When the Impure Becomes Commodified: Who is Excluded, and Who is Included?

 

   

Image (left): Bowden, Tom. 2023. Photograph. In "Extravagant street fashion from people living on the margins of the USA," by Isaac Muk. Huck Magazine, September 5, 2022. Retrieved April 2, 2026 (https://www.huckmag.com/article/extravagant-street-fashion-from-people-living-on-the-margins-of-the-usa). 

    

Image (right): Magnolia Pearl Clothing. n.d. "Yarn-Dyed Jeremi Jacket (product photo)." Magnolia Pearl Clothing. Retrieved April 2, 2026 (https://magnoliapearl.com/products/yd-jeremi-jacket-belgian-cobblestone).

Take a look at these two images, the one on the left first, and then the one on the right.     

   We'll start with a very basic, neutral visual description of the clothing. Take note of some things: the layering, the fraying, the distressed vibe to the clothing, the cluttering and clashing. These traits are consistent across both photos, that much is visible. On the left, we see a woman wearing a black puffer quilted jacket, a white graphic tee, two scarves, one pink, one tan, a coral colored sunhat, a light blue maxi skirt, and various layered wraps and potentially a bag around the waist, even what looks to be some sort of toy gun holstered there. On the right, we see a a woman wearing heavily distressed, frayed, and sun-dyed jeans, a tattered green and white flannel button up with a brown, distressed cotton jacket adorned with paint splatters and messy writing, alongside a colorful, embroidered fedora-type hat and stacked bracelets. 

    

    Now, let's move in a bit closer, more analytical, and consider the figure underneath all of that fabric. On the left, we have what appears to be an older woman, potentially a woman of color, she looks a little caught off guard, maybe even embarrassed to have this photo taken based on her open mouth and narrowed eyes. The quality of the camera is natural, a good camera, but nothing professional-grade. It is a candid photo, real, not posed. On the right, we see a thin, conventional looking young white woman, posing confidently; she tips her hat, looks down intriguingly - invites you to really take in her clothing. The camera quality is polished, airbrushed even.

    Finally, consider where they are situated in the framing of these photographs. In the left image, the woman is huddled slightly against a grey, brick background, the concrete sidewalk visible below her where she stands. She is wearing a jacket alongside all her other layers, so it would be reasonable to assume she is outside. But for the woman on the right, she is clearly on a set - there are surfboards, colorful posters, and she appears to be inside, a closed location. 

These photos could not be more different, contextually.

    With the things I asked you to look at, the visual environmental hints within the photos, perhaps you have already deduced these photos origins. But in case you have not, here it is in plain language, so you can understand the absurdity of this comparison as we delve deeper into it informed by the work of Mary Douglas in Purity and Danger. 

    The image on the left comes from a photoset by photography Tom Bowden titled Fashion from the Streets. It is a real, candid photo of a woman identified as "Monte", taken in Los Angeles, 2017. Given the context of the photo series, which aims to document the style of homeless individuals across the U.S., we can assume Monte is a homeless woman living in L.A. who was chosen for this photoset for her unique sense of fashion, which we can see in the image. 

    The image on the right, however, is a promotional image for a clothing item - the "Yarn-Dyed Jeremi Jacket" - from the luxury clothing brand Magnolia Pearl on their online store. This particular item, the "Yarn-Dyed Jeremi Jacket" shown in the image most prominently (the worn, brown jacket with various paint dyes, rips, and miscellaneous buttons/hardware, among other notable construction choices) retails for a breezy $600 USD as per their listing. You can also buy $50 USD Magnolia Pearl socks (the cheapest option on the site for any clothing item), or, if you'd like to treat yourself, you can fork over $800 USD for a simple embroidered tie-dye hoodie. 

    So, why show these to you? What message do these photos hold individually, and what new message do they send when juxtaposed? To understand the potentially contrasting "vibes" of both images, let us look more closely at Chapter 7 of Purity and Danger to see how Mary Douglas may have explained this dissonance.

"Matter out of Place"

    Mary Douglas, in her 1966 seminal work Purity and Danger, talks a lot about dirt: but not dirt as a literal thing, more as a "matter out of place", an idea you can see she develops throughout the book (though, not present in our assigned excerpts, it can be found in chapter 2, "Secular Defilement", see there for more context) - that is, something existing in the context of order, of classification, of a societal standard and norm - dirt, in this way, is a marker of disruption, it crosses lines thought uncrossable in expected societal conduct. 

    But it also is somewhat fluid, this "dirtiness", this "unhygienic/unsanitariness". Something that is dirty in one context is not dirty in another, or on another, which is key here in this specific image comparison. Douglas writes, "There is no such thing as absolute dirt: it exists in the eye of the beholder" (Douglas 1966:2). That is, dirt, and the concept of dirtiness, is a sort of ephemeral idea, only applied to some and by some. 

    Furthermore, we can incorporate what Douglas says about "marginal bodies", bodies at the margin. This term refers to individuals whose presentation, whatever it may be, is outside the margins of societal norms and expectations. These "marginal bodies" are not received kindly by normative society and those who seek to maintain it; as Douglas succinctly puts it: "all margins are dangerous" (Douglas 1966:150). A body deemed "polluting", "marginal", "dirty", whether any of these things are intrinsically true or not, is a body seen as a threat to the order of society, a threat of disorder, and thus, it will be perceived as such.

Look at the photos again. Look at Monte, and look at the Magnolia Pearl model.

    What is Monte wearing that is so different from the Magnolia Pearl model, really? The clothing is equally dishevelled and cluttered, if you want to view it like that, and it is also equally curated and styled, if you view it like that. 

    Well, equally dishevelled and cluttered yet curated and styled looking, that is, because we know the model wearing the Magnolia Pearl clothing probably doesn't own that clothing, regularly wear it - it may not even be close to her personal style. It doesn't reflect anything about her, not really. It is an aesthetic, an aesthetic crafted by a brand to sell clothing to wealthy individuals willing to spend hundreds on this look.

    But Monte's clothing is real, it's hers, she wears it, and we know she probably wears it often. Perhaps the way she wears her clothing is stylistic, it very well could be, but there is also a possibility that does not exist for the Magnolia Pearl model: perhaps, for Monte, these clothes are her only option, this is the clothing she wears because it is what she has. 

    Whether or not someone thinks either of these outfits "looks good" is irrelevant here, because what I mean to illustrate is something these two women, dressed the same in these photos, do not have in common. If we look to Douglas, we can clearly understand that being "marginal" is not desirable, it attracts disgust and ire from those who see themselves as within the bounds of society and its norms. 

    For homeless individuals, who are often given no choice but to wear whatever clothing they can find, have limited opportunities in many circumstances to take care of their hygiene in the way someone with a house, sufficient finances and resources could, and are focusing on survival in a world that sees them as disruptive, clothing like Monte's doesn't attract the same positive attention the Magnolia Pearl clothing would. And that is not because the clothing itself is different - sure, there may be higher quality construction for the Magnolia Pearl pieces (one would hope for those prices), but as a passerby, no one would immediately flag one as being a status symbol of wealth and the other of poverty, because, again, the clothing looks the same.

    So, if not the clothing, what is the "dirt"? Well, and this may sound harsh, but the truth is, it's the person wearing the clothing. The distress and fraying, holes, paint splatters, whatever it is on the Magnolia Pearl model is desirable, its aspirational, it's cool, avant-garde. For Monte, it's a reflection of who she is as a marginal member of society - this same clothing, the same design choices, it becomes disorder, pollution. 

    Furthering this, we can add in the angle of commodification. Magnolia Pearl is a luxury clothing brand that replicates the styling of homeless individuals, those in impoverished living situations, and converts this disorder into desirability. In doing so, the company monetizes the aesthetic, if one could even call it that, but still leaves those in the margins, the ones whom this aesthetic is taken from, in that outer bound. On the Magnolia Pearl model, the rips, stains, distress are high fashion, risk taking, artistic. On Monte, those same things are just reminders that she is in the margins, that she is surviving, and, in turn, she will not receive credit, praise, or admiration for her presentation, but the opposite. 

    While I could not pretend to know, if Douglas were here today, examining these two photos, she would not be surprised. 

    Because the clothing is not the issue. The clothing is not the dirt. It never was. 

Works Cited*

Bowden, Tom. 2017. Photograph. In "Extravagant street fashion from people living on the margins of the USA" by Isaac Muk. Huck Magazine, September 5, 2022. Retrieved April 2, 2026 (https://www.huckmag.com/article/extravagant-street-fashion-from-people-living-on-the-margins-of-the-usa).

Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Magnolia Pearl Clothing. n.d. “Magnolia Pearl - Official Site.” Magnolia Pearl Clothing. Retrieved April 2, 2026 (https://magnoliapearl.com/).

 Magnolia Pearl Clothing. n.d. "Yarn-Dyed Jeremi Jacket (product photo)." Magnolia Pearl Clothing. Retrieved April 2, 2026 (https://magnoliapearl.com/products/yd-jeremi-jacket-belgian-cobblestone).

Muk, Isaac. 2022. “Extravagant Street Fashion from People Living on the Margins of the USA.” Huckmag. Retrieved April 2, 2026 (https://www.huckmag.com/article/extravagant-street-fashion-from-people-living-on-the-margins-of-the-usa). 

*Images are also cited below where they are pasted at the beginning of the blogpost