This article is authored by Aastha Kastiya, a fourth year B.A. LL.B. (Hon’s) student at the Maharaja Sayajirao University, Vadodara, Gujarat.

From the lacquered silks of imperial courts to the controlled exclusivity of haute couture salons, fashion has long served as both a marker of power and a mechanism of control. Historically, sumptuary laws dictated clothing choices based on social hierarchies, ensuring that fashion was not a matter of individual expression but of legally enforced privilege. While such explicit laws have faded, their underlying principles persist, embedded in the structured exclusivity of luxury fashion. Are contemporary luxury houses, limited-edition releases, and controlled access to high fashion merely a continuation of historical restrictions disguised under the guise of market strategy and brand prestige?

Fashion as a Tool of Control: A Global Perspective

Across civilizations, sumptuary laws reinforced rigid social distinctions under the pretext of economic regulation and moral propriety. In Ancient Rome, Lex Oppia (215 BCE) restricted women from owning more than half an ounce of gold or wearing brightly coloured garments—an ostensible wartime austerity measure that, in effect, curtailed their financial independence and public status. Even as Rome’s wealth increased, these restrictions remained in place until Roman women staged a protest in 195 BCE, forcing the Senate to repeal the law.

Similar constraints appeared elsewhere. Emperor Tiberius banned Roman men from wearing silk, decrying it as excessively indulgent. Medieval Europe’s sumptuary edicts ensured that merchants, regardless of wealth, could not wear aristocratic fabrics such as velvet or silk. The English Sumptuary Laws under Edward III prohibited commoners from dressing “above their station,” while Tudor legislation meticulously regulated the types of fabric and colors permissible for each class. Adam Smith later noted the irony of these restrictions—monarchs, history’s most extravagant spenders, sought to limit the adornments of their subjects.

Beyond Europe, Confucian dress codes in China and Edo-period regulations in Japan further entrenched sartorial class distinctions. Even courtesans were subject to wardrobe limitations—striped cloaks in Marseilles, fabric constraints in England. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, lace, embroidery, and gold thread were reserved for the elite, reinforcing economic divides through attire. Though formal sumptuary laws declined with social revolutions and economic shifts, their legacy endures through the unwritten codes of exclusivity that define modern luxury fashion.

The New Age of Sartorial Regulation

While legal decrees no longer dictate fashion choices, contemporary regulations—ranging from intellectual property laws to sustainability mandates—continue to shape the industry. Trademark protections reinforce exclusivity by preventing unauthorized reproductions, while school and workplace uniforms reflect contemporary forms of sartorial homogenization rooted in sumptuary ideals.

Sustainability has introduced another layer of regulation in fashion. The Anita Dongre ReWild’23 initiative, in collaboration with the Princess Diya Kumari Foundation, exemplifies how modern fashion intersects with environmental consciousness, echoing the historical function of sumptuary laws in regulating resource use. Similarly, campaigns targeting luxury brands like Hermès for their use of exotic skins demonstrate how ethical considerations shape the evolution of fashion’s restrictions.

Cultural appropriation debates further evoke sumptuary principles, enforcing respect for heritage in ways that parallel historical dress codes. Instances such as Victoria’s Secret’s misuse of Native American motifs or Givenchy’s controversial noose-shaped necklace illustrate how contemporary fashion choices remain subject to scrutiny, reinforcing symbolic regulations akin to historical sumptuary restrictions.

Ingenious Invites to Luxury: The Persistence of Exclusivity

A more refined iteration of sumptuary control is evident in the “by invite only” marketing strategy employed by luxury brands. This exclusivity echoes historical restrictions on attire, where access was not solely about financial capacity but also about social standing, insider status, and cultural capital. The hierarchical structuring of luxury consumption ensures that, while wealth remains a prerequisite, it is insufficient on its own to guarantee access.

The Hermès Birkin bag—priced at a staggering $120,000—exemplifies how exclusivity continues to dictate prestige. The bag functions as a gatekeeping mechanism, extravagantly compartmentalizing the crème de la crème from the bottom of the barrel. Despite financial ability, potential buyers must navigate waiting lists, establish personal relationships with sales associates, and demonstrate brand loyalty before acquiring one. This deliberate restriction mirrors sumptuary principles, where material access is mediated through social and cultural hierarchies.

Similarly, Chanel’s haute couture tweed jackets, often requiring a five-year wait, distinguish the privileged from mere admirers. The Lady Dior handbag, immortalized by Princess Diana, has transcended its functional purpose to become a symbol of refined exclusivity, with limited-edition versions accessible only to an elite clientele. Louis Vuitton’s Capucines bags, particularly those stemming from artistic collaborations, follow a similar trajectory—offered predominantly to longstanding patrons, reinforcing the historical notion that fashion serves as a stratification tool.

Even in digital spaces, exclusivity dictates ownership. Vogue Business highlights how Gucci Vault, the brand’s experimental concept store, limits access to certain physical pieces to NFT holders, seamlessly merging Web3 innovation with traditional luxury hierarchies. Likewise, limited-edition Fendi Baguettes and archival Louis Vuitton trunks are released in exclusive drops, mimicking the selective nature of royal fashion decrees.

While influencer culture amplifies aspirational branding, it simultaneously restricts access to these coveted pieces. Prestige, popularity, and power dictate ownership far more than mere financial means. Luxury fashion’s “by invite only” approach may not be codified in legal statutes, yet its effect is strikingly reminiscent of the sumptuary restrictions of centuries past.

A Fabric Rewoven: The Future of Fashion’s Legacy

Although fashion is no longer explicitly governed by legal decrees, its structures remain deeply embedded in socio-economic hierarchies. The industry continues to operate within a framework where exclusivity supersedes accessibility. From the Gucci Stuart Hughes belt to Chanel’s haute couture collections, luxury fashion has evolved, yet its core principle—status differentiation—remains intact. While monarchs no longer legislate fashion, the pursuit of distinction is as pervasive as ever.

However, the fashion industry stands at a crossroads. It may persist in reinforcing barriers, or it can embrace a model rooted in inclusivity, sustainability, and ethical consciousness. While the Hermès Birkin and Chanel’s haute couture maintain traditions where scarcity fuels prestige, a fundamental question arises: must luxury fashion continue to function as a gatekeeper, or can it transition into a more equitable paradigm?

True luxury should not be a symbol of restriction but a celebration of craftsmanship, cultural appreciation, and artistic mastery. The exclusivity that defines high fashion need not equate to social exclusion. Instead, the industry has the opportunity to reframe its legacy—shifting from an institution of inaccessibility to one of creative empowerment.

Luxury fashion has long been a cipher of power—an aesthetic language that articulates distinction, belonging, and exclusion. While the explicit governance of sumptuary laws has dissipated, their essence persists in the meticulously curated hierarchies of modern couture. The question, then, is not whether fashion will continue to be exclusive, but whether it must remain so. Can the industry transcend its entrenched legacy of restriction and evolve into a paradigm where artistry flourishes without elitism? Or will it remain an echo of the past, where scarcity dictates prestige and access remains the ultimate luxury? The future of fashion lies not in its ability to divide, but in its potential to redefine what it means to be truly extraordinary.

REFERENCES

1. Encyclopædia Britannica, s.v. “Exotica,” accessed May 10, 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/dress-clothing/Exotica.
2. Louise M. Sylvester, Mark C. Chambers, & Gale R. Owen-Cocker, eds., Medieval Dress and Textiles in Britain (The Boydell Press, 2014), p. 210.
3. John Kells Ingram, “Sumptuary Laws,” in 26 Encyclopædia Britannica (Hugh Chisholm ed., 11th ed., Cambridge University Press, 1911), pp. 83-85.
4. Jonathan D. Spence, The Search for Modern China (W.W. Norton, 1991).
5. Victor Harris, Cutting Edge: Japanese Swords in the British Museum (Tuttle Publishing, 2005), p. 26.
6. Massachusetts, Nathaniel B. Shurtleff (ed.), Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England (William White, Printer to the Commonwealth, 1854).
7. Vogue India, “Anita Dongre’s reWild23 Fundraiser at the City Palace in Jaipur Was a Tasteful Display of Fashion for a Cause,” Vogue India, accessed May 9, 2024, 5:54 PM, https://www.vogue.in/content/anita-dongres-rewild23-fundraiser-at-the-city-palace-in-jaipur-was-a-tasteful-display-of-fashion-for-a-cause.
8. PETA, “PETA’s ‘Naughty’ List of Companies That Don’t Test on Animals,” PETA Blog, accessed May 9, 2024, 7:03 PM, https://www.peta.org/blog/peta-naughty-list-companies/.