Fashionistas: Masters of Conformity?

Throughout history, there have been so many examples of demagogues who lead entire groups of individuals to a fatal end. I always used to wonder how they managed to coax so many people to follow them. Watching Bruno's Fashion Show helped affirm my belief that as a whole, individuals lack the common sense and rationality we often prefer to attribute to them. In the many previous cases of demagoguery, the demagogue frequently appealed to some mix of charisma, eloquence, well reasoned arguments, or a higher authority to sway the opinions of others. And yet Bruno, unquestioningly lacking in eloquence, well reasoned arguments, or an appeal to a higher authority, was able to mold the responses of his interviewees with aplomb. His only redeeming quality was some degree of charisma and the perception of ignorance or vulnerability as a flamboyantly gay foreigner. It's counter-intuitive that characteristics such as ignorance or vulnerability would be a point of strength in rallying others behind one's view; typically, individuals will only follow leaders who appear to have risen beyond these shortcomings.

There are two obvious conclusions that may be drawn from Bruno's strong influence on the answers given by his interviewees: 1) Bruno's incredible charisma and perceived weaknesses caught them off guard 2) His interviewees lacked the common sense or foresight to discern the traps of contradiction that Bruno was laying for them. The first conclusion probably has a strong degree of truth - the great success of Sasha Baron Cohen lies in his ability to create personas that mislead and cause others to lower their guard. The second conclusion is more troubling. Bruno interviewed fashionistas, and if he were to have asked them questions on politics or metaphysics, it would not be surprising if their answers were unenlightened or even contradictory. However, Bruno did not delve into any subjects other than fashion - a topic that these fashionistas presumably know enough about to speak somewhat coherently about.

That the fashionistas were so easily influenced by the nimble wording of Bruno is not a good testament to their alleged innovative spirit or elitism. If they are so easily influenced in even speaking about their work, how much of their work is as derivative? Fashion design is supposed to be an art of expression, and yet, the designer at the end was unable to even articulate the clear meaning of the fashion show, whether it was supposed to be heavenly and light or weighty, about the individual or the collectivity. These are terms that sit comfortably in the fashion world vernacular - the designer's inability to use them correctly undermines his apparent understanding of fashion, and the explanations designers typically use to describe their work. Rather than using these terms to explain their work, it seems as though they are used to form contrived explanations that fit with whatever the current trend seems to be.