In daily life, clothing often appears to be nothing more than a necessity. The outfits we put on when leaving the house in the morning, the clothes we choose while preparing for a job interview, or the carefully selected combinations for a special occasion… All these choices may seem like simple decisions on the surface, yet they are deeply tied to our inner world. Clothing is not merely a piece of fabric covering the body; it is also a reflection of the self—our “second skin.”
From a psychoanalytic perspective, clothing is viewed through the metaphor of the “second skin.” When a person feels naked and vulnerable, clothing serves as a shield covering the body. At the same time, clothing is not only about protection but also a means of constructing identity. Some people play with clothing as they would with toys—trying out different pieces, enjoying the act of creating new combinations. For others, clothing functions like a “medicine.” It becomes a way to soothe anxiety that feels overwhelming and to find comfort in the face of uncertainty. However, this relationship can sometimes turn unhealthy. What begins as a source of joy may transform into a dependency, even into a “necessity” used to cover up inner voids.
The phrase “My closet is full, but I have nothing to wear” may not just reflect a wardrobe problem, but rather an outcry of inner identity confusion.
One common pattern observed in clinical practice is the use of shopping as an emotional regulation tool. When feelings of anxiety, distress, or worthlessness rise, a person may turn to shopping. Buying new clothes provides short-term relief, but this is soon followed by guilt, regret, and emptiness. Thus, a behavior that offers temporary comfort ultimately perpetuates the very same problems. This leads to a new wave of anxiety and, in turn, another urge to shop.
In psychodynamic literature, this pattern is referred to as “clothing bulimia.” Much like bulimia in eating disorders, where binge eating is followed by guilt, clothing bulimia reflects an attempt to fill an inner void through shopping, but without bringing lasting satisfaction. Cognitive-behavioral approaches also frame this as a cycle: the pre-shopping emotion triggers the behavior; the behavior brings temporary relief; but the guilt that follows maintains the problem. Unless this chain is recognized, it continues as a vicious cycle in one’s life. Awareness, therefore, is the first step to breaking it.
Clothing choices are not only about personal preference; they are also part of intergenerational stories of identity. According to Winnicott’s concept of the “mirror,” a mother’s gaze plays a foundational role in a child’s identity development. A steady, attuned, and supportive gaze helps the child build a strong sense of self. In this context, clothing can also reflect the mother-daughter relationship. Sometimes mothers relive their youth by wearing their daughters’ clothes, while sometimes daughters continue their mothers’ style. The fashion industry’s tendency to blur generational boundaries may leave little room for each to claim their own identity. This can intensify the question: “Who am I, and which clothes truly represent me?” Clothing, therefore, carries not only aesthetic but also identity-related and relational meanings.
Our relationship with clothing cannot be explained solely through individual processes. In today’s world, advertisements, social media feeds, the pressure of “trends,” and consumer culture are powerful forces shaping clothing choices. Spending hours in a shopping mall, clicking “add to cart” on online platforms, or being exposed to influencer styling tips all influence how often and why people buy clothes. In this way, our relationship with clothing becomes not just personal but also a collective experience.
Sociology and cultural studies shed light on this dimension. Clothing is an expression of social class, economic conditions, and value systems. For some, minimalist clothing symbolizes simplicity and freedom, while for others it reflects helplessness or limitation. The same symbol, therefore, can tell very different stories depending on the context.
Our relationship with clothing may become psychologically challenging in the following cases:
● When shopping becomes the only way to cope with emotional distress.
● When clothing choices or shopping behaviors cause academic, functional, or financial problems.
● When a person feels incomplete or worthless without branded or expensive clothing.
● When most of one’s time is spent on trying on, returning, or combining outfits.
Such patterns often point to underlying struggles with self-worth, anxiety, perfectionism, or relational emptiness.
● Emotional awareness: Asking, “Am I shopping because I truly need this, or because I am trying to suppress anxiety?”
● The delay technique: Waiting 24 hours before making a purchase to decide whether it is a need or an emotion-regulation attempt.
● Value alignment: Identifying personal values (such as simplicity, comfort, sustainability) and aligning one’s wardrobe with them.
● Alternative strategies: Remembering other ways of coping with anxiety—like walking, breathing exercises, or talking to someone trusted.
● Professional support: If the cycle cannot be broken, consulting a professional can be helpful.
Clothing is not just a tool that covers the body; it is a silent witness to our identity, values, and emotions. Sometimes it is a source of pleasure, sometimes a shield, and sometimes a burden. What matters is recognizing the source of our relationship with clothing and maintaining it on a flexible ground that aligns with our values.
Perhaps the real question is not whether we have something to wear, but what story our clothes are telling us.
● Ricadat, E., & Taïeb, L. (2019). I Have Nothing to Wear: Clothing, Pleasure or Torture? (Trans. F. Gür).
Written by: Psychologist Tuğana GÜLTEKİN