Denim, Genes, and Representation: The Stakes of Fashion Advertising
Fashion is never neutral. Every campaign, every image, every word communicates who is valued, who is visible, and whose identity is considered desirable. The recent denim campaigns from American Eagle and Gap exemplify this tension: one demonstrates how fashion can perpetuate exclusionary ideologies, the other shows how it can celebrate diversity and affirm identity.
American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney: Intentional Messaging with Harmful Historical Roots
American Eagle’s campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney, with the tagline “My genes are blue,” was deliberate. This was not an accidental pun; it was a calculated choice that echoes centuries of exclusionary thinking, rooted in eugenics.
The History of Eugenics
Eugenics, a term coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, was the belief that the human population could be “improved” by selective breeding. Though presented as scientific, it was morally and scientifically flawed. In practice, eugenics justified systemic oppression:
Forced sterilizations: Tens of thousands of people, particularly women of color, people with disabilities, and immigrants, were sterilized in the U.S. between 1909 and 1979. California alone accounted for over 20,000 sterilizations (en.wikipedia.org).
Legal reinforcement: The 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell legitimized sterilization of those deemed “unfit,” reinforcing the idea that certain people’s bodies were less worthy of reproduction.
Global influence: U.S. eugenics programs directly influenced Nazi Germany’s policies, demonstrating the real-world consequences of this ideology.
Eugenics was not merely a historical curiosity; it shaped societal hierarchies, influencing perceptions of beauty, intelligence, and value. These ideas persist subtly in cultural norms and media representations.
Eugenics and Fashion
Fashion has historically reflected these hierarchies:
Beauty standards: Early 20th-century fashion emphasized traits associated with European features — fair skin, thin bodies, light eyes — echoing eugenic ideals of “desirable” traits.
Representation: Minorities and non-European bodies were excluded from advertisements, runway shows, and media campaigns. When included, their features were often exoticized or tokenized.
Economic barriers: Access to fashionable clothing was limited for marginalized communities, reinforcing socio-economic and racial disparities.
The fascination with “Slavic dolls” in the early 2000s — characterized by pale skin, blonde hair, blue eyes, and hyper-feminized features — reveals how fashion and beauty culture have often echoed eugenic ideals. This aesthetic elevated Eurocentric traits as the pinnacle of desirability while erasing or marginalizing diverse forms of beauty. Much like the ideology of eugenics sought to “perfect” the population by privileging certain genes, the fashion industry’s obsession with this narrow aesthetic reinforced harmful hierarchies of race, femininity, and worth.
The Harm in American Eagle’s Campaign
By highlighting Sweeney’s blue eyes and framing them as desirable, American Eagle resurrected these harmful narratives. This was a deliberate choice that:
Reinforced the notion that certain genetic traits are superior.
Marginalized minorities who have historically been erased from mainstream fashion narratives.
Signaled that some bodies and identities are more valued than others, continuing a legacy of systemic exclusion.
This campaign illustrates a critical truth: fashion advertising can deliberately perpetuate harmful ideologies, and when brands fail to reckon with history, the impact is immediate and deeply felt.
Gap and KATSEYE: Representation as Social Responsibility
In stark contrast, Gap’s “Better in Denim” campaign featuring KATSEYE, a globally renowned K-pop girl group, exemplifies intentional, inclusive storytelling.
Why KATSEYE Matters
KATSEYE’s inclusion is significant on multiple levels:
Global visibility: As a South Korean group, KATSEYE introduces international representation in mainstream American advertising, challenging Eurocentric dominance in fashion media.
Body and cultural diversity: The campaign included performers of different body types, skin tones, and cultural backgrounds, signaling that fashion is for everyone, not just the privileged or historically “ideal” bodies.
Empowerment through presence: KATSEYE’s prominence affirms Asian and global identities, communities that have often been excluded from mainstream fashion campaigns.
The Campaign as a “Clapback”
Gap’s campaign was a direct, intentional counter-narrative to American Eagle:
Affirming diversity: While AE celebrated exclusionary traits, Gap celebrated inclusion, sending a message that fashion can and should empower marginalized communities.
Cultural awareness: The timing and framing of the campaign demonstrate that Gap understood the social context, choosing representation as a form of social responsibility.
Positive impact: By centering KATSEYE and diverse performers, Gap created visibility, fostered inclusion, and modeled ethical advertising in an industry often criticized for perpetuating narrow standards.
Other Brands and Industry Clapbacks
The conversation didn’t stop with Gap. Several other brands used this moment to highlight inclusivity and representation in their campaigns:
Levi’s spotlighted diverse body types and global identities in their denim campaigns, emphasizing that style is universal, not tied to specific genes or features.
H&M launched a mini-series featuring creators and models from historically underrepresented communities, celebrating individuality and cultural diversity.
Nike continued its practice of amplifying voices from marginalized groups, showing that mainstream brands can succeed while prioritizing social consciousness.
These “clapbacks” collectively demonstrate a growing awareness in the fashion industry: representation matters, and intentional inclusivity is not optional — it is essential.
The Broader Cultural Implications
These contrasting campaigns reveal the stakes of fashion advertising today:
Words and imagery carry history: Brands operate within cultural and historical contexts; choices are never neutral.
Intentional exclusion has consequences: American Eagle’s campaign reinforced harmful eugenic ideals, reminding marginalized groups of their historical and ongoing erasure.
Representation can empower: Gap’s campaign, alongside responses from Levi’s, H&M, and Nike, shows that thoughtful inclusion can normalize diversity, validate communities, and make fashion a medium for equity.
Fashion is a cultural battleground: Denim, a simple product, becomes a lens through which society negotiates identity, visibility, and belonging.
Conclusion: Fashion as Responsibility
Denim is never just denim. Fashion is never just style. Every campaign, image, and tagline communicates who is valued, who is visible, and whose identity is celebrated.
American Eagle’s Sydney Sweeney campaign demonstrates the dangers of ignoring history, echoing eugenic ideals with harmful cultural impact. Gap’s KATSEYE campaign, alongside responses from Levi’s, H&M, and Nike, shows that brands can choose inclusion, representation, and empowerment — turning fashion into a tool for social reflection and justice.
As consumers and creators, we are part of this dialogue. Whose stories do we amplify? Who do we make visible? Who do we risk erasing?
Fashion, like identity, is a statement — and in 2025, what our denim says matters more than ever.
