aspirational shopping is a great development for retailers and fashion houses. it's a guarantee to licensees that the $500 sunglasses will sell. it assures the credit card companies that the biased 2005 bankruptcy amendments will be put to good use. i haven't done research but i think it's an american invention. the US tossed the typical english class hierarchy out the window and essentially is a country built on the premise/promise that anyone can do or be anything (the wealth of inequality prevents this from being true, but the idea is firmly entrenched in immigrant hearts), and as capitalists, looking/living that desired identity is as good as being it, more so now than ever before.
but the very term "aspirational" suggests that ownership is not 9/10ths of the identity. there is an inherent classism going on in the vocabulary if owning X merely exposes that you aspire to be worthy of X, to be legitimately equal to your possessions (and if you are aspiring then presently you are not?). suddenly playing dress-up no longer sounds like the harmless, healthy game it once was. with fashion, if dressing is self-expression, is it deceptive/delusional to express your style/taste if that style/taste is generally associated/attributed to an income bracket well above your own? is it important to make sure that your interpretation of your personality/taste be rendered in fiscally responsible and honest fashions? and then, happily, leaving economics behind, what about dressing per your role/daily activities/position etc.? are we obligated to tailor our style to our labels?
do you dress for who you are or who you want to be? is it always clear?