memories of lolita past 2: (mis)conceptions of oldschool

 Around this time in last year, I wrote a blog post about “oldschool” and the perceptions of “early lolita'' within sections of the community. The hunger for history and nostalgic aesthetics seems to have only advanced since, as I’ve noticed a significant increase in demand for dresses and accessories that embody the stereotypical “oldschool” look. 

Photoshoot for the Nostalgia Collection by Summer Tales Boutique, featuring model Rosalynn (@lolitawonderland on Instagram).
Taken from the Summer Tales Boutique webshop.

But what is this look, and how should it be achieved? Oldschool seems to mean different things to different people. Many associate it with solid pieces with stark, relatively simple colour palettes; although floral and patterned fabrics, like tartans and gobelin, are equally popular. The designs of the dresses themselves are usually considered simpler and “more wearable” than modern lolita, perhaps reflecting the notion that the fashion was more “authentic” in its early years. Some believe that only pieces produced within a certain period of time (usually from the 1990s to early 2000s) can be counted as "true" oldschool, though I personally think overall design is more important than the age of the garment (please read my previous post on the subject if you want to know why!).

To contribute to these debates, I will be exploring some common perceptions about oldschool and early lolita, and comparing them to photographs and streetsnaps we have from the early to mid 2000s. This is not to argue that any particular definition of oldschool or lolita history is wrong, but rather to push the boundaries of the substyle, and challenge what we consider “authentic” in current lolita fashion. So, whether you agree or disagree with me on what oldschool is (or isn’t), I hope we can enjoy finding inspiration from these images, and what they can tell us about our fashion and our community – past, present, and future. 

“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. 

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. 

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.