.png)
CAN YOU BE A PARTICIPANT AND OBSERVER
OF CULTURE?
CULTURE | Written: Yewayi Mushaya
24.09.25
How close can you become to something before one's vision becomes impaired? Does proximity really afford someone knowledgability, or does it, at some point, merely invite bias? At what distance do we stand to observe truth without the influence of personal desire or perspective? Can you be an observer and participant of culture and remain unbiased?
The creative landscape has broken away from its traditional roots, and the lines that once separated talent, industry, and enthusiasts have blurred. As individuals embrace multifaceted roles, the doors that once tightly protected gatekeepers have been forced open.
Observation in today’s industry feels like a role no one wants to take on. In an era defined by personal brands, we’re told that recognition and visibility are the true gateways to opportunity. Our understanding of roles is shaped by our desires for them as we subconsciously create expectations of those worthy of occupying these positions. Part of the blame lies with Hollywood’s long-standing glamorisation of the industry, but at times, we must also admit our fault.
The current uproar from Chloe Malle's succession of Anna Wintour's position as Head Editorial Content at American Vogue reveals more than the publication’s new reality. Rather, the expectations we spectators have of participant-observers within the fashion industry. Though the industry's slight democratisation has led to opportunities, our refusal to discern its previous structure has led to much misunderstanding disguised as conflict.
The industry is broken up into numerous sections, which we believe are best evaluated through the lens of anthropology’s ethnography. The role of the observer defined by Professor Keith Taber is one characterised by unobtrusiveness in the aim to refrain from influencing the environment being evaluated. Even in instances where participation is required and it is done for the benefit of evaluation.
ENTROGRAPHY, THE FIVE ROLES OF THE OBSERVER
(1) Off-site Non-participant Observation: The observer remains entirely external to the study environment, engaging in no direct interaction with participants.
-
Profile: Casual viewers who encounter fashion content incidentally, with no deliberate pursuit of deeper knowledge.
(2) On-site Non-participant Observation: The observer is physically present within the study environment but does not interact with participants. Their position allows proximity to the activity of interest while remaining detached.
-
Profile: Fashion enthusiasts, online commentators, or consumer members observing passively.
(3) Passive Participant Observation: The observer is situated within the study environment and engages at a minimal level beyond pure observation. They participate superficially but do not shape or significantly influence the activity.
-
Profile: Invited guests, influencers present at shows, or peripheral industry participants whose role is limited to attendance and surface-level interaction.
(4) Participant-observer: The observer adopts a more active role, interacting and engaging directly with participants while retaining a degree of analytical distance.
-
Profile: Journalists, critics, or professionals embedded in the fashion sector whose work requires them to participate while simultaneously observing.
(5) Complete Participant: The observer is fully immersed and indistinguishable from the participants. Their involvement directly shapes the activity, and they themselves may become the subject of observation and critique.
-
Profile: Multi-hyphenate creatives, designers, or artists whose work sustains the industry and whose presence embodies both subject and observer.
The September discourse surrounding Vogue's TikTok post Work Fits At The Office Today revealed our opinion around the participant-observer. The comments echoed the belief that proximity to fashion means adoption by osmosis. Now, this sentiment does have some standing. I mean, think about it: if you hang around something long enough, will it not become impressionable on you?
Our fault lies in our inability to decentre the consumer’s perspective of proximity. The participant-observer within fashion differs from the passive participant observer and the onsite non-participant, because their proximity is to fulfil a certain function. Journalists, editors, and critics are tasked with detachment so they can observe without influence. Our unregulated indulgence in something eventually leads to the development of taste, and with preference comes bias. How does one remain unbiased if they actively partake in what they are meant to critique?
This has led many commentators to retreat to plain black-and-white clothing, almost presenting anti-fashion within an industry they are at the height of. It is ludicrous for us to label Chloe Malle incompetent for the position on the basis of her clothing. Rather, our frustrations truly lie within her inability to revolutionise the position, making us victims of the beige we have been subjected to. This is the true conversation we should be having. However, the person who is to fulfil this prophecy won’t necessarily come in a Ferragamo coat and Celine boots.
One’s ability to remain detached from what they observe leaves more room for truth, like Alexander McQueen. Proximity at times makes us prisoners of what is closest, a fault that has led to the historical elitism of the industry. Many diverse voices are the solution to true perspective, or at least the average of it. The truth is, we will always have our preferences, biases, and desires. It’s best to just go where ours align rather than demand differences in a system resistant to change. But to answer the question: can you be a participant and observer of culture and remain unbiased? No. And I think that’s the beauty of it, the transformation it affords.
In today’s fashion landscape, the line between observer and participant has all but vanished. From casual enthusiasts to critics and multi-hyphenate creatives, each role carries its own bias, reshaping how truth and authority are perceived in culture. The uproar over Vogue’s leadership shift reveals less about Chloe Malle herself and more about our expectations of what proximity to fashion should mean. Ultimately, bias is inevitable, and perhaps it’s the very force that keeps the industry alive and ever-transforming.