The Broader Implications of Society in Gucci's Brand

“Conspicuous consumption usually implies the purchase of luxury goods with the purpose of signaling wealth and status” (Johnson, Tariq, and Baker, 2018) is taken from an article describing the effects of luxury products, which is the perfect way to describe the impact of the infamous Gucci belt. Black, beige, or white calf leather, with Gucci’s signature gold double G’s. This belt is the definition of wealth and it is in our hands... or in this case displayed on our waist. It is sleek, bold, and can be easily recognized and known for what it is worth. The brand Gucci has been around for many years to be specific it was found in 1921, but the belt has recently become a trend in about 2018 to the present day. This trend keeps growing and is expanding from more than the belt, but I would say that the belt has had the most impact on society as of late. By analyzing this object from multiple lenses, it becomes obvious that this belt has made a huge impact on popular culture.

This belt has made an impact on me personally because I actually really like this trend and admired the belt ever since I saw it all over social media. This belt was blowing up all over Instagram and everyone who was anyone had their hands on one of them, from celebrities to influencers to normal peers at school. I fit into this situation because I jokingly asked for one of these ridiculously expensive, yet beautiful belts for my birthday and ended up getting it from my parents. Looking back at this situation, I think that this can be looked at through a psychoanalytical lens in a sense that I did not really think my actions through and acted on id when asking for this pricey object, opposed to my superego which would rationalize and understand that this Gucci belt is, in fact, $600 and just for show. In general, since these belts are so expensive and in trend it questions whether people in this society actually like it or if they are just trying to fit. According to the textbook, something that stuck out to me was when it says, “One of the central assumptions behind this connection between money and popular culture is that if the great unwashed masses enjoy something, then it’s impossible for it to be good. Put bluntly, such claims continue a tradition of class elitism and snobbery that presumes the intrinsic value of high-society opinions” (O’Brien, and Szeman, 2018). This helps us understand that people do not care about the opinions of the working class and will do anything to uphold their way of living to be included with society.

In my opinion, this object may seem like it is just a belt, but I believe that it is much more than just that. Since this belt is associated with the brand Gucci, it already has the advantage of being labelled high-class, luxurious, and many other adjectives describing what it is worth. What society unintentionally ignores is that with those labels, there is an underlying message of power. In specific, this belt is unisex, and people of all ages have been wearing it means that anyone can wear it and feel empowered. Furthermore, in this society money equals power, and many people feel the need to disguise themselves in these luxurious brands in order to get power. For example, stated in the textbook it says, “culture industry are glossy substitutes for the satisfying kind of empowerment that would result from, say, better working conditions, stronger communities, or expanded democratic rights” (O’Brien, and Szeman, 2018). While the belt has a positive connotation for Gucci, digging deeper into social relations, Gucci has shed some negative feedback on one of their recent sweaters depicting blackface. When looking at this from a post-colonialist lens, one might argue that they are using this ideology to mock and make a fool of people of colour. This has led many people to boycott the brand and personally, I agree with this notion because as a Caribbean descent, I feel like this has made an impact and statement about this high-end community which I do not approve of. According to an article on the situation, the CEO is trying to make up for their actions by stating “‘The lack of knowledge of diversity and the consequent understanding are not at the level we expected, despite all the efforts we did inside the company in the last four years.’
The company is now “evaluating all the processes” to ensure ‘the right level of awareness and visibility,’ he said.” (National Post, 2019). In a sense, this can be viewed as social Darwinism as Gucci look highly of themselves and as more superior and white. This demonstrates social Darwinism because they believe that they are higher in status and don’t really care about the underclassmen, it’s a fight to the top for power, and brands like Gucci promote this sort of thinking.

I think that the Gucci belt reinforces prevailing relations of power because through a Marxist lens, the ideology of the bourgeoisie are rich capitalists, yet this belt challenges prevailing relations of power because the working class is trying to disguise themselves as the bourgeoisie. In more depth, the Gucci belt reinforces power because it makes a statement that whoever is wearing it has some sort of money and exercises hegemonic power over the working class. This can be proven from the course material in the textbook, “Elitist attempts to defend their definition of ‘high’ culture and the efforts of ordinary people to shape the meaning of their own experience” (O’Brien, and Szeman, 2018), which proves that the upper-class want items to be their own and tries to fortify that this object, this Gucci belt, is theirs and this belt is made for them only. With that said, working-class is trying to challenge that prevailing notion and want to deter the idea that only high-class people can purchase this luxurious piece. These people may see it as a definition of self-worth to own one and if you do to own one, it is equivalent to be accepted by the high class. From the textbook in chapter 5 it says, “at the beginning of the 20th century, the sociologist Max Weber argued that the materialist ‘spirit of capitalism’ could be located (apparently paradoxically) in Protestant asceticism. While asceticism involves the rejection of worldly temptations.” (O’Brien, and Szeman, 2018) Which to me means that the proletarians are rejecting the ideology of being enslaved the bourgeoisie and are basking in the freedom of getting the opportunity to break these standards for what is defined as “power”. To wrap up, I think that the Gucci belt both reinforces and challenges relations of power since the upper-class try to claim this artifact as their own but, the working-class are stripping this idea and using it to exert freedom.

When considering broader implications on society, some things that can be taken into consideration is considering Gucci is so expensive, how does the quality of their belts differ to cheaper brands, and since it’s so expensive is it really worth it compared to regular brands made for everyday consumers. When conducting research, I found an article that uses the comparison of Gucci to Old Navy that suggests, “compared to utilitarian products, symbolic products were more likely to be perceived as sophisticated and exciting but less sincere and competent. In sum, brand personality plays an important role in marketing efforts and enables advertisers to craft more effective messages for their consumers” (Aaker, 1996; Plummer, 2000), which helps prove that higher-end products that have symbols like the G’s in the Gucci belt attract customers more than generic items unlike a regular belt from Walmart. Another implication that the Gucci belt has on society is replicas and counterfeits that exist. Like I have stated before, this belt is very expensive and not everyone can enjoy this luxury. It was originally contended that luxury or prestige products were seen as more desirable because the higher price is associated with higher quality or the expense affords the buyer a certain level of prestige (Veblen, 1991).