Grandma's Wallpaper: Florals Prints, Hybridity, and the Question of Cultural Appropriation in Lolita Fashion

    "Is wearing lolita cultural appropriation?" The question has been brought up several times in discussions about lolita fashion, especially in the Western community. It's a concern that can be taken from multiple angles: Are non-Japanese people wearing lolita appropriating the fashion because it originated in Japan, and largely designed by and for Japanese women? Did Japanese women appropriate the fashions and cultures of Europe in the construction of lolita fashion and its subcultures? Is it alright for non-Japan or non-East Asian people to continue wearing the fashion?

    In my opinion, these anxieties stem from the complicated nature of lolita's historical inspirations. While we commonly associate the fashion with the Rococo and Victorian eras, we seldom connect this to the fact that international trade, colonialism, and imperialism were a part of these histories. Many of the artistic and cultural touchstones that we now consider quintessentially "European", such as English gardens, afternoon tea, fine porcelain, floral wallpapers, and printed dresses - all of which are part of the inspiration behind lolita fashion and culture - were actually the products of both international trade and cultual appropriation between European powers and other nations. Without the rise in global trade, exploitation, and colonization, they wouldn't even exist. 

Robe a la Francaise, sewn in England with Chinese silk, ca. 1735-1760, V&A Museum, London / 
Old Rose JSK, released 2014, Baby, the Stars Shine Bright

    Thinking about lolita fashion with this in mind complicates its historical and cultural inspiration, as well as the narratives of lolita simply being a "Japanese take on European fashions". It begs the question of what is "European", and, by extension, what is "Japanese"? As we start to piece together all of these different socio-historical contexts, using them to look beyond the surface of the fashion and the way that it has constructed its current sense of self, what is "lolita"? 

    This blog post will examine these questions through one of the most common motifs in lolita fashion: floral prints, often jokingly compared to "grandma's wallpaper" because of their strong associations with old-fashioned houses and interiors. It aims to explore the concepts of hybridity, mimicry, and cultural appropriation in the context of the fashion, looking beyond the essentialist categories of "East" and the "West". And while I don't think one post is going to be able to answer all of the questions posed in the introduction, I hope that it might inspire readers to reconsider how we view lolita's identity within the world of fashion -- and, by extension, how modern social and cultural identities have been  constructed more generally. 

    One of the key concepts that I will be exploring in this post is the idea of "hybridity". Hybridity, by its very nature, is difficult to define. At its most basic level, it is the combination or intermingling of two or more cultures to create something new and distinct, often described as being "in-between" its original inspirations. Postcolonial theorist Homi K. Bhabha wrote extensively about the subject in his 1994 book, The Location of Culture, arguing that hybridity "erases any essentialist claims for the inherent authenticity or purity of cultures which [...] frequently become political arguments for the hierarchy and ascendancy of powerful cultures". The theory is not without its problems, however; Gayatri Spivak has rightly warned against the employment of hybridity as a means of diminishing the nuances of specific cultural differences, and the persistence of colonial, racial, and cultural hierarchies in the modern day. With this in mind, lets examine the hybridity embedded in lolita's historical inspirations, and how that has translated into its modern-day incarnations.

Afternoon dress, made in France, ca. 1855, Metropolitan Museum of Art / 
Roman Mosaic Tuck JSK, released 2013, Innocent World 

    In terms of historical influences, lolita fashion is most commonly associated with Western Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. These time periods were, in many ways, defined by hybridity, as the rise of trade, imperialism, and colonialism connected people, technologies, and ideas from across the world -- for better and for worse. This helped foster the demand for and fascination with the art, aesthetics, and cultures of Asia among Europeans, a phenomenon now commonly referred to as "Orientalism". 

    Many aspects of European culture from this period have their roots in Orientalism: tea, for example, was an expensive and exotic luxury, and the habit of taking tea began as way for the upper classes to show their wealth and sophistication. The great porcelain manufacturers of Meissen, Vincennes/Sevres, and Chelsea began as producers of chinoiserie (European imitations of Chinese porcelain). When it came to the clothing and interiors that defined the period and inspired lolita fashion centuries later, textiles and wallpapers from the Indian subcontinent and China were a key influence.

Palampore, made in the Coromandel Coat, ca. 1730-1750. V&A Museum, London /
Reve du Paradis JSK, released in 2003, Juliette et Justine

    By the 18th century, cotton painted, embroidered, or printed in the Indian subcontinent had become a major commodity among wealthy Europeans. Export textiles, made to suit the tastes of the Western market, were manufactured across the region in places like Calicut and the Coromandel Coast. The widespread popularity of such materials lead to the adoption of words like "chintz" (from the Hindi word chint, meaning "spotted") and "calico" (referring to the city of Calicut) in Western parlance. Though initially used as decorations and wall hangings, Indian export fabrics were quickly adapted to make clothing, especially women's dresses. Artisans from the subcontinent merged their artistic styles and manufacturing techniques with European floral designs, creating fashionable fabrics which were widely reproduced in Europe itself. The cotton industries that developed in England and France from the 18th to 19th centuries were born from the desire to reproduce Indian printed cottons, and it was these interconnected industries that would inspire the cotton-based floral prints now often used in modern lolita dresses.

Robe a l'Anglaise, made in France, ca. 1784-1787, Metropolitan Museum of Art / 
Majolica JSK, release 2010, Mary Magdalene

    Similarly, chinoiserie and Chinese export goods also had an effect on 18th century European fashion and culture. Chinese porcelain had always been popular in Europe, but by the 18th century, the demand for Chinese or Chinese-style silks and wallpaper was growing as well. Like the export textiles of the Indian subcontinent, the silk and wallpaper exported from China were made with the Western consumer in mind -- Chinese interiors did not use wallpapers at all during this time, and the patterns that were popular among domestic consumers were completely different to those used in export wares. Nonetheless, by 18th to 19th centuries, the "Chinese" aesthetics presented in such goods were being used and imitated not just in European interiors, but art, architecture, and, of course, fashion. The pastoral scenes and romanticised images of daily life commonly portrayed in these works even helped inspire prominent Rococo era artists like Francois Boucher and Jean-Antoine Watteau, who wished to capture a similar sense of leisure and luxury in their works -- inadvertently creating a connection between Chinese export goods and the philosophy of lolita fashion.  

Francois Boucher, Le Jarden Chinois, 1742, Musée des Beaux-Arts et d'Archéologie, Besançon

    Motifs from China, the Indian subcontinent, and other parts of Asia were often combined with one another in the production of "Oriental" goods in Asia and Europe. These hybrid styles informed many of what we now often consider quintessentially "European" designs elements. The meandering vines and naturalistic curves of Rococo artwork and William Morris's wallpapers were inspired by patterns from Indian prints, Chinese wallpapers, and Japanese artworks. The teardrop "paisley" patterns that so often appear on Victorian carpets and scarves are imitations of buta motifs that commonly appeared on textiles from West Asia. The printed and painted textiles used in so many outfits from the 18th to 19th centuries were either obtained through trade, or began as imitations of foreign exports. Some of these design elements have used so widely and changed so thoroughly that they no longer bear any strong to their original inspirations, but the question remains -- what can we really consider to be "Western" in modern fashion? For that matter, how do we distinguish between what is "Asian" or "European", "authentic" or "Orientalist"? 

Shawl, made in Kashmir, mid-19th century, V&A Museum, London /
Paisley Bat Collar Blouse 2020 Mana Special Edition, release 2020, Moi-meme-Moitie

    Where does this leave lolita, which, as a fashion, has always resisted such strict categorisations? Who does lolita "belong" to, and how can we draw the lines of appropriation, if they should exist at all? There may never be a definitive answer to any of these questions. That, I think, is somewhat reflective of the nature of lolita, and hybridity itself -- it will always mean different things to different people, for better or for worse. At the end of the day, all we have of the fashion is what we make of it. 

    Lolita helps demonstrate the problems inherent in trying to categorise the world through simple binaries - "East" and "West", "tradition" and "modern", "historical" and "current". We should never forget the Japanese origins of the fashion, and the fact that it was created in a specific and unique context which separates it from many Western alternative subcultures. Yet it would be far too reductive to consider lolita simply as "Japanese girls in Western clothing", as many of these "Western" designs, are really an amalgamation of all sorts of influences, many of which are mired in complex networks of globalisation, trade, and colonial expansion. 

    While historical accuracy has never been terribly important to lolita as a fashion, its designs are still inevitably tied to their social and political contexts. As the lolita continues to develop, expanding into designs and trends beyond the realms and representations of the Victorian and Rococo, the concept of hybridity remains at the heart of both the fashion and the culture that defines it.