A significant image that defined the day of the strike against the pension reform was the invasion of LVMH headquarters by CGT protesters. Unlike the notorious black blocs, this invasion was executed by peaceful strikers armed with smoke bombs, whistles, leaflets, and stickers. Rehearsed for weeks, this symbolic act aimed to condemn the corporate giant rather than commit acts of looting. This invasion reflects a historic sentiment where luxury was viewed as a manifestation of bourgeois authority to be dismantled, harkening back to the events of May 68. Although the present situation differs significantly, we have already witnessed a wave of attacks on luxury boutiques during the yellow vest movement, causing luxury to become a striking emblem of intolerable social inequality. Should the amalgamation between luxury and social unrest reach alarming levels, the act of wearing luxury goods may even become perilous for its consumers. Luxury cannot afford to remain solely exclusive to the affluent; therefore, the question of accessibility extends beyond mere economics—it is a matter of social significance.
In light of this, we can draw inspiration from the words of Thomas du Pre de Saint Maur, who distinguishes between luxury and a luxury product. While the latter is characterized by its high price tag due to factors such as exclusivity, rarity, and labor-intensive craftsmanship, luxury itself seems to be an innate human aspiration—a yearning for beauty that transcends reality. Chanel, for example, is undeniably a luxury brand, yet it manages to maintain broad popularity, making it accessible to all. This inclusivity forms the backbone of luxury’s resilience. It is crucial to remember that the “Eat the rich” movement should not devolve into an attack on luxury consumers. Interestingly, the protesters targeted not Dior or Vuitton, but rather the faceless conglomerate that represents corporate power. This global surge of societal anger is one of the driving forces behind the rise of “Quiet Luxury,” a discreet and understated form of luxury that eschews ostentation.
As luxury brands face the challenges posed by social inequality and growing discontent, it is imperative for them to adapt and find ways to connect with a broader audience. The success of “Quiet Luxury” lies in its ability to cater to consumers who still desire luxury but seek subtlety and a more nuanced expression of their status. These individuals value craftsmanship, quality, and a sense of belonging, which is why luxury brands must strive to foster a sense of inclusivity and community. By doing so, they can avoid becoming targets of societal unrest and instead become beacons of positive social change.
Here are two useful links for further reading on the topic:
1. https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/opinion/op-ed-a-new-era-for-luxury-brands: This article explores the changing landscape of luxury brands and highlights the need for adaptation to shifting societal values.
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/fashion/new-york-smart-luxury.html: This New York Times piece delves into the emergence of “Quiet Luxury” as a response to the current socio-political climate and discusses how luxury brands are evolving to cater to this demand.
