Marxist Analysis of "Gucci x Dapper Dan Made in Harlem"

 The partnership of Gucci and Dapper Dan, featured in the behind-the-scenes video “Made in Harlem A:W ‘18 – ‘19,” stands as a rich example for Marxist criticism, particularly in discussing culture on the intersection between its economics and politics. This analysis seeks to explore the societal relations of the Gucci Dapper Dan venture in terms of how the campaign advances or contests capitalism by employing the Marxist paradigm base/superstructure, class struggle, commodity fetishism, ideology/false consciousness, and reification. Each of these put forward distinct but interlocking accounts of what lies beneath the glamour and pageantry of fashion production and consumption, encapsulating conflicts of more profound and ideological significance beyond its economic appearance. First, the video demonstrates the Marxist theory of Base and superstructure by Gucci's economic strategies (the base) and the fashion shoot’s culture (the superstructure) both supporting and being shaped by their marketing. The base in economics forms regulates Gucci’s profit motives, brand expansion schemes, and global capitalist interests. The superstructure includes the creative shoot, Harlem location, and cultural storytelling, The shoot's visuals are an aesthetic epitome of Harlem, honoring culture but Gucci’s corporate interests and profits commandeer everything. The economic base of the visuals is sweeping street shots of Harlem with its diverse models and Dapper Dan’s direction, which make Gucci’s branding feel less intrusive and more a part of everyday life. This becomes a classic case of it, the juxtaposition of cultures, simply works together without to form a superficial cultural friction. This type of Cultural Capital in Harlem serves to support an ethnocentric system. The culture aids the perpetuation of the system. With an uncritical eye, all one sees at the end is a beautiful picture, of globalization, catchy and lively but ultimately manipulative. This fabrication evokes many sentiments but does this remove the truth of soft power placed at its core?

Such an economic foundation takes us to the second Marxist idea, class struggle, which is not absent quite the opposite in juxtaposition to the characters and the institutions of the story. The collaboration, as much as it self-congratulatorily highlights Harlem and attempts to serve Dapper Dan’s an acclaimed designer who at some point functioned in the gray area of law claims creative glory. However, a class narrative undercurrent is hard to ignore: Gucci is still a primary class, a multinational elite luxury mark, whose’ capital is Harlem and culture hegemony without a transformation paradigm. Models, crew, and even Dapper Dan are all participants of spending and producing the high fashion working class. While the visuals may serve as the yawning gap between cut and reality to suggest self-sufficiency, franchise and domicile achieved camera focus, the idle wage earns lowwhelming economic reward. Thus, the partnership is more disguisable than divisive class struggle. The brand may be hope inspiring zeal, but they are fuel fuelled by lack of staggering inequalities that rely beneath the international styles dished out to public and area creatives. We shift class struggle to symbolic covering, then Commodity Fetishism unveils how regard replaces people who work with structures of capitalist society.

The third tenet, commodity fetishism, as the aesthetic marvels created for the product are showcased, is vividly manifest in the Gucci x Dapper Dan collection. The Dapper Dan video features a variety of intricate pieces that are given attention, like the Gucci x Dapper Dan collection’s textiles and embroidery, as well as accessories, and the garments are refined, which denotes that they have turned into relics. These outfits are not depicted as the outcome of the hard work of textile workers, designers, and production lines, but rather mystified and transformed into symbols of style, wealth, and identity turned commodities. This detaches the garment from the production line and creates a shift in meaning whereby the distinguishing power and prestige takes shape. Harlem’s cultural significance is further utilized to elevate the fetish value of the garments, obscuring the capitalist exploitation and work conditions of the garments. To conclude, commodity fetishism reverses the constructs of capitalism by stripping them bare in a visual appeal which in the end removes attention from systems and invokes symbols. The plunge towards symbols leads towards the next Marxist concern: how those dominantly oppressed ideologies are accepted internally are also the ones which slowly begin to surface.

Using commodity fetishism as a basis, the fourth tenet ideology and false consciousness provides a deeper understanding of how cultural products, such as this video, can perpetuate belief systems that reinforce the existing social order, including those of the marginalized. The campaign seems to uplift Harlem by placing it in the context of global luxury. Yet capitulation to capitalism is portrayed as freedom, which exemplifies false consciousness. People will buy into the narrative that Harlem has ‘arrived’ because it is showcased in a Gucci advertisement, conveniently overlooking that socioeconomic supremacy is still held by the brand. Dapper Dan’s participation in the shoot could be interpreted as a step toward cultural inclusivity, but the system of fashion capitalism is still dominant and unchallenged. The narrative promotes belief in the style gap meritocracy that anyone can succeed with enough talent or exposure and diverts attention from the structural obstacles. To summarize, the embedded ideology of the campaign serves to perpetuate displacement while diverting attention from real exploitation and anaemic economic dividing lines. This serves to sustain capitalist subjection through what Marx refers to as reification; social relations and the interaction between people and places is reduced to mere commodities.

To begin, the Gucci brand and its socioeconomics constitute an exemplary case illustrating Marx’s theory of “base and superstructure.” The base includes profit-driven motives, expansion plans, and global capitalist inclinations specific to Gucci’s sub-economy. Superstructure gives room to creative elements, cultural narrative, and the Harlem Shake. Visually, the shoot epitomizes Harlem and its culture, but corporate Gucci interests commandeer and profit from controlling everything. The basic socioeconomics that govern the visuals include sweeping street shots of Harlem with its multicultural models under Dapper Dan’s direction. This makes the Gucci logo appear less like a foreign intruder and more like a part of daily life. It becomes a classic case of it, the juxtaposition of cultures simply works together without forming a superficial cultural friction, the collision reframed. Such cultural capital within Harlem serves Collins’ ethnocentric social structure. These cultures attempt to sustain the system. Viewed through less critical lenses, what one witnesses is a catchy, harmonious, yet ironically sobering, deceptive illusion of globalization. While controversial sentiment surrounds this construct, it fundamentally prompts the question: Is there an essence of soft domination concealed within? In summary, the “Gucci x Dapper Dan Made in Harlem” video encapsulates a capitalist celebration while simultaneously containing a harsh framing of a Marxist critique. Gucci’s high fashion fetishism is yet another instance of stark exploitation of culture. Each Marxist framework tackles the underlying issues present in Gucci’s appropriation and exploitation of Harlem’s culture base/superstructure, class struggle, commodity fetishism, ideology/false consciousness, and reification. The Gucci production gives credit to Harlem’s creativity but actually controls and subordinates that creativity in order to enhance their brand and economic power. Thus, celebration becomes a misrepresentation of cultural reproduction, and concealed material exploitation is masked as symbolic self-empowerment. Capital and culture colliding leads many to believe that there is empowerment of dispossessed cultures; however, in terms of Marxist theory, there is hidden control and subjugation at hand.