How Fashion Rebrands Culture

By Zaineb Al-Sadiq

Fashion is often described as a universal language of identity, creativity, status and belonging. In reality, the meanings attached to clothing are neither fixed nor applied equally. The same garment, hairstyle or aesthetic can be celebrated on one person while provoking suspicion, ridicule or exclusion on another. This inconsistency reveals an important sociological reality: clothing is not judged solely by what it is, but by who is wearing it.

Across Britain and much of the global fashion industry, cultural clothing occupies a contradictory position. Traditional garments, hairstyles and aesthetic practices associated with Black, South Asian, Middle Eastern and other minority communities have historically been characterised as backward, unprofessional or difficult to assimilate. Yet once similar styles appear on fashion runways, celebrities or luxury fashion houses, they are frequently reintroduced as innovative, sophisticated and desirable. The aesthetic itself has not changed. What changes is the social status of the wearer and the institution validating it.

This article argues that these contradictions are not simply isolated examples of cultural appropriation. Rather, they reveal a broader process of cultural rebranding, whereby cultural traditions are detached from their historical origins, assigned new meanings by dominant institutions and reintroduced as commercially valuable products. Fashion therefore raises broader questions about power, recognition and who has the authority to decide what is considered fashionable.

Fashion, power and the social construction of style

Ideas about what is fashionable, tasteful or prestigious are not natural or objective. They are shaped by powerful cultural institutions, including fashion houses, magazines, celebrities and influencers, that determine which aesthetics are recognised, celebrated and commercialised. Fashion therefore reflects systems of power as much as systems of creativity.¹ This helps explain why cultural exchange can become cultural extraction. Fashion has always evolved through influences between cultures, but borrowing becomes problematic when cultural traditions are removed from the communities that created them, stripped of their historical significance and rebranded as new or innovative.

The history of Indian textiles illustrates this process particularly clearly. Designs and techniques that originated in India, such as the Kashmiri boteh motif (later internationally recognised as the Paisley pattern), and textiles whose names survive in English through terms such as calico, madras and dungaree, became globally celebrated while their cultural origins were increasingly obscured. During the colonial period, Indian textile designs were systematically collected and reproduced for commercial manufacture, allowing prestige, branding and profit to accumulate elsewhere. Contemporary debates surrounding cultural appropriation therefore reflect much longer histories of cultural extraction in which fashion has celebrated aesthetics while overlooking the communities that created them.

Cultural rebranding in contemporary fashion

These historical dynamics continue to shape the contemporary fashion industry. Luxury brands regularly incorporate cultural aesthetics into their collections while presenting them as original innovations rather than traditions with long-established histories.²

Recent examples illustrate this pattern. In 2025, Prada showcased leather sandals that closely resembled the centuries-old Kolhapuri chappal without initially acknowledging their Indian origins.³ Around the same period, several retailers marketed dupatta-style scarves as 'Scandinavian scarves', effectively detaching a garment worn across South Asia for generations from its cultural context. Dior's haute couture collections have similarly featured Indian embroidery techniques completed by Indian artisans while campaign materials foregrounded European craftsmanship rather than the traditions informing the work.⁴ Similar debates have surrounded bindis, traditional draping techniques and handcrafted textiles that are frequently reintroduced as luxury fashion while their cultural origins remain secondary or absent altogether.

These examples demonstrate that the issue extends beyond individual garments. Cultural products frequently acquire greater prestige once they have been reframed through Western luxury branding. Recognition therefore follows power rather than authorship.

When culture is fashionable but communities are not

The same contradiction appears across many forms of racialised dress and appearance. Protective Black hairstyles such as braids, cornrows, locs and Afros have long been subject to discrimination within schools and workplaces, where they have been characterised as distracting or unprofessional.⁵ Research shows that many Black women continue modifying aspects of their appearance⁶, including natural and protective hairstyles⁷, to navigate professional environments shaped by Eurocentric norms, despite these same styles being increasingly celebrated within fashion editorials, advertising campaigns and celebrity culture.

Similarly, modest fashion has become an increasingly profitable global market⁸, with luxury brands incorporating hijabs, headscarves and modest silhouettes into mainstream collections⁹, even as Muslim women continue experiencing Islamophobia and hostility for wearing religious dress in everyday public life. Even within modest fashion, some styles of hijab are perceived as more socially acceptable because they make visible Muslim identity less immediately recognisable, demonstrating that acceptance often depends on appearing more culturally palatable rather than on genuine acceptance of religious difference.¹⁰

Recognition, not simply representation

Greater diversity within fashion campaigns does not necessarily resolve these inequalities. Although fashion has become increasingly representative in terms of the models appearing on runways and in advertising, representation alone does not redistribute power. Minority communities may become more visible while remaining excluded from positions of creative authorship, commercial ownership and institutional decision-making.

This imbalance has been described as racial plagiarism, whereby industries profit from racialised aesthetics while marginalising the communities responsible for creating them.¹¹ Cultural products are celebrated because they possess commercial value, while cultural creators remain peripheral to the industries profiting from their work. Recognition therefore becomes selective: fashion embraces aesthetics without necessarily embracing people.

Fashion industries have repeatedly commercialised aesthetics rooted in Black, Asian, and other racialised communities while the people who created them continue to encounter stereotypes surrounding criminality, poverty or social disorder. Rather than eliminating these inequalities, commercial recognition often redistributes prestige away from the communities from which these cultural practices originated.¹²

Across these examples, clothing itself does not determine social meaning. Rather, legitimacy is unevenly distributed. Fashion grants dominant groups greater freedom to experiment with cultural aesthetics while minority communities continue negotiating prejudice for expressing their own identities.

Fashioning poverty

The cultural rebranding paradox extends beyond ethnicity and religion to encompass socioeconomic inequality.

Over recent decades, luxury fashion has repeatedly drawn inspiration from the visual markers of poverty and homelessness. Distressed fabrics, heavily layered clothing, visibly worn garments, oversized silhouettes and deliberately damaged footwear have appeared in collections by major fashion houses, often selling for hundreds or thousands of pounds despite imitating clothing associated with material deprivation. Critics have described this trend as homeless chic or poverty aesthetics, arguing that it romanticises hardship¹³ while obscuring the structural realities of homelessness. John Galliano's controversial Dior collections¹⁴ at the beginning of the twenty-first century are frequently cited as early examples, while more recent collections by brands including Balenciaga and Vetements have reignited similar debates.¹⁵

Clothing associated with economic hardship becomes desirable only after it is detached from the people experiencing poverty and reintroduced through the symbolic authority of luxury fashion. This reflects the same pattern explored throughout this article. Whether the subject is race, religion or poverty, aesthetics often become valuable only once separated from the lived experiences that originally gave them meaning.¹⁶

Reclaiming cultural heritage

Despite these inequalities, there are growing efforts to challenge long-standing patterns of cultural extraction. Legal protections such as India's Geographical Indications Act seek to preserve traditional craftsmanship by recognising its geographical and cultural origins.¹⁷ Contemporary designers including Rahul Mishra increasingly foreground Indian artisanship within international couture,¹⁸ while campaigns such as #ReclaimTheBindi have challenged the commercial use of religious and cultural symbols without appropriate acknowledgement.¹⁹ Similar conversations are emerging across many communities seeking greater recognition for the cultural knowledge, labour and craftsmanship that underpin global fashion.

These developments suggest that cultural exchange need not depend upon erasure. Fashion can celebrate creativity across cultures while acknowledging historical origins, recognising craftsmanship and ensuring that the communities responsible for cultural innovation remain visible within the stories being told.

Conclusion

Fashion has always travelled across cultures, and cultural exchange will continue to shape how clothing evolves. The question is therefore not whether traditions should influence fashion, but how those influences are recognised and who ultimately benefits from them.

Across garments, hairstyles, textiles and even the aesthetics of poverty, this article has argued that fashion does not simply borrow culture. It often redistributes its value. Styles that are stigmatised when worn by minority communities frequently become fashionable once validated by dominant institutions, while the people who created them continue navigating prejudice for expressing the very same identities.

Across this three-part series, one theme has remained constant: clothing is never simply clothing. It is interpreted through systems of power that shape who is seen as respectable, threatening, fashionable or legitimate. Whether through external policing, internal expectations or cultural rebranding, the meanings attached to clothing are socially produced rather than inherent in the garments themselves.

Ultimately, fashion tells us as much about power as it does about style. Until cultural creators receive the same recognition as the cultural products they inspire, clothing will continue to expose inequalities that extend far beyond what we wear.

References 

1. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press. Explains how taste and fashion are socially constructed through systems of power, status and cultural capital.

2. Rai, V. (2026, 8 July). Borrowed, Erased, Reclaimed: A History of the Appropriation of Indian Fashion. India's World. Examines the historical appropriation of Indian textiles, craftsmanship and design, and contemporary debates surrounding cultural extraction and recognition.

3. BBC News. (2025). Prada acknowledges Indian inspiration after Kolhapuri sandal controversy. Reports on Prada's response to criticism regarding the use of Kolhapuri sandal designs without initially acknowledging their Indian origins.

4. Dior. (2025). Haute Couture Collection. Campaign materials illustrating the use of Indian embroidery and artisanship within luxury fashion collections.

5. Fawcett Society & Runnymede Trust. (2022). Broken Ladders: The Myth of Meritocracy for Women of Colour in the Workplace. Explores workplace discrimination experienced by women of colour, including appearance-based expectations and professional respectability.

6. University of Exeter. (2024). The Workplace Experiences of African, Asian and Caribbean British Professional Women: Understanding Women's Workplace Experiences and Well-Being Implications. Doctoral thesis. University of Exeter. Examines workplace experiences of Black and minority ethnic professional women, including appearance, identity and belonging.

7. Halo Collective. (2024). The Halo Workplace Pledge. Outlines evidence and initiatives addressing discrimination relating to Afro-textured hair and protective hairstyles in workplaces.

8. Ashraf, S., et al. (2025). Female Muslim identity and modest clothing consumption in the UK. Journal of Islamic Marketing. Explores the relationship between modest fashion, identity formation and belonging.

9. The Guardian. (2025). How modest fashion became luxury fashion while Muslim women still face discrimination. Discusses the commercialisation of modest fashion alongside continuing Islamophobia experienced by Muslim women.

10. Appleford, K., et al. (2025). Young Muslim women on Nadiya Hussain, turbanisation and the politics of respectability: Navigating public space and Islamophobia. Examines the intersections between fashion, celebrity, religion and race.

11. Pham, M.-H. T. (2017). The Racial Plagiarism of Fashion. QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, 4(2), pp. 67–95. Introduces the concept of racial plagiarism, explaining how fashion industries profit from racialised aesthetics while marginalising their creators.

12. Cruz, R. A., Kim, S. and Johnson, K. K. P. (2024). Race, Fashion and Cultural Appropriation: A Review of Consumer Perceptions and Marketplace Inequalities. Fashion and Textiles, 11(1), Article 18. Reviews research on cultural appropriation, consumer perceptions and racial inequalities within fashion.

13. Nylon. (2022). Why Designers Keep Romanticising Homelessness Through Fashion. Critiques the fashion industry's appropriation of homelessness and poverty aesthetics.

14. Strike Magazine. (2023). The Horrific Nature of Homeless Chic. Critiques the normalisation and commercialisation of homelessness-inspired fashion.

15. Vogue. (2024). From Pee Jeans to Erewhon Hoodies: Can Fashion Ever Shake the Anti-Capitalist Gimmick? Examines contemporary luxury fashion's use of anti-capitalist and poverty-inspired aesthetics.

16. Obscura Magazine. (2023). The Politics of Homeless Chic. Explores the political and ethical implications of fashion inspired by poverty and homelessness.

17. Lexology. (2025). Fashion Law in India: Weaving Legal Threads into the Fabric of Style. Explains how the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999 helps protect traditional crafts and regionally distinctive textiles as part of India's fashion and intellectual property framework.

18. A&E Magazine. (2026). Indian Couture Takes Centre Stage in Paris. Examines how designers including Rahul Mishra are bringing Indian craftsmanship, embroidery and artisanal traditions to the forefront of international haute couture.

19. i-D. (2015). Five Things the Founder of #ReclaimTheBindi Needs You to Know. Discusses the #ReclaimTheBindi campaign and its efforts to challenge the appropriation of culturally and religiously significant South Asian symbols while promoting recognition of their cultural meaning.