If he had not worn that borrowed blazer from Princeton University, Dickie Greenleaf would not be dead. In the movie The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999), Thomas Ripley fakes having attended Princeton to be accepted into the high society of New York. As part of his ruse, he flies out to Italy to visit Dickie Greenleaf, a true bon vivant living his life partying. Trying to survive in the world of the rich and pretty, Ripley has to adapt by wearing the clothes worn by high society. After rising suspicions from Greenleaf’s side, they get into a fight and Ripley kills Greenleaf. Based on the book with the same title (1955), the story follows a con-artist who desperately yearns to be part of the upper class and uses clothes to uphold his scheme. Similarly, earlier this year, the ‘old money style’ trend reemerged, with people attempting to emulate the fashion choices of the contemporary upper class. This essay entails a discussion of class distinction through clothing.
We will argue that clothes can be used as a means of communication, transmitting knowledge about status, belonging or political statements. After explaining the term ‘old money style’, we will speculate that the style (re)gained popularity earlier this year, because its conservative roots give safety and its classic, basic look is in line with the demands for a more timeless wardrobe in the face of a climate crisis. Giving an outline of the theory of proletarianization from Marx and Engels, and adding to it with Stiegler’s notion of lack of knowledge, we will combine this theory with fashion. Firstly, clothing is used as a class distinction, shown in the example of the ‘old money style’ trend and the more concrete example of the ‘suit’ apparel. Secondly, in contrast to the desire of dressing like the upper classes, dressing in opposition to them as a political statement is explained with the example of Black people and their reclaiming of ‘Hip Hop culture’ from those who have devalued or appropriated it. Hereby the problematic, ignorant use and capitalization on the Hip Hop ‘style’ by white brands is highlighted, because the meaningful aspect of the clothes is disregarded. Having explained why clothes can be a form of communication, we will argue that choosing to not care about this communication is a form of privilege resulting from class, economic context, conventional attractiveness or fame. Furthermore, we will argue on the example of the con-artist Anna Sorokin that, apart from mere clothes, context is important. Aspects of whom the wearer is, how the garment is worn and when must also be considered when analyzing communication through clothes.
‘Old Money Style’
The ‘old money style’, or ‘old money aesthetic’, is a recent clothing trend of people wanting to dress in an elegant and classic style, imitating the fashion choices of upper-class wealthy people with a grand family tree and set traditions. Popular clothing items are cable knit sweaters, linen pants, boat shoes, polo shirts, oxford shirts and navy blazers (Berlinger 2024, n.d.). As the names already suggest, the clothes are tied to a certain kind of lifestyle – having a boat, playing polo and going to esteemed universities like the University of Oxford. The specific look, worn by the likes of the Windsor family or John F. Kennedy, is based on the already existing ‘preppy’ style. ‘Prep’ stems from American and English preparatory schools, which are private schools for children who want to go to college or university (Lingala 2013, 4). The style is said to have originated in the late 19th century (Lingala 2013, 2), when the upper class could afford to study classical programs instead of having to work. This class of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, henceforth referred to as WASPs, were proud of their family history and wanted to distinguish themselves from the people who got rich through the Industrial revolution in the 19th century, marking the beginning of the separation of ‘old money’ and ‘new money’ (Lingala 2013, 8).
The question arises – why now? Why did the trend of ‘old money’ reemerge at this particular moment? On Tik Tok, the hashtag #oldmoney has over 600,000 posts (June 2024) and on Instagram, the hashtag has over a million posts (June 2024). Additionally, the search expression ‘old money style’ gained a sudden, steep rise in interest around late February of 2024 (Google Trends, n.d.). Two connected reasons could be responsible for that. Firstly, the ‘old money aesthetic’ can give a person safety and stability, especially in times of crisis. The conservative attitude of ‘old money’ to rely on heritage and tradition, wearing what always has been worn, is somewhat against a core principle of fashion: change. Fashion is defined by its restlessness, always changing, evolving, and the need to have the latest trend. By dressing timelessly and traditionally, the WASPs cling to their rituals and rules. It is no wonder that in a time of crisis and financial instability, people yearn even more for stability and the fantasy of being rich. It could therefore be argued that on a deeper level, pretending to be ‘old money’ by wearing their attire is a form of escapism. Escapism is understood as people trying to escape reality by imagining being somebody else or somewhere else; to not be confronted with the problems of reality (Collins English Dictionary, n.d.). This presentation of one’s social status is visually heightened through the constant comparison on social media. While people have always wanted to be carefree and/or rich, the possibility of showing off one’s lifestyle and being confronted with the lifestyle of others is essentially limitless on the internet.
Another influencing aspect on the popularity of the ‘old money style’ might be the current climate crisis and ever-escalating mass production and consumption. Fashion occurs in cycles. What was trendy roughly 20 years ago always comes back in style, sometimes in slightly different variations (Mollard 2022). Trends can emerge as a response to past trends; if big sunglasses are ‘in’, soon people will want to go against the grain and wear small sunglasses, and eventually the trend will once again cycle back to bigger sunglasses. The actual length of each phase of this cycle, however, has rapidly shortened over the past couple of years: “the advent of innovative technologies and social media has drastically condensed the life cycle of trends today” (Mollard 2022). Given the current climate crisis, a counter movement of sustainable clothing has arisen, with individuals attempting to avoid purchasing mass-produced garments. Sustainable clothing is not only sustainable in terms of their fabrics and materials, but the look should somehow transcend trend cycles and remain wearable. If the new shoe silhouette people want to buy fits the current trend but could be ‘out’ again at any moment, sustainable shoppers may instead opt for a more classical and timeless look that will stay fashionable regardless of what is currently ‘trending’. This thinking goes hand in hand with the conservative thinking (in the non-political sense) of ‘old money’ regarding clothing. However, this is not to say that the current ‘old money’ look is truly timeless. While, for example, jeans and a white t-shirt are now seen as ‘timeless’, back in the 18th century one would have been quite out of place in jeans. ‘Timeless’ clothes are therefore hard to define objectively, because it depends on who you ask, and when.
The Proletarianization of Fashion
In a society with a growing social media and technological presence, comparison between lifestyles becomes ever more frequent. The problem follows from the previously described term ‘escapism’. The idea that one group desires to be like the other can be linked to a problematic social class disparity that forces lower classes to take matters into their own hands to find a place within their society, or lack thereof. Questioning these dynamics takes us to several burdens, especially that of class struggle, which can be linked to proletarianization.
‘Proletarianization’ originally comes from Marx and Engels, who introduced the term ‘proletariat’: the working class who had no ownership and were, in a way, exploited for their work, while the bourgeois class gained the fruits of the proletariat’s labor. Marx maintained that the working class was a victim of the ruling elite because they had no ownership over the means of production (that they were producing themselves). With that, several problems came, all boiling down to substantial economic and social inequalities which were to Marx, Engels, and many thinkers of the time (and now), unacceptable. According to Hutnyk, on the topic of proletarianization, the initial stages of this term had more to do with pauperization and the lack of ownership, one which “results in the first place from the loss of savoir-faire of workers enslaved to machines, and no longer masters of their tools” (Hutnyk 2012, 128).
Philosopher Bernard Stiegler reintroduces the term Proletarianization, going beyond the traditional Marxist view of the working class’s lack of ownership of the means of production. For Stiegler, the lack of possession that the proletariat has is not limited to ownership but rather to the dispossession of knowledge, skills, and cultural memory. The lack of “know-how” or “savoir-faire” in the consumerist and capitalist society of today has “led to a deprivation of recognition, sociability, and finally existence, generating the suffering of the consumers becoming miserable” (Hutnyk 2012, 128).
Modern and industrial technological developments have led to a significant loss in individual thinking skills. By introducing new methods of machinery and production, workers have become unaware of what their tasks actually are – comparable to machine operators. This also links to their lack of knowledge on how to conduct certain tasks in the workforce; the same introduction and development of technological systems into human structures have removed humans’ ability and desire to learn and understand what they are doing. All these new perspectives on proletarianization are also linked to how people, in turn, live in a society. If they are reduced to limited knowledge capacities and abilities, their ability to communicate and socialize becomes equally limited, creating a society with little to no individuation. Rather, a homogenous society emerges where everyone thinks and does the same, due to a lack of ability to do otherwise.
However, his conception of proletarianization comes, once again, closer to Marx when he suggested that the impact of this proletarianization in economic structures is great. With a concentration of technological power, control and knowledge in the hands of a few elites (leading corporations), the social structures have a more focused controlling and exploitative starting point. This only perpetuates the economic and social disparities which Marx also believed to be a problem with the working class’s lack of ownership over the means of production. The term ‘proletarianization’, as Stiegler reintroduced, can be connected to what this paper intends to examine: the lack of individuation. In a homogenous society, a ruling elite (unintentionally) sets the basis for what the lower, working class is meant to wear, and also what they wear themselves.
The creation of a general framework of style and fashion, such as the ‘old money aesthetic’, can be associated with Marx’s bourgeoisie, which leads the behavior of the working class. If we take a step towards fashion, we can see that a growing number of people in the working classes attempt to make themselves visible within workplaces or other professional locations by wearing clothes similar to those worn by people high in command. The lack of originality that is – according to Stiegler – a product of a growing technological society, sees an increase in the homogeneity of fashion styles within communities. Let us take, for example, a suit. A suit in its full form, with all that it embodies – accessories included – has the power to establish a person wearing a suit as having a powerful position within the workplace. But this goes beyond the clothing item. There are plenty of other factors which should be taken into account alongside the suit. Namely: the brand, the shape of the lapel, the color, the lining, the fabric, the shoes that accompany it and whether they have a buckle, whether the belt is brown or black, and if it matches the suit, etc. All of these questions seem extremely superficial and irrelevant for a workplace and should say nothing about a person’s professional abilities, but unfortunately, this is not the case.
Counter Movement: Fashion as a Means of Communicating a Political Statement
What is seen within the proletariat in terms of what they wear are two things: they either want to come closer to the higher-class, ruling elite by dressing the same way (albeit taking into account this lack of originality and overall societal homogeneity), as seen in the old money style. Or, the opposite: where the proletariat, taking Marx’s views on the working class uniting and stepping away from all things bourgeoisie, decides to take the alternative stance and wear something completely different, thereby making a political and social statement.
The first option is very visible within American sororities and fraternities in the Ivy League school system. Whereas ‘old money’ and ‘new money’ are no longer visible to the naked eye and require more intensive research and knowledge on each person individually, the case is now that there is a homogeneity of fashion even within the higher class. Here, it is relevant to echo Stiegler’s discussion regarding the generalized lack of know-how and originality that has emerged from an incredibly technologically dependent society. Individuals within it no longer have the ability to choose things for themselves. Going back to the Ivy Leagues, the point is that, although the principle of the clothes is the same and the idea of outfits is the same, the place where the clothes are bought are quite disparate. While some purchase their clothes in high-end stores that, today, are in vogue, others turn to lower-cost and more accessible alternatives that will provide the same concept of clothes but at a substantially lower price. This way, the sorority girls will still be a part of the community without spending a small fortune in order to look the part.
On the other hand, there is a desire on part of the proletariat, the people that are not encapsulated within the elite class, to emancipate themselves from the framework. We have looked upon the lower classes desiring membership of the upper classes to the extent that they dress similarly (in a conceptual sense) to the latter. We will now examine another perspective that can be taken as one of emancipation, individualization, and of making a statement: “I do not want to be a part of this”. This second option entails many movements which have arisen throughout the last decades, aiming to step away from all that is known as ‘old money’. These include the punks, hippies, and Black Panthers, for example, who all decided to make their own political statements by dressing in very particular ways, exclusive to the message that they were trying to convey – mostly based on countering the leading elite’s power, in very simple terms.
For instance, much like ‘old money’, we can look at how some Hip Hop trends increased in the late 1980s, 1990s, and remain alive in today’s society. In these decades, young Black people were establishing their own sense of style and appreciation for their culture via their clothing, following the Hip Hop trends that were on the rise within the music industry. These clothes were based on “unique styles that they feel reflects their Black identity such as bold colors or traditional garments from African cultures” (Johnson et al. 2022, 265). These are set to reflect a deeper sense of their own identities as a minority group.
By claiming this sense of style within their community, Black people were, too, making a statement regarding their position within society. They would not give in to the hegemony (as seen in Stiegler’s works) of style just because the leading elites, the white people, were doing so. They made their own movement and chose to present themselves in these clothes because it was what made them happy for themselves and represented their culture. They could also be trend-setters, cool and powerful, within their circles, and hoped they could extend this to the racist world that surrounded them.
This is exactly what happened. By being trend-setters to such an extent, the urban fashion movement spread so much that it started being used by white people. This was inappropriate in two ways: firstly, it was an appropriation of a style that encapsulated African American culture and their struggle (which white people couldn’t relate to, no matter how much they tried). Secondly, it exacerbated social injustice and disparities in treatment between races: while a white person wearing a hoodie and sweatpants was overlooked, a Black person wearing a hoodie and sweatpants could be considered a thug by authorities, bringing them into unnecessary trouble and creating several additional problems.
Following this cultural appropriation, Black communities created brands that would represent their trends in clothing, in music, in relatability, in a shared struggle, in everything that meant anything to them. These brands were their way of establishing themselves within the system. By creating these brands, not only did they attempt to address an economic injustice perpetrated by white store owners who were profiting from a culture that was not their own, but they established a place where Black people’s shared interests could be found and represented. A problem arose when big brands such as Tommy Hilfiger or Hugo Boss, at the time, noticed that Black-led ‘urban’ fashion trends were increasing and, therefore, decided to create collections that would replicate these types of clothing. This was problematic, again, for two reasons. First, it was culturally appropriating clothes and trends that they, as majority white-owned companies were not familiar with and could not represent in their full essence. Secondly, as large companies, they were taking away profits that would otherwise have gone to Black-owned businesses, perpetrating further economic injustice. Big companies were feeding from trends that were created as statements, as an affront to the status quo, and turning those statements into the status quo, removing their essence entirely. They were capitalizing on Black people’s struggles and the marginalization they had experienced. These companies have significantly attenuated urban, Black fashion, whereas ‘urban’ “is a term that used to be synonymous with the Black community, now ‘everybody’s trying to use the word (“urban”) to appropriate Black culture’” (Johnson et al. 2022, 264).
This goes to show how different cultures and clothing styles can provide different ways of asserting one’s power, status, and role within a society. From ‘old money’ clothing wearers, who stick to a century-old clothing style as a means to remain in vogue and ever-classic, ever-powerful and ever-rich; to Hip Hop clothing wearers who, in delving into new areas of styles and trying new things, are able to make basic political statements. Ultimately, there are several ways in which clothing plays a part in communication.
The Fascinating Case of Anna Delvey – The Privilege to Not Care
In recent years, Anna Sorokin, or as she called herself, Anna Delvey, originally from an area near Moscow, posed as a German heiress in New York’s high society and cheated many people out of their money. She was arrested in 2017, when she could no longer pay her bills (Taleb and Hellmich 2024). In 2022, the series about her, Inventing Anna, aired on Netflix and made her story even more famous. But how was she able to uphold her masquerade for around four years? She desperately wanted to be part of the glamorous world of the pretty and the rich. She therefore created her own character with a backstory, made believable through her designer outfits. She did not always have the most coherent, stylish outfits and often mismatched designer brands. That is exactly why her scam worked. As an article in Vogue Australia puts it: “She didn’t look like her outfits cost a million bucks – and that is why she looked like she had a million bucks” (Brown 2022). If you are truly rich, you do not need to show other people and convince them of your status: “Her seemingly sloppy clothing, rather than revealing her true origins, in fact made her look more like a rich person” (Tashijan 2019). You can have the privilege to not care, to not fit in, because you are able to financially stem the consequences.
Usually, trying to distinguish one’s own class can be compared with an arms race. Because the lower classes strive to imitate the upper classes to profit from the privileges resulting from being part of that class, the upper classes must constantly adapt and find new ways to distinguish themselves. Similarly, the ‘Red Queen Hypothesis’ in evolutionary biology states that “species (or populations) must continually evolve new adaptations in response to evolutionary changes in other organisms to avoid extinction” (Langerhans 2018). The real privilege is, now, to step away from the constant comparison and to care less about refining one’s social standing within society.
The privilege to not care can also be attributed to privileges other than being rich. Two examples are being conventionally attractive or being famous. The ‘model-off-duty look’ describes a very casual look, inspired by outfits that models wear on the street when they are in between jobs or running from airport to airport. In its formula, the ‘model-off-duty look’ shows similarities with the old-money style in its neutrality and timelessness: “To craft a genuinely effortless model-off-duty look, stick to high-quality wardrobe basics. Investing in classic pieces is sustainable and practical, as the garments will take you from decade to decade” (Chwatt 2024). The outfit consisting of a white t-shirt and jeans, which on an average person seems basic and put together without attention to detail, looks elegant and effortless on the models. Since models have a body according to the common beauty standard, their body turns into an accessory itself and makes the clothes look well-fitted and desirable. Additionally, the public knows that this is only a functional outfit for in-between duties, and not the laziness of not coming up with a creative outfit, since they are able to wear fancy dresses to Galas, in campaigns, and on the runway all the time.
Another desired aspect is fame. The Coachella Festival, also colloquially called the “Influencer Olympics” (Espada 2023), is a very popular music festival in California. Each year, a lot of celebrities show up to present themselves, their brands and, of course, their outfits. Especially influencers, people who became famous on social media such as Instagram, Tik Tok and YouTube, attend this event to present themselves. Every year, the outfits become grander and louder and bigger to not get lost in the sea of other influencers posting their outfits at Coachella. However, another trend has recently developed – non-influencers such as models show up to Coachella dressed very casually, in just a leather jacket, jeans and a t-shirt. With this act, they show that they do not have to partake in the war for attention, because they are already famous. They are so rich that such a special event like the expensive Coachella Festival is not worthy enough to dress up for.
In summary, aspects such as good looks, fame or wealth afford the privilege to not care about broadcasting one’s adherence to these standards. Visibly and desperately working to convince other people of one’s good qualities may be an indicator that, in fact, those good qualities are missing. In a time where anybody can buy grand and colorful clothing, the choice to transcend the arms race for better, newer, more expensive clothes is seen as desirable. It is a privilege to be able to rely on other qualities – a healthy body, good manners, disposable income and connections – not having to hide the lack of one of those qualities behind a gaudy outfit. Because as much influence clothes have on how one is perceived, the matter of who wears them is of as much importance.
The Secret Language and Habits of the Rich
The ‘old money aesthetic’ is, in itself, a personification of class struggle. Wanting to dress up like wealthy people already distinguishes one from the other. Wanting to show off already signals a kind of missing ambivalence concerning what other people think. Although people can try to imitate the looks of the rich, customs and traditions are hard to train overnight. Furthermore, not all blouses are created equally. Just imitating the silhouette or color scheme is not enough to elevate oneself into the upper class: “Micheal Kurtis, a luxury-fashion consultant, knows of shoppers who will spend $100,000 on clothing from the ‘Row’ [high end fashion brand] that’s barely identifiable to the untrained eye. Clothes like these are a secret language, communicating wealth only to those in the know” (Brooke 2022).
The speech act, “dogwhistle” (Olasov 2016), is a linguistic tool used in politics to allow multiple interpretations of a phrase or a word, depending on which audience you belong to. In that sense, dressing in casual high-end brands without logos to identify them on the first look, is similar to a speech act as a way to communicate your status to the people who know about it and recognize the pieces from the latest runway because they were sitting in the first row. This trend of dressing in understated yet expensive high-quality pieces is called “quiet luxury” (Fröbe 2024). It poses a counter trend to the “logomania” (Glasheen 2024) of the mid 2010s, where the “overt use of logos on apparel, accessories, consumables and – in a few unfortunate cases – printed onto model’s faces” (Glasheen 2024) was trending. Although ‘quiet luxury’ and ‘old-money’ are heading in the same direction, ‘quiet luxury’ is more toned down and about fabrics and silhouettes, while ‘old-money’ is about specific clothing items like loafers and cardigans. ‘Old money’ does not frown upon showing brand logos like Polo Ralph Lauren (Fröbe 2024).
Even apart from the specific clothing items, Anna Sorokin’s case also teaches us that it is not merely about the items themselves, but also about how and when you wear them. The context matters. Anna “didn’t take care of her things, acted like she didn’t have to” (Brown 2022). Similarly to the Coachella Festival, if luxury items and events are nothing special for someone anymore, they do not have to take special care of them. One example of this is Jane Birkin. The French actress and singer gave her name to the famous Hermès ‘Birkin Bag’ – for many, the epitome of luxury handbags (Der Stern 2023). While most wear this bag with the utmost care due to the price, Jane herself wore her bag with ribbons, stickers and bangles. Apart from the how, the timing matters as well: “Looking wealthy goes deeper than what you wear […]. It’s about wearing a white silk suit on a rainy day in New York because you have a driver to ferry you through the gray slush” (Brooke 2022). These details come through knowledge, through experience and cannot be imitated by merely putting on clothes.
However, clothes do create social standing. In that regard, it is a two-way street. Malcolm Barnard proposed that clothes “are not used simply to indicate or refer to social and cultural positions, they are used to construct and mark out that social and cultural reality in the first place” (2002, 38). Clothes are part of forming the classes. In contrast, one’s social standing also influences how clothes are perceived. This fine line can be demonstrated by the story of the con-artist, Tom Ripley, in The Talented Mr. Ripley (1955;1999). Although initially “admitted to Dickie Greenleaf’s circle to itinerant rich kids thanks to a borrowed Princeton blazer”, he is later “skewered for wearing a heavy corduroy jacket in the Italian heat” (Brooke 2022). Passing as wealthy due to a blazer may work at first glance: “Dress is a convenient method to keep class distinction because it is so visible” (Lingala 2013, 24); but no respectable, wealthy Italian would wear a jacket in the middle of a summer day. When to dress up and when not is as much of an importance as how to take care of the clothes.
Conclusion
Questions like when, how and why are questions that the average person does not ask themselves when it comes to fashion. It seems superficial, indifferent and arguably should not even play such a big role within professional settings. But the cold reality is that it does. Clothing, fashion, and all that it entails has almost as much to say today as the information one learns in one’s curriculum. It seems that as society evolves, trends keep spawning back from the past, and with that, the restlessness which was talked about previously has an even greater impact in drawing the lines for knowledge and power assertion.
However important the restlessness of different fashion trends is, there are still some timeless and permanent trends that have remained. ‘Old-money styles’, and other styles that have emerged from class struggles demonstrate how truly communicative fashion can be when it comes to power dynamics. Everyone wants to fit in somewhere; Stiegler (and Marx) displayed that there are different social groups, and one which rules them all. Eventually, the ruled groups lack means of knowledge due to the growing presence of technological artifacts in today’s society, which forces this group to follow along the lines of demarcation that have already been set. However, wanting to fit in seems to backfire in the end. As we have seen with Anna Sorokin or Tom Ripley, or even with white people wanting to wear ‘urban’ fashion clothing items that were innovations by and for Black people, there are certain things which cannot be imitated, and the truth comes out in the end. No matter how much we deny it, fashion and its context play a big role in demonstrating someone or some movement’s true colors, from the lower class to the upper class, clothing travels through it all.
Bibliography
Barnard, Malcolm. 1996. Fashion as Communication. London: Routledge.
Berlinger, Max. 2024. “Why is Gen Z So Obsessed With Old Money Style?” GQ, April 5, 2024. https://www.gq.com/story/old-money-style-aesthetic-explainer.
Brooke, Eliza. 2022. “How to Look Rich, According to People Pretending to Be Rich.” The Cut, February 18, 2022. https://www.thecut.com/2022/02/how-to-look-rich.html.
Brown, Annie. 2022. “Scammer chic: the allure, and trap of ‘looking the part’.” Vogue Australia, February 17, 2022. https://www.vogue.com.au/fashion/news/anna-delvey/news-story/ad123a6288f91842f311ee69620d595d.
Chwatt, Nikki. 2024. “Achieve the Model-Off-Duty Look With 9 Simple Outfit Formulas.” Editorialist, March 28, 2024. https://editorialist.com/fashion/model-off-duty-outfits/.
Collins COBUILD Advances Learner’s Dictionary. n.d. “Escapism”. Collins English Dictionary. Accessed June 23, 2024. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/de/worterbuch/englisch/escapism.
Der Stern. 2023. “Birkin Bag: “Ich fürchte, am Ende wird man sich nur an diese Handtasche erinnern.” Der Stern, July 17, 2023. https://www.stern.de/kultur/jane-birkin—ich-fuerchte-am-ende-wird-man-sich-nur-an-diese-handtasche-erinnern–33131156.html.
Espada, Mariah. 2023. “Coachella Was Once About Music. Now Critics Say It’s the ‘Influencer Olympics’.” Time, April 21, 2023. https://time.com/6273785/coachella-influencer-olympics/.
Fröbe, Lola. 2024. “Quiet Luxury geht in die zweite Runde: Old Money Style verleiht dem klassischen Look ein luxuriöses Finish.” Harper’s Bazaar, March 3, 2024. https://www.harpersbazaar.de/fashion/mode-trend-2024-old-money-style.
Google Trends. n.d. “Old money style”. Google Trends. Accessed June 23, 2024. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fg%2F11ldm166d4.
Highsmith, Patricia. 1955. The Talented Mr. Ripley. New York: Coward-McCann.
Hutnyk, John. 2012. “Proletarianization.” New Formulations 77, no. 77 (Winter): 127-149. https://doi.org/10.3898/NEWF.77.08.2012.
Johnson, Courtney, Reddy-Best, Kelly L. and Eulanda A. Sanders. 2022. “Swagger Like Us: Black Millennials’ Perceptions, Knowledge, and Influence of 1980s and 1990s Urban Fashion Trends.” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 40, no.4 (October): 255-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X20976634.
Langerhans, R.B. 2018. “The Red Queen Hypothesis.” In Encyclopedia of Ecology (Second Edition), edited by Brian Fath, 32-36. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63768-0.00471-6.
Lingala, Anu. 2013. “The Origin and Evolution of ‘Prep’ and its Socioeconomic Relevance.” Honors diss., Cornell University.
Minghella, Anthony, dir. 1999. The Talented Mr. Ripley. Hollywood, CA: Paramount Pictures, 1999. DVD.
Mollard, Mélanie. 2022. “Understanding fashion trend life cycles: The 5 stages.” Heuritech, January 27, 2022. https://www.heuritech.com/articles/five-stages-of-fashion-trend-life-cycle/.
Olasov, Ian. 2016. “Offensive political dog whistles: you know them when you hear them. Or do you?” Vox, November 7, 2016. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/7/13549154/dog-whistles-campaign-racism.
Taleb, Najoua and Björn Hellmich. 2024. “Der Fall der Eschweiler Betrügerin Anna Sorokin.” Aachener Zeitung, February 26, 2024. https://www.aachener-zeitung.de/lokales/region-aachen/eschweiler/der-fall-der-eschweiler-betruegerin-anna-sorokin/8290788.html.