It's one of the first things we learn upon entering the community: that lolita is a fashion, not a costume.
The sentiment transcends language as one of the core tenants of the subculture, and is something that gets hammered into the minds of every young lolita — even those who don’t have their first coordinate yet. The meaning of the phrase seems obvious, and, in a lot of ways, it is. It means that lolita is not meant to be a performance that’s done for others. It isn’t like cosplay or historical re-enactment, where the goal is to entertain or emulate someone from a different time or place. When we say that lolita is a fashion, what we mean is that it is a form of self-expression, a part of who we are and how we view ourselves. You don’t dress as a lolita, you are a lolita.
 |
| "Jane Marple" from Kidaore Hojoki / Happy Victims by Kyoichi Tsuzuki. https://happy-victims.tumblr.com/post/76421416911/jane-marple |
This dichotomy brings with it a few assumptions about clothing, identity, performativity, and “fashion” itself. Mainly, it assumes that “costume” and “fashion” are inherently separate, and that what separates them is the idea of performing a character — or, more generally, performing for other people. This speaks to the individualistic nature of lolita as a subculture, and its philosophy of prioritising personal happiness over societal expectations. However, it also ties into the complexities of fashion and how it has traditionally been defined. In this blog post, I will be exploring some of these ideas and how they relate to lolita fashion, as well as the difference in how “costume” and “fashion” are treated within the community.
