The sociological analysis of Louboutin

First of all, why am I writing an article which deals with Louboutin ? Because fashion is one of my passions. Then, why am I talking about sociology ? Because the Louboutin wave has covered the planet and has become a huge phenomenon over the past few years. As a result, this “wave” could be considered as a subject for sociological discourse (or perhaps should I say fashion discourse?), this is the reason why I have chosen to analyse it sociologically.

Let me just remind you that sociology is a science dealing with society, each part of society: from the bottom to the top. Let’s be clear, this article has to be understood as a draft of a survey of our very posh society, ‘Madam, Sir, I am pleased to introduce… The celebrity world” (which, I have to concede, is quite hard to understand well).

Christian Louboutin has become famous for his original shoes. After the creation of his collection, he suddenly had an idea, THE idea: painting the sole in red (inspired by the red nail polish of his assistant). “And Louboutin was born…”.

The sociological perception of the “L” phenomenon could be explained by the following.
The first theory deals with the function of an event (here, the event is the brand). Each event has one of three functions: the manifest, the latent function and the dysfunctional aspect. Let’s explain the functionalist theory of the L’s fame. The manifest (or official) function of wearing these high heels is having the pleasure of walking with elegant and trendy shoes. The latent (non-official but known) function would be the pride of showing others the shoes. Finally, the dysfunctional fact (hidden function) would be the gap, introduced by these shoes, between the people who can afford them and those who cannot.

This transition leads us to the second sociological theory, called the conflict paradigm. This perspective is mostly represented by Karl Marx. The conflicts between classes (rich against poor is understood) and the issues are created by richness and power, following Marx’s ideas. This would mean that having a pair of Louboutins is not related to the fashion appeal, but to the fact that rich people want to show their social status through each component of their appearance (which obviously includes shoes). The red color of the sole underlines the desire to be seen by everyone. The L’s are becoming the target of desire (so consequently jealousy) and a proof of a high status membership. Moreover, everyone knows the approximate price of a pair of Louboutin ($900), which increases even more the gap between classes.

The third paradigm of sociology is called the symbolic interactionism. It states that everything is part of a society’s circular system: we build the rules, then we must respect them. Applied to Louboutin, the trend of wearing these shoes is now considered as a“must have” in terms of fashion (due to the fact that every fashionista has some); this mass act becomes a rule. The consequence of it -corresponding to the circular scheme- is that you “not trendy” if you love fashion and you don’t have any Louboutins. The rule that has resulted from a repeated action has, now, to be respected. The phenomenon creates an elite which is perpetuated.

As Obama said, “Yes we can“… consider Louboutin as a sociological fact.
Hope you understood my analysis ?

God Save my Louboutin pocket money.

I took this picture from this deviantart account, please have a look at it: https://flashsnapper.deviantart.com/