Sophie Abriat has been reporting about fashion for a decade. She started with a very influential blog, interviewing some of the biggest names in and around fashion. The journalist is one of the most interesting voices writing about the industry today. She now writes for the French daily Le Monde and its style supplement M Le Magazine. What sets Abriat’s writing apart is not only her deep knowledge of the field, but that she brings a sharp intellectual curiosity to her reporting, blending sociology, philosophy and culture to her writing.
Sophie Abriat’s new book, Dancer sur le Volcan (Grasset publishers) is an exploration of how fashion - now called “luxury”- has taken over every aspect of our lives, whether we are aware and willing or not.
How did you become interested in fashion and started writing about it ?
Sophie Abriat It happened through writing. I had an urge to write, I love writing, and I am passionate about fashion. So, 10 years ago I thought there was maybe a different way to write about fashion. I started my blog 15 years ago. I was writing chronicles about fashion. I discovered it was a very rich angle to figure out how our society functions, to understand the world. Triggered by this observation, fashion became my field of study. In truth, what interests me today is more the “cultural object” that fashion has become rather than fashion itself. Both my passions - writing and fashion - have merged.
What you're saying in your book is that until now we have looked at fashion primarily from an economic standpoint - saying it’s the largest employer in France, for example - and that it’s time to look at the larger cultural phenomenon it is.
Sophie Abriat Today we can talk about fashion from different perspectives. On the one hand there’s the cultural phenomenon, and also the garments - the material object - accessories, and the industry itself, which is in a constant renewal. By the way, this constant renewal is influencing all the other industries. And, on the other hand, there’s the work of the designers themselves which, even though it is in this economic system, is also the work of artists. What I set out to do in the book is that we tend to limit fashion designers as economic agents, but they have become, especially in the past decade, cultural agents, societal forces. They occupy a big space in our collective unconscious and I wanted to look at this symbolic capital beyond the economic role, and how they’re shaping our collective identity. I was interested in how these luxury brands shape both our individual and collective identity. I wanted to analyze how, even if we are not consumers of fashion or luxury, we are somehow affected by the messages they are sending, whether it be images or messages, and we are not necessarily aware of it. That’s why my book talks to both the initiated and the non initiated. I wanted to show that even if you are not part of this milieu, you were still touched by it.
Even if we are not a consumer of luxury, we are touched by it.
Sophie Abriat Yes, exactly ! A very simple example of this is Jacques Audiard’s film, Emilia Perez, which will represent France at the 2025 Oscars. The Saint Laurent logo appears in the film’s credits because Saint Laurent is the film’s co-producer. We could multiply examples. You just have to walk the streets of major cities to see the brands’giant billboards. Apart from that, today these “actors” also play a role at the cultural level. We sometimes forget governments are removing themselves from the culture scene, in particular, and certainly from museums. We are concerned by these brands taking up a bigger and bigger role in defining cultural policies.
Because you are using the word “actor”, it’s interesting to remember that Kering bought a “talent agency” in the United States which is very important. So this is one more step.
Sophie Abriat Absolutely! It is one of the most important American talent agencies in the world, which is present in entertainment and sports, among other things. Artémis, the Pinault family’s holding company, has taken a majority stake in CAA. It’s the same with Chanel. The brand is extremely present through its patronage of cinema today. I also talk in the book about the historical roots of this phenomenon of brands more involved in culture. When we look at the importance of brands in American culture, we realize that, in the USA, a lot has been done in this area before. In particular, I give the example of Nike which, in the 1990s, already had its own agency to represent athletes during negotiations for their advertising contracts. I was keen to highlight the links between brands and culture going way back.
We were just talking about the fact that brands are now absolutely everywhere. But, in recent months, there has been a lot of talk about how luxury is experiencing a real crisis. Is the crisis connected to the fact that luxury is more and more expensive while the quality of its products has declined ? Also, luxury is no longer luxury because it used to mean it was reserved for a small group and now it is everywhere. Is that at the root of this crisis ?
Sophie Abriat In the last 10 years, the numbers were getting bigger and bigger, whether it was the number for market capitalization, earnings, etc. But it's true that last year we witnessed a stop in this meteoric rise. Crisis or not crisis? I spoke with the market expert from Bain & Company who said, "we have to be cautious”. But since 2022, according to the Bain & Company website, the industry has lost more than 50 million consumers. We need to understand that in the luxury market there are two categories of consumers: what we call the ultra-rich, who represent a very significant share of the market. And also what we call aspirational customers, first-time buyers or the middle class, a less well defined group. These are consumers who generally spend between €3,000 and €10,000 per year on luxury purchases. We have these two engines driving the luxury market. Luxury constantly plays between these two categories of consumers and between exclusivity and inclusiveness. You always have to look for balance. In a post-COVID world, many luxury brands have significantly increased prices, particularly of their iconic products because they worry the market might be cooling off, etc. The price/value alchemy in luxury is extremely fragile and in increasing prices, brands have lost part of their aspirational clientele. Today, they are trying to recalibrate between their 1% customer base and their aspirational clientele. The Financial Times had an interesting article explaining that luxury brands are already in the process of reducing their prices, in particular by recreating more loss leaders. They are not going to lower the price of their well-known products, but with luxury you have the possibility of creating small leather goods, perfumes, etc., to win customers back again. To attract this aspirational clientele, you have to be extremely visible. We must win the battle of algorithms. Today, the luxury sector must really be at the heart of this algorithmic battle. This requires a massive communication offensive. Hence this extreme visibility that we have seen in recent years. This balance is difficult to find between exclusivity and inclusiveness.
How do you explain this semantic shift and how we suddenly went from “fashion” to luxury”?
Sophie Abriat In the 1980s, the product renewal cycle was much slower. Purchases of luxury products were mostly limited to major life events. We changed accessories every 5 years. We talked a lot more about permanent products. From the moment these old family owned Maisons were bought by business leaders and visionaries (Bernard Arnault, François Henri Pinault, etc.), and they started forming luxury groups, these old Houses began to be managed like fashion brands, I mean they began to renew their collections much more frequently. Ultimately, the brands were led by star designers showing collections more and more often. On the other hand, I speak of “luxification” of fashion. Today, fashion is largely created by these luxury groups, even if there are still independent designers who are extremely talented. As Hussein Chalayan says, today it is very difficult as an individual to compete with companies as powerful as Bank of America. There is a double movement and ultimately, in the past 10 years, the two found themselves connected. This is what I was able to observe from the inside.
You use the word “luxification”, about the constant presence of luxury in our lives. Do you mean that no one escapes luxury?
Sophie Abriat Exactly. We are witnessing the extension of the territory of luxury. Fashion houses are now present in gastronomy, in sport, design, hotels, etc. But I also talk about the power of these brands, the branding. We feel there is a real desire to own these objects because of the name attached to them. The idea is that we are influenced by the power of these platforms, of these players, in society, in culture, but also in geopolitics. Today, we are talking more and more about these huge financial powers.
Because the taste for luxury is absolutely everywhere?
Sophie Abriat The desire for luxury.
You say this craving for luxury springs from our loss of the sense of eternity. Tell me a little more.
Sophie Abriat While doing my research, I enjoyed reading Werner Sombart, who is one of the first sociologists to study luxury. He wrote an absolutely fascinating book, called “ Love, luxury, capitalism », published in German in 1913, reissued in French quite recently. It traces the entire history: the rise of luxury in the 18th century, material luxury, the consumption of objects. He explains that his contemporaries want much more frequent and immediate consumption because since we have lost the sense of eternity, the duration of one’s own life has become the only measure of our earthly pleasures. There’s a desire to consume a lot more right away! We knew that in the Middle Ages to build castles and cathedrals one lifetime was not enough. Sombart connects this thirst for luxury to the loss of the notion of eternal life. There are lots of other elements and lots of other factors, but I found interesting this connection to our loss of sense eternal life. It's almost existential: already in the 18th Century, people were feeling alive through consumption.
In your book, you quote a survey according to which “ 75% of people perceived the purchase of luxury products as having a positive impact on mental health”.
Sophie Abriat It is connected to that. We’re seeking immediate pleasures, but it doesn't last. I also quote another figure: particularly among the youngest, the 18-40 year olds. More than half of them fear the negative impact on their mental health. There is an immediate impact, the pride in having succeeded in life, in being able to own these objects. There are many people who think that it is a reward and they can make others happy. People are also aware that it is a remedy against frustration and feelings of emptiness. And it’s a perpetual circle because the desire is ultimately unsatisfied. So it’s both at the same time. What I found very interesting when I was doing my research was the psychological effect, the emotions connected to this industry and to these objects. I find it quite fascinating to study it via emotions and the psychological dimension at all levels.
Tell me a little more.
When you are an industry player, when you are a journalist, when you are a buyer, there is always an element of fascination. When you are invited to fashion shows, you don't buy your ticket like you do at the theater or the cinema. So we are in some way elected by these brands. All the young artists who are spotted by these houses and who are then sometimes dressed by these same houses, are elected. It is so difficult to resist this milieu! There is also sometimes a very strong feeling of rejection or even hatred. There is a fascination, an admiration, and a rejection of the milieu. It’s still very paradoxical. And sometimes the biggest critics of luxury are those who work inside it or even those who are customers. It is an industry based on desire which makes it interesting because it is fragile. It is an industry of passion and feelings.
What struck me when you were talking about Werner Sombart who in 1913 analyzed the phenomenon and I was reading about the “Louvre couture” exhibition, see that in the Middle Ages luxury was also over the top. It was obviously reserved for 0.001%, but there was already a sense of luxury that was even more extravagant than today, in a way.
Sophie Abriat Yes, Werner Sombart carried out his study by examining a large number of accounting books. He thus reviewed all the expenses and he speaks of enormous luxury. He says this: “Everyone is crazy, luxury is taken to the extreme”. And it was interesting to also delve into history and see that what today this desire, this passion for luxury is not specific to our time.
It's a very rich field of study.
Sombart distinguishes between internalized luxury (what we keep for ourselves) and externalized luxury. This “externalization” of luxury is extremely present today, particularly on social networks. We show ourselves, we show these objects of desire. And the youngest are familiar with these objects of desire very early on. There is this study, about the Alpha generation, born after 2010, which is currently consuming and buying their first luxury items. French philosopher Gilles Lipovetsky talks about the democratization of the desire for luxury.
Is it the omnipresence of brands, even if we live in a small rural community, which causes the democratization of the desire for luxury?
Sophie Abriat Visibility is indeed part of the reason. In the past, these emblems of luxury were only reserved for a tiny minority. Today, you can see the price of any item online. Purchases are also made a lot online: it can still be intimidating to cross the threshold of an Avenue Montaigne store. The industry has relied heavily on the capital of visibility by collaborating with celebrities. Even if there has always been product placement on red carpets, today, it is not only the actors who are part of brands’partners. There are footballers like Mbappé with Dior, there are pop stars too. There are members of all parts of all creative industries. And the democratization of luxury comes from what philosopher René Girard said: we desire what others desire. Desire is mediated via influencers and the figure of these influencers, who are new forms of advertising and who ultimately transmit the desire for luxury. So this hyper visibility has certainly led to the democratization of desire which previously was much more limited.
In a culture like French culture, greatly influenced by the Catholic Church, to show one’s wealth was considered vulgar. And we even hear less about the nouveaux riches which was a way to criticize ostentatiousness.
Sophie Abriat It's true. This is also what explains writer Naomi Klein. She says that before the 70s, there were no labels with logos. From the moment we started showing off these logos, we started saying, “Look at this. This is what what I carry on me costs.” From there, yes, this is really what Sombart had already detected: this difference between internalization and externalization of luxury.
You use the catholic word “transubstantiation”: is there something of the religious order in fashion? How do you explain the magic of the brand name phenomenon ?
Sophie Abriat Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu explains it in a famous article from 1975. This imposition of the label on an object is a unique case of social alchemy: the physical nature of the object does not change, but its social quality is totally modified. The luxury product, the object rather - because in Maisons we talk about objects, not about products - has an intangible value. And finally we detach the object from the brand name. We buy a name and that's fascinating to observe since today it extends to the packaging which also has value. This intangible value is present at the heart of luxury and it is also what I feel makes the industry fragile, because it is difficult to make it happen. It is almost impalpable. That's what also makes the environment interesting to observe. There is a form of sacredness which is emerging and a rapprochement between religion and luxury. There are places of worship in fashion: the boutiques, the flagships, the shows; you have the faithful, the muses, the signs, the myths. There are also these giant images that we see on buildings being renovated. It puts you at a certain distance and it highlights the sacredness of the object.
You also say that, obviously, fashion allows us to be someone else.
Sophie Abriat I think that there is the fantasy of personal transformation, the possibility of being and of showing oneself differently from what one is. It is the projection of our own image. It is a territory very close to psychology. Philosopher Emanuele Coccia explains it very well. He says that fashion is a bit like our home that we bring with us everywhere. It's true, it's our second skin. It is a form of art which is linked to our body. It is very strong and very sacred in the sense that it is our intimate projection of our self and what we want to show. And in that it is very powerful.
Why is fashion or luxury so invested in the art world? Today, brands are increasingly present at the Venice Biennale or Art Basel.
Sophie Abriat It is a new territory for brands which are always in a logic of expansion because the luxury market is a market of supply and not of demand. So, there is always this dynamic of conquest which is inherent to the industry. Getting closer to the art world is also a way for brands to move away from a purely consumerist logic. This also makes it possible to enhance the intangible value of the products, because art is less in a logic of conspicuous consumption. It also allows you to have a certain visibility in other sectors. Fashion thrives on transversality. It is a creative industry which absorbs others, since they truly restore the syncretism of the present. In this it feeds on all the others. The essence of fashion is to create the present, it is ephemeral.
There is a dichotomy between fashion, which is of now, and luxury which is something that will last, that we can transmit to our children. So there is an opposition between the two words and the two worlds.
Sophie Abriat Certainly. I define luxury as an object that is purchased at a price higher than its intrinsic value. Indeed, the word “luxury” is loaded because it is about intimacy and personal relationships with things and the world. There is also another definition of luxury, which is much more intimate and much more personal and does not reside in the purchase of these material goods. If we ask people, what does luxury represent? Some will tell us time, some will tell us the craft, values. If we detach ourselves from these material considerations, there is indeed an antagonism between luxury and fashion, but it is because there are several ways of reading it. I define fashion as a system of permanent renewal. There is the word luxury in itself, which is also something intimate and personal and everyone can find their luxury free from material considerations.
You say in your book that the use of the very word “luxury” raises questions. What do you mean and why is it being questioned?
Sophie Abriat It is a study by Professor Jean-Noël Capferer, a luxury specialist. He noticed that at least in the speeches emanating from luxury brands, they no longer use the word “luxury”. This word may have acquired a negative social meaning. Why ? Because today, it is more synonymous with social inequality, advantage or the ultra-rich. And it's true that brands prefer to talk about knowhow, heritage, and one of a kind products. Today, luxury is not necessarily seen in a positive light.
Is Paris still the center of fashion and the Parisienne still a functioning archetype?
Sophie Abriat Yes, undeniably. I also think that the exhibition at the Louvre, “Louvre Couture” will consolidate Paris' place as a leader in fashion because it is a crowning to be at the Louvre, the most important museum in the world. The most important Fashion Weeks are in Paris. After having somewhat stopped the use of the stereotype of the Parisienne, brands are gradually coming back to it. It's normal, fashion is cyclical! This is what researcher Agnès Rocamora explains: “Paris equals fashion”, and I think that that is very important for the houses and for the soft power of France. Look at the French President who did not want “Emily in Paris” to relocate to Italy! This is symptomatic and revealing of the importance of Paris equals fashion.
Why this title Dancing on the Volcano?
This is a parable of the fashion system. This title echoes the ephemeral nature of fashion, which is the very essence of the present. Researcher Francesco Masci says that thanks to fashion, the individual is “glued to the present”. Because this cyclical temporality allows him to no longer have to apprehend the future, and to finally be dispossessed of the fear of his own finitude. And this is all the more true in a world in the midst of a political, social, economic and ecological crisis, where fashion offers a creative space allowing us to forget for a moment all these “disappointments of the world”. The pleasure of dressing and adorning oneself has existed since the origins of humanity. It is a way for human beings to experience and entertain themselves, in other words to escape from themselves. It is not a question of denying the reality of the volcano - on the contrary - but perhaps the challenge is to find a balance between consciousness and lightness.
