Why Having Good Taste Is Really Just Code for Being Rich

Cool as code word for "rich"
“Old Lady Dressing” as done by The Row Fall/Winter 2014

We live in an age of perhaps unprecedentedly conspicuous consumption. Oh, sure, we’re not quite at the level of decadence seen in, say, pre-Revolution France, and we’ve even come a long way from the early 2000s when anything and everything was blatantly branded (even asses, which, goodbye forever, Juicy Couture tracksuits), but not only do we now exist in a time of dramatic income inequality, we also find ourselves in an age of constant social media updates, many of which are directly related to consumption habits. And it is through this carefully filtered lens that we observe the lifestyles of everyone from our peers to our idols, and frequently those lifestyles involve luxurious travel destinations, exorbitantly priced home furnishings, meals that cost as much as some people’s monthly rent, and clothing items that equal many people’s annual salary. All of which is to say, that unlike in times past, when even the most flamboyantly wealthy Americans consumed with a degree of discretion due to the simple fact that there was not yet such a thing as Instagram or a rather execrable app meant to track your purchases for the public, we now are surrounded by signifiers of wealth, both blatant and subtle as well as being inescapable in their ubiquity.

And while for many people who bear witness to this type of conspicuous consumption (Kim Kardashian, for example, has over 15 million followers on Instagram), these displays of wealth are the epitome of luxury and are something to which people aspire, for many others (including those who hated the Vogue cover featuring Kardashian) they are the height of vulgarity and are signifiers not of abundance, but of absence… of poverty. The poverty of which I speak is not strictly a matter of financial worth (although, it should be noted, labeling something or someone “vulgar” is historically the equivalent of calling them either poor or nouveau riche) but also speaks to an absence of something that is only tangentially associated with money: social status and cultural cache. In other words, good taste is something that can’t be bought, but is rather something one is either born into or has bred into them. There’s no maybe about it—you’re born with it, or you’re not of it.

It’s this type of assessment of taste and style, one which values intangible signifiers over those that are more concrete, which is evident in a recent Elle article, “All Hail the New Hipster,” which purports to be a celebration of something called “old lady dressing,” but is really about something more insidious, namely codifying style and taste in such a way as to exclude those who failed to be born rich, or, at the very least, upper-middle class. In the article, writer Alice Gregory admires the style of the older women who populate her neighborhood, Brooklyn Heights. And while it may seem surprising that a 26-year-old writer would emulate the look of people three times her age, Gregory writes, “It’s not about their maturity, per se—though nothing catches my eye quite like a glossy pewter bob—it’s the counterintuitive assertion of wealth: the stylish nonstyle,” Gregory goes on to lament that what once passed for “cool” (think Coachella, or, you know, don’t) has now become attainable for “any suburban teenager with Wi-Fi and $15 in her pocket.” And so the last frontier in style is simply “affluence”—or, in Gregory’s case, “the illusion of it”—which has become “the last unattainable goal.”

Gregory calls this style “aggressive tastefulness” and cites Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen’s fashion line The Row, a line which features things like $4,000 backpacks, as an exemplar of this type of dressing, while also admitting that “what lends minimalist dressing its gravitas is its price.” In fact, the entire article is a sort of plea to shun things like ankle bracelets (7-year-old Gregory was told by her grandmother that they make her look “like a whore”) in favor of things that offer a subtle opulence, like Tod’s boots. Gregory admits that she doesn’t have the income to afford what the truly wealthy can, and instead stocks up on Gap jeans and $9.99 Uniqlo turtlenecks, but in perpetuating the reductive idea that the style that is worth the most is literally worth the most, Gregory reinforces an insidious underlying message, namely, that not only does good taste comes with an astronomical price tag, but also, unless you already have a certain kind of pedigree, it will remain forever out of reach. 

While it might seem like this article is just another way for a fashion magazine to appeal to its hopefully shopping-happy, trend-seeking readership, there is something far more troubling about the promotion of things like “rich old lady dressing”  than simply its appeal to an overtly elitist demographic. What trends like this—and, for that matter, normcore—do is alienate the huge swathes of the population who have no hope of, say, inheriting their mother’s perfectly worn, late 70s camel hair coat or, for that matter, are even familiar with what the wealthy old ladies on the streets of Brooklyn Heights wear to begin with. There is no room for rebellion here, no room to break the rules. This type of dressing is establishment dressing in the extreme, and speaks to a type of privilege that has historically shut out anyone who didn’t belong among the elite in the first place. It’s all well and good to admire the subtlety of wearing a “uniform” of a black turtleneck, simple jeans, and a nice pair of boots, but the snobbery inherent to this particular “trend” should make us as uncomfortable as all the young women who have whole-heartedly embraced “festival fashion” as their go-to daily wardrobe. The problem with this trend is that, like normcore, it isn’t transferable. It is an indication of privilege and serves to delineate those who don’t belong from those who do. The fact that Gregory concludes by writing that we should all attempt to “look like a person who has no idea what’s going on but employs a very good personal assistant who does,” does nothing but make me wonder, what then, should a personal assistant look like? Unfortunately, the personal assistants of the world don’t seem to fit into this particular style narrative as anything more than props. Props, who, we should note, hopefully don’t wear ankle bracelets lest, you know, someone think they were whores.

Follow Kristin Iversen on twitter @kmiversen


  1. I agree with Comrade Iverson. We all must reject every last shred of individual class privilege, burn our capitalist wardrobes of oppression, and immediately don the new utilitarian, unisex unitards provided for us by our Dear Leader for our comfort. All who fail to conform will be destroyed.

    • if your personal identity is based on something more substantial than money, you certainly will have no fear of being stripped of it (especially by something so tame as this article).

      • Yes, fashion IS a way of expressing personal identity. And no one fears this article. Its the overzealous liberals who write such articles that bother people.

      • Where does she say her identity is based on money? This article is all about telling people to n to dress a certain way because it isn’t sufficiently egalitarian. The article may not strip of us of our rights, but zealously liberal people who write such articles are a different story.

  2. Thank you! I have often lamented to friends that the entire concept of “normcore” is classist– as is every trend wherein the “haves” adopt the style of the “have nots”.

    Now, the concept of developing a “uniform” of timeless pieces, on the other hand– that’s something I agree with, and think is much more accessible.

    • Exactly! The very first story about “normcore” was so hopelessly self-absorbed (which worked for the audience I guess). So happy this piece lays it all out.

      While there is something tacky about rich people “slumming it” (dressing in grunge, picking all the best vintage), there is something evil and banal about doing it and then arguing that it is value-free, color blind: the “norm.”

    • Normcore is about hipsters, who have very little, adopting the style of their own youth. Much like what their parents wore. How exactly is it classist?

    • Maybe the ones you know, and bad taste is a matter of taste. To you perhaps wearing sagging or low rise jeans, too tight to shirts, and booty shorts is good taste. To me wearing no visible name brands, and good quality materials is good taste.

  3. While I have a severe distaste for normcore (seriously it is the definition of vulgar) I disagree with how you use the term vulgar. Having been raised in the upper middle class you seem to have a great dislike for (and having inherited my mothers camel coat ) I can tell you that vulgar is a term used by people such as my parents to describe those who act like Kim Kardashian; or the “rich kids of Instagram”; it is used to describe those who flaunt their money and aren’t humble in their fortune; the most damning insult I could recieve from my parents is that of behaving in a vulgar manner that would bring shame to them for having failed in raising me as the polite; humble young lady they wish me (and I strive) to be.
    I’ve met people with social status and cultural cache that are certainly vulgar in their conversation; I’ve also met people who come from the middle of nowhere that have more class in their pinky than some of the former.
    It is not a class distinction but one of upbringing; boastfulness, poor table manners, explicit language and a failure to converse politely are common traits shown by a vulgar person and it is question of if their parents took them in hand and allowed such behaviour not of their class, social status or cultural cache.

    • Then you would very much approve of the original article. The woman talks about NOT flaunting money( or even having it) but wearing simple, tasteful items, no visible logos, no excessive trendiness. Good quality materials, rather then flashy hardware and obvious labels. Exactly what your parents considered correct.

  4. Relax. You’re over thinking it. Good taste is simply good taste, wether you are richer poor. And plenty of poor people dress conservatively. Actually, people getting back to more traditional values is nothing to be afraid of. You’re just going to have to accept that the tide has turned for now. Its cyclical.

  5. Your are mistaken. The establishment today isn’t some old money people who oppress us. Its millionaire liberals, who have grown fat and wealthy from their youth in the 60’s, and now are telling the rest of us what to do. You can’t smoke a cigarette, but pot is OK. You can’t use the word “bossy” because it might cause girls to not be bossy. We must all pretend that everyone is equal. These are the oppressors of today. And this seems like a perfectly delicious way of rebelling. Wearing a Joy Division t shirt and black jeans certainly isn’t rebelling.Dressing like a hippy will probably get you elected to the Senate. I may be young, but I am not blind. And frankly, although I don’t know first hand how anyone in new york dresses, or what wealthy old ladies wear( I was raised by academics who smoked pot) I can figure it out.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here