“It’s not a costume”: lolita and the politics of “fashion”

    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. 

Lolita, Rebellion, and the "Cocoro" of "Rococo"

    The Rococo period and its representation in art, literature, and media, has been a source of inspiration in lolita fashion since its inception. But beyond the pure beauty and aesthetics of the era - with its opulence and theatricality, the iconic pastels and lavish gilded curls - there is something about this phenomenon that's worth considering: why? 

    Why did Rococo, an art style from 18th-century Europe, which was primarily the confined to the realms of the aristocratic elite, become the template for an alternative fashion pioneered by young Japanese women in the late 20th century? For me, this is a question in two parts - firstly, why a European art movement, and secondly, why Rococo spefically? After all, there is no shortage of beauty and opulence in the history of Japanese art, and there are many romanticised historical periods that one might choose from. So why did early lolitas choose emulate a period of history that was so far from home in terms of geography, politics, economics, class, and culture? 

Robe a la Francaise, made in France, ca. 1760. V&A Museum, London. /
Robe a la Francaise OP, released in 2018, Baby the Stars Shine Bright.

    The most obvious answer might simply be that the beautiful and fantastical aesthetics of Rococo happened to appeal to these young women. Many additional factors play into this as well, like the history of interaction and exchange between Japan and the West, as well as the strong cultural influences that European powers have spread across the globe over centuries of imperialism and colonial power struggles.

    However, I believe there may be another layer of reasoning which belies the rebellious and radical message behind lolita fashion. That is the layer that I'm going to be exploring in my blog post today. 

queerness and homosociality in lolita fashion

Lolita has always been a highly feminine, if not female, subculture. It takes inspiration from historically feminine and "girly" motifs, encourages the participation of female-identifying or female-presenting persons, and soundly rejects the imposition of the male gaze on either the fashion or the people wearing it. Simply put, lolita is a celebration of the feminine, by the feminine, for the feminine — a place where people who enjoy this particular form of gender expression can express themselves openly.

Stock image for Innocent World's Emma One Piece, released 2020.
Image courtesy of Innocent World's official online shop.
(https://innocent-w.jp/onlineshop/en/)

It is because of this that I view lolita fashion as a queer, homosocial space, with a culture that is distinct from much of mainstream heteronormativity and patriarchal expectations. And, as a very late Valentine’s Day tribute, this blog post is going to be discussing queerness and queer theory in the context of lolita fashion, exploring manifestations of homosociality and homoromanticism in lolita communities and media. 

memories of lolita past

    Nostalgia has been sweeping through the worldwide fashion scene these past few years, and lolita is no different. Slowly but steadily, we've seen members of the community drifting towards the oldschool substyle, drawing inspiration from Kera magazines, Gothic & Lolita Bibles, Kamikaze Girls and brand advertisements, trying to capture the "good old days" of lolita fashion. Brands have started to follow suit, revamping or rereleasing classic styles - just last year Baby the Stars Shine Bright released a JSK version of the iconic Elizabeth OP, and 2021 promises the return of some of the most beloved designs from 2008-2012 era Angelic Pretty. (In case anyone was wondering, this author has already started saving her pennies in anticipation of the rerelease of Nakoyoshi Bunny. I am nothing if not thematically consistent.)

Nakoyoshi Bunny JSK by Angelic Pretty, released 2008. Set to be re-released some time in 2021.
Stock image from Angelic Pretty, courtesy of Lolibrary
(https://lolibrary.org/items/ap-nakayoshi-bunny-jsk)

    Natrually, every lolita who's interested in the history of the fashion or the aesthetic of oldschool as a substyle has their own reasons. However, I've noticed that a few ideas in particular have come to dominate the discourse. One is a preference for the more simplistic designs of some older releases, which had far less of the elaborate border prints we see today. Another is the perception that older dresses had better quality and construction, or were more likely to use cotton as opposed to polyester. Yet to me, the most interesting factor that plays into people's interest in oldschool or early lolita is the not-uncommon refrain that it was somehow better, and especially more "pure" or "authentic", than modern lolita. 

whose lolita is it anyway?

    If you've been in online lolita communities, you'll probably have heard a few complaints about the evolution of the fashion to over the past few years, especially in relation to the rise of lolita in China.

"Taobao is ruining the fashion, all these new trends and releases are so tacky." 

"Western lolitas shouldn't even bother, most brands only care about catering to China now."

"Chinese girls don't really care about lolita, they just buy expensive dresses to show off their money."

"The quality of lolita has gone down since production moved from Japan to China."

"I'm glad I don't like the styles that are popular in China, rich Chinese lolitas keep driving up secondhand prices."

    If any of these comments sound familiar to you, you've probably scrolled through the same popular lolita groups, twitter threads, and websites as I have.

lolita, by any other name...

    Around the end of 2020, "lolita fashion" began trending on twitter following a certain twitter user's assertion that the fashion was connected to grooming and child sexual abuse. Lolitas across the world responded by flooding the tag with positive examples of the fashion. Many users, and even the official Twitter hashtag, made a point to mention that the fact that the fashion and the book are not connected. All of these posts culminated in a popular youtuber creating an image that loudly proclaimed, "Lolita fashion has nothing to do with the book Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov", which has been widely shared across Instagram. 

From @lovelylor on Instagram

    This is just the most recent example of lolitas banding together to fight the misconceptions that have arisen from the name of the fashion. The discussion, if it can even be called that, is old hat by now - someone (usually an observer who has no experience with lolita or any other kind of alternative fashion) denounces the fashion and attacks its wearers. Lolitas defend themselves against the accusations, and "solutions" are proposed to prevent further misunderstandings. People talk about how to educate the "normies", how to raise awareness about the fashion and its history, and even debate changing the name of the style entirely. Blog posts are written, Instagram posts are shared, Twitter threads get made, Facebook discussion groups and Discord servers burst to life with activity. It's clear that this is an issue that many members of our community feel passionate about. 

    But I, personally, want to add something to the statement so often made by so many lolitas about the relationship between the fashion and Nabokov's novel. Lolita fashion has nothing to do with the book Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.... and even if it did, it wouldn't matter.