Concern with Appearance
Kant: Concern with Appearance
His position
Kant was extremely opposed to the concern with appearances that parents showed and passed on to their young children.
Discourage fineries
- An obsession with brands, styles, and fashions takes students away from the real purpose of life, which is moral education.
- Parents must fight against all signs of vanity in a child.
- Parents must not give children any example to become vain.
Parents as examples
Parents must set an example by using simpler and non-branded clothing and accessories.
School uniform
Kant promoted the use of uniforms in school to discourage children from comparing each other’s clothing, which would give rise to vanity and inequality.
A philosopher writing in eighteenth-century Konigsberg had remarkably contemporary views on the corrosive effects of consumer culture on children. Kant saw how easily a child’s attention could be hijacked by clothes, brands, and styles, and he wrote bluntly against it. The argument transfers cleanly to the twenty-first century.
Why Kant opposed the concern with appearance
Kant was extremely opposed to the concern with appearances that parents showed and passed on to their young children. The two halves matter.
The first half is about the parents. Parents who care deeply about how they appear (clothing, brands, style, status) signal those priorities to their children every day. The signalling is rarely deliberate. The child watches the parent worry about appearance, sees the parent’s pleasure when admired and pain when not, and internalises the lesson. Appearance, the child learns, is what matters.
The second half is about the child. Once the lesson is internalised, the child begins to develop the same concern. They start to care about their own clothes, their accessories, their look. The care is not innocent. It crowds out attention for things Kant treats as actually important: moral reasoning, friendship, learning.
The opposition is not against caring how one looks at all. Reasonable cleanliness, age-appropriate dress, and respect for the social setting are fine. The opposition is against concern: a sustained preoccupation that dominates the child’s attention.
It crowds out attention for moral education
A parent who cares deeply about appearance signals that priority to their children. The child learns appearance is what matters and develops the same concern. The concern is not innocent; it crowds out the moral reasoning, friendship, and learning that should hold the child’s attention.
Discourage fineries
Kant gives the practical instruction. Parents must discourage fineries: brands, styles, and fashions.
The reason is the same. An obsession with brands takes children away from the real purpose of life, which Kant treats as becoming a moral being. A child whose mind is full of which sneaker is in season this year has less mind available for the harder, slower work of moral development.
Kant goes further. He pleaded with parents to fight against all signs of vanity in a child. Vanity in this sense is the excessive pleasure in one’s own appearance, the need to be admired for how one looks. A vain child grows into a vain adult, and a vain adult is morally compromised: their actions are calibrated by who is watching and what they think.
The parents’ active work is to notice early signs of vanity and respond. Not with shame (Kant was clear shame should not be used on young children). With redirection: less attention to appearance, more attention to what the child does and learns. With modelling: parents themselves not displaying vanity.
Fight against all signs of it
Parents must notice early signs of vanity (excessive pleasure in appearance, the need to be admired) and redirect attention. Not with shame, which should not be used on young children. With redirection toward what the child does and learns, and with modelling: parents themselves not displaying vanity.
Parents as examples
Kant places the burden squarely on the parents. They must set an example by using simpler and non-branded clothing and accessories.
This is harder than it sounds. Many parents care about their own appearance more than they realise. They wear branded clothes, drive cars chosen for image, decorate their homes for guests rather than themselves. The child absorbs all of it. The parent then complains about the child’s vanity without seeing where it came from.
The Kantian discipline is to look at one’s own habits first. A parent who simplifies their own wardrobe, who treats brands with mild scepticism, who values function over fashion, gives the child a daily lived example. The example does the work that no amount of lecturing can do.
This does not require asceticism. A reasonable level of normal dress is fine. The point is to demonstrate that appearance is not the centre of the parent’s life. The centre is somewhere else. The child sees the centre and naturally orients toward it.
Simpler, non-branded clothing and accessories
Parents must demonstrate, in their own daily habits, that appearance is not the centre of their life. The example does the work that lecturing cannot. A parent who has not confronted their own appearance-concern cannot effectively confront the child’s.
School uniform
Kant promoted the use of school uniforms. The reason is to discourage children from comparing each other’s clothing.
Without uniforms, every morning becomes a small fashion contest. The well-dressed child enters the room as the visible winner of the day’s contest. Other children either lose or stop trying. Either way, attention is on appearance and not on the work the school is supposed to be doing.
Uniforms remove the contest. Every child arrives looking roughly the same. The visual cues that fuel comparison are gone. Children are now distinguishable by what they do, not what they wear. Friendships form on better grounds. Class becomes about class material, not about clothing.
The uniform also addresses Kant’s concern about inequality. Children from wealthier homes can afford more or better clothing; without uniforms, this difference is on display every day. With uniforms, the difference is invisible at school. The poor child is not constantly reminded of what they cannot afford. The rich child is not constantly affirmed in their advantage. Both are simply children at school.
To discourage comparison of clothing and reduce vanity and inequality
Without uniforms, every morning becomes a small fashion contest fuelling vanity. Uniforms remove the contest. Children are distinguishable by what they do, not what they wear. The wealth difference between families is also invisible at school, which reduces inequality.
How was this article?