THE ETHICS OF OUTRAGE

From jaw masks to jeans - fashion keeps tripping over its own headlines. But when outrage is the new accessory, what does a “good” apology even look like?

- Words ARANYAA CHOWDHURY

Fashion has always been a lightning rod for outrage. From Dior's New Look in the austerity years to Jean Paul Gaultier putting Madonna in a conical bra, provocation is practically part of the syllabus. But in 2025, a “scandal” lasts about as long as a trending audio on Instagram, and the fallout isn't confined to front rows or gossip columns. It hits stock prices, shopping carts, and comment sections with equal force.

This summer, the receipts have piled up. American Eagle's "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans" campaign was accused of flirting with eugenics (because apparently wordplay is a crime now). Prada’s ₹1 lakh Kolhapuris forgot Kolhapur exists. Kim Kardashian's Skims’ jaw-clamping “shapewear mask” drew flak for cashing in on women’s insecurities. And Olio Stories' Independence Day film faced backlash for a distorted Indian map.

Four scandals, one season. The common denominator? Not what they did, but how they responded.

THE APOLOGY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

The corporate apology has become its own genre – part performance art, part damage control. There are styles: The non-apology (“We're sorry if you were offended”), the grand gesture (fly in, kneel, shake hands), and the minimalist clarification. American Eagle chose the latter. Their Sydney Sweeney campaign wasn't really offensive – a pun on “jeans” and “genes” is cheeky at best – but the internet sniffed blood. Instead of panicking, AE clarified, pledged money to a mental health nonprofit, and moved on. Sales went up. The meme cycle rolled on. The brand survived, unbothered, moisturised, in its lane, flourishing.