The Harmful Effects of Standardized Sizing
Written By: Amayah Meas
As the world of fashion continues to evolve and stores are opening again, customers are eager to revamp their wardrobe for a new sense of excitement. With the world online during the global Covid-19 pandemic, fashion and trend cycles have sped up tremendously. Influencers left and right are promoting new styles constantly, inspiring fashion followers to experiment with clothes as well. As a result of this increase in mass interest in fashion, consumers are subconsciously imposed with a newfound pressure on their body image and relationship with clothing. Some with the perception that they have gained weight because of the quarantine, and others feeling down after comparing themselves to the glamourized and edited models of social media, many people of today’s society are experiencing lower self-esteem levels associated with body image. This dilemma leaves consumers wondering “why don’t clothes fit anymore?” Although influenced by ambitious standards of fashion, one’s self-esteem is also affected by the clothes themselves, specifically the sizes produced by the manufacturers. Garments produced by different brands are bound to vary in actual size; this major flaw has left consumers confused and resentful towards themselves, rather than the actual capitalist economy itself. The inconsistency of standardized sizing across brands has intensified the pressure consumers put on themselves, leaving lasting negative effects on the wellbeing of society and the environment.
The genesis of standardized sizing began during war time in the 18th century. Large armies required substantial amounts of uniforms at a time, leading to the development of mass manufacturing consistent with advancements of the Industrial Revolution. Standardized sizes make up the modern system of most ready to wear garments manufactured today. The US sizing system consists of numbered labels such as 2, 4, and 6, and lettered labels such as S, M, and L. During this time however, many wealthy western women preferred custom-made garments tailored to fit, usually consisting of a corset and bustled crinoline that was hard to produce in mass (Le, 2021). As ideas of the ideal silhouette for women evolved and women craved more comfortable, free feeling clothing, the abandonment of the corset took place. It was this change in women’s fashion that was the largest single factor allowing the development of cheap, ready-made clothing for women. Shifting from the tightly corseted figure, the looser cylinder shape allowed clothing to be translated into basic flats that could then be used to mass produce a copy of the garment with the same dimensions (Le, 2021). Although mass production of clothing has made it easier for fashion manufacturers to produce garments and has sped up the cycles of trends, it has also imposed difficulties on the actual consumers. Similar to the sizing system used today, flaws in size guides and manufacturing led to inconsistencies and negative testimonials of the modern ready to wear fashion industry.
After centuries of society adhering to favorable western beauty standards, a negative stigma has arisen around having large clothing sizes. People take pride in the clothes they wear and use fashion as a form of personal self-expression. Research in a study done by psychologist JoAndrea Hoegg explains how “people’s clothing can be conceived as a part of their self-view... a size label can be an aspect of consumer’s self-concept. If the size label suggests a size that is larger than what the consumer is used to, this can have a temporary negative effect on appearance self-esteem, which will carry over to negative evaluations of the clothing item,” (Hoegg, 2014). To combat this internal dilemma of consumers, some brands have utilized the marketing tactic known as “Vanity Sizing.” This concept is the idea of labeling garments as a size smaller than what they actually are, providing the consumer with false validation. This positive reinforcement will subconsciously influence them to favor the brand more than others because of the increased self-esteem they experience when wearing that brand’s clothing. However, brands who do not use the scheme take advantage of its absence by using a tactic known as “Compensatory Consumption” (Hoegg, 2014). Brands understand that a larger size can be detrimental to one’s mental imagery. This concept is another way to feed off the insecurities of consumers by avoiding the use of vanity sizing, which will influence customers to rebuild their self-image by purchasing the brand’s other products without size labels, including cosmetics, accessories, and jewelry. So, with either tactic, brands still figure out a way to “win” in the capitalist economy and make a profit by preying on the mental aspects of their consumers.
Standardized clothing is too confusing. With so many inconsistencies in manufacturing and size charts, consumers are left disoriented about their actual size and self-image. Without inaccurate size guides or even none at all, standard sizes have no purpose. It leads to the question of, “what defines a size?” What makes a size 2 a size 2, and a size 10 a size 10? Many standardized sizes have been taken from the ideal hourglass figure, a silhouette that is not common or even realistic for most women of today’s society. Ed Gribbin, apparel developer who created the first body scanning machine in 2001, writes how most brands began altering their definition of sizes on purpose, made tailored to fit their target customer instead (Kapner, 2019). Although this appears to be progress towards reforming the outdated sizing system tailored to fit idealized body types, it actually just creates more confusion. Journalist Suzanne Kapner writes that there are no rules requiring different brands to follow the same size guide, meaning a size 8 in one brand can be inches off from a size 8 of another brand (Kapner, 2019). This creates difficulties for shoppers, especially when shopping online (a trend that has popularized more due to the pandemic), having lasting effects beyond the sales floor.
Social media has also increased the pressure on women to fit the ideal body type, which has led to the misconception that people are meant to fit into clothes, whereas it should be, clothes are meant to fit people. Consumers typically monitor changes in body size by the fit of their clothes and blame their own bodies when a garment in their regular size does not fit. The Covid- 19 global quarantine also created an immense pressure to get in shape with all the free time, feeding the negative stigma surrounding body image associated with a larger size. When a familiar size is replaced by a larger size, it causes perceived weight gain or body change, resulting in dissatisfaction and lower self-worth (Le, 2021). People, women especially, would rather squeeze into an uncomfortable clothing item of a smaller size than their regular to conform to society’s sizing standards and avoid the negative stigma. Similarly, some consumers have bought smaller sizes in an attempt to motivate them to lose weight so they can finally fit into them later. This unhealthy mindset is detrimental to the mental health of consumers as it creates unrealistic expectations and high self-discipline to achieve a size that is not constantly reinforced (due to standardized sizes being inconsistent and size guides being not credible). This also creates a negative fixation, creating unproductive goals of being a size one may not even achieve.
The flaws of the standardized sizing system have also had negative effects on the environment. Especially with the shopping landscape shifting to digital, buying clothes has been more difficult. Some store policies include closed fitting rooms and/or no returns, potentially meaning final sale for garments. Inaccurate standard sizes and size charts contribute to textile waste and pollution when someone purchases a final sale item that does not fit properly (Le, 2021). This demonstrates how companies are enabling consumers to throw out their ill-fitting clothes, prohibiting progress towards fighting climate change and reducing the harmful effects of the fashion industry on the environment.
The point of this argument is to challenge the ideals behind western standardized sizing and expose the harmful capitalist mindset of fashion brands. Although standard sizes have made it easier in general for producers and consumers to buy, sell, and produce garments (according to the “average” sizes taken from an unrealistic proportion of body types), the inconsistencies across brands make the sizing system completely useless. Consumers are required to try out multiple sizes of differing garments across different brands, which may be difficult to do with restrictions imposed because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the overconsumption of clothing products has increased the fashion industry’s contribution to climate change by filling the environment with waste and pollution. On the flip side, the mindset of consumers has been tailored to adhere to an unrealistic standard, increasing one’s own self-discipline and negative perception of their own body image. Brands use this weakness of the over-critical consumer by implementing various marketing tactics used to influence people to favor their brand or shop specific products that validate their self-image.
The fashion industry needs reform. Brands need to be exposed for their harmful practices that confide to the strict standards imposed by the media and society. Consumers are the ones who drive fashion and the economy, and they deserve to be aware of how they are manipulated by industries to build up the US capitalist society.
References
Hoegg, J. A. (2014). Journal of Consumer Psychology (JSTOR). The Flip Side of Vanity Sizing: How Consumers Respond to and Compensate for Larger than Expected Clothing Sizes, 24(1), 70–78.
Kapner, S. (2019, December 16). It's not you. clothing sizes are broken. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 16, 2021, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/its-not-you-clothing- sizes-are-broken-11576501384
Le, M. (2021, November 14). Why don't clothes fit???? YouTube. Retrieved December 16, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFIosuhuDoA
Putman, T. R. (2015). Winterthur Portfolio (JSTOR). Joseph Long’s Slops: Ready-Made Clothing in Early America, 49(2/3), 63–91.
