Philosophy of Fashion: John Rawls “Veil of Ignorance”
What would clothing look like if chosen without knowledge of one’s identity? No awareness of profession, nationality, gender, race, income, or physical form, only the task of selecting a wardrobe in the absence of personal information.
This question draws from philosopher John Rawls’ 1971 A Theory of Justice, in which he introduces the “veil of ignorance” as a method for determining the principles of a just society. By imagining ourselves stripped of all identifying traits, Rawls argues, we are more likely to choose institutions that are fair and impartial. But what might it look like to apply this framework to fashion?
Fashion, much like political structure, is shaped by implicit contracts, such as cultural and economic norms concerning beauty, gender, status, and production. While fashion is often associated with creativity and self-expression, it is also embedded in broader systems of labor, commerce, and symbolic capital. Certain groups benefit from these systems more than others, whether through access to luxury goods, favorable beauty standards, or the invisibility of their labor.
For example, investigations have uncovered instances in Nepal where children have been trafficked and forced to work in textile workshops under harsh conditions, producing garments destined for international markets. Survivor of this modern slavery, Nasreen Sheikh, has even founded the Empowerment Collective organization which utilizes leadership models to solve both the modern slavery issue and the climate crisis by 2030.
Within a Rawlsian framework, these asymmetries would not go unexamined. If one were to select clothing without knowing their place in the social order, certain priorities might shift. Production conditions, for instance, could become more central. If one might end up as a garment worker rather than a consumer, questions of fair labor and working environments would likely gain prominence. Likewise, durability and function could be weighted more heavily than trend or brand status.
This does not imply a rejection of aesthetics or personal style, but rather a reconsideration of the values underlying our fashion choices. Elegance, under this model, need not be eliminated, but its criteria might evolve. The emphasis could move from exclusivity and status toward accessibility, quality, and ethical considerations – though what exactly constitutes ethical fashion remains a subject of debate.
The exercise is not to prescribe a universal dress code, but to invite reflection. Rawls himself did not engage with fashion, but his theory offers a useful conceptual tool. It shifts focus away from personal taste or moral critique and toward structural imagination.
Xoxo,
Annie
