there's no fixed essence preceding your existence, what exactly are you being authentic to?

Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre's contemporary and philosophical partner, would likely argue that authenticity in fashion means acknowledging your freedom to choose and taking responsibility for those choices, rather than claiming adherence to some predetermined "true self." Authentic dressing isn't about expressing a fixed identity—it's about making conscious choices that align with your values and the person you're actively constructing.

This resolves the common tension people feel between "dressing for myself" and "dressing for others." There is no pure "self" separate from social context—your identity is always formed in relationship with others and influenced by social meanings. The question isn't whether to consider social factors (you can't avoid them), but whether you're making conscious choices or defaulting to unconscious conformity.

Practical Applications of Dressing as Becoming

Recognize clothing as active choice, not passive expression: Every morning you're not revealing who you are—you're choosing who to be that day. This shift in framing increases both freedom and responsibility. You can dress any direction you want, but you're accountable for those choices and how they shape your identity over time.

Use wardrobe transitions to support identity shifts: When going through major life changes, deliberately updating your wardrobe to align with your evolving identity reinforces the transition. This isn't superficial—research shows that external changes genuinely support internal transformation when paired with authentic intention and internal work.

Pay attention to the stories your clothing tells: What narratives do your current wardrobe choices encode? What do they signal about values, affiliations, priorities? Are those the stories you want to be telling yourself and others? If not, what different choices would tell more accurate stories about who you're becoming? Understanding how style develops as an ongoing process rather than fixed discovery helps navigate these questions.

Embrace experimentation as philosophical practice: Trying different styles isn't frivolous—it's existential exploration. How does dressing differently change how you move through the world, how others respond to you, how you think about yourself? These experiments provide data about identity construction that pure introspection can't access.

Avoid "bad faith" justifications: Notice when you claim clothing choices are dictated by external factors (body type, age, profession) while secretly resenting those constraints. Either own the choice (acknowledging you're choosing comfort/safety/conformity for valid reasons) or make different choices. The dishonesty of bad faith is claiming you have no choice when you actually do.

The existentialist approach to fashion rejects the notion that you're trying to find and express a fixed, authentic self through clothing. Instead, it recognizes that you're continuously constructing identity through choices—including what you wear. This isn't more superficial than traditional "self-expression" narratives; it's more honest about how identity actually works.

Fashion becomes philosophical when you recognize each outfit as a small declaration of who you're choosing to be. Not who you are by nature, not who society demands, not who you "should" be—but who you're actively becoming through accumulated choices made in freedom and responsibility. That's what Sartre meant by existence preceding essence: you exist first, as a blank slate, and then define yourself through choices. Your wardrobe is simply one visible record of those choices accumulating over time into something recognizable as "you."

The question isn't whether fashion constructs identity—it does, inevitably, whether you're conscious of it or not. The question is whether you're making those identity-constructing choices deliberately, with full awareness of your freedom and responsibility, or whether you're operating in bad faith by pretending the choices are made for you. That's the difference between dressing as passive expression and dressing as active becoming.