Social satires and caricatures focusing on fashion were prevalent in the USSR, particularly ones with a focus on the Western influence of Soviet fashion. Many publications ridiculed fashions which failed to adhere to the status quo, however, arguably, the publication titled ‘Krokodil’ (translating to ‘crocodile’) was the most ubiquitous of them all. In this essay, I will be analysing two different fashion caricatures, which were used as covers for this publication – which, in my opinion, represent the disdain held for the capitalist West in the USSR through the lens of fashion. I will also be exploring the topic of how Western and alternative fashions were mocked as they were seen as a tool through which capitalist ideologies could infiltrate the communist world, with a focus on caricatures produced during the period of the Cold War.

‘Krokodil’ was a publication which was first established in 1922, as a satirical magazine which tackled social, political, as well as economic themes and was highly popular in the USSR, with the great majority of the contemporary post-Soviet population being aware of its existence, despite its closing in 2008. The magazine’s fashion satires and caricatures mainly focused on a youth subculture which was termed as ‘stilyagi’, with the closest translation of the word being ‘hipsters’, and the literal translation being – someone who it stylish, but the declension of the word suggests mockery and belittling. The term itself was coined by Dmitry Belayev, the editor in chief of the publication from 1948-53 (Etty, 2019), and he never hid his dislike for the subculture, once writing in the publication that ‘“they’ve worked out their own style of clothing, speech, and manners. The most important part of their style is not to resemble normal people. As you see, their efforts take them to absurd extremes. The stilyaga knows the fashions all over the world, but he doesn’t know Griboedov,’” (Belayev, 1949 cited in Etty, 2019, p.205).

This quote by Belayev suggests that he saw the stilyagi as uneducated people (Griboedov, mentioned in the quote, attained a cult status as a playwright and academic, and awareness of his work denoted a familiarity with high culture and signified cultural capital) who were only interested in fashion. Thus, he was likening an interest in fashion, in this case foreign, presumably Western fashion to something which was inferior to other interests and leisure activities available to Soviet citizens. This might help contextualise the negative implications and connotations of the Krokodil satires that will be addressed and analysed in this essay.

Figure 1 is the cover of Krokodil for August 23, 1968, illustrated by E. Shukaeva. The cartoon shows an elderly Soviet couple scrutinizing a young couple in the street. The text in the cartoon translates to “-Well, I understand, she was born in a shirt … But why go out in the street like this?”. Essentially, the elder, conforming Soviet citizens are mocking the young ‘Soviet non-conforming’ lady for adhering to Western fashions of the time – specifically that of miniskirts and shorter dresses in the 1960s.

There is a double meaning to the caption accompanying the drawing – “born in a shirt” is a Russian saying which refers to people who are lucky and happy since birth. Dokuchaeva (n.d.) writes that historically, the vernix in which new-borns are covered in used to be referred to as the ‘shirt’, the vernix usually rips in the womb but if it does not, then the baby is born covered in the ‘shirt’, and promptly needs to be rescued in order to live, so children who survived such births were referred to as lucky, and usually as a rule of thumb were going to be happy throughout their lives. While no academic analysis of this particular Krokodil cover exists, it can be assumed that the older couple and the author are shaming young people for perhaps showing off their beauty and style - when read with the saying in mind, the caption sounds more like “Well, I understand that she was born lucky … but why go out in the street like this?” This could also be interpreted as objectification of the young woman in the mini skirt, as perhaps such a body type was seen as desirable in the late 1960s with the rise and popularity of Western models such as Twiggy or Veruschka, who were very slim, and consequently set the norm of the desired body. Therefore, the elderly couple could also be referring to the mini skirt as something that was seen as ‘too Western’, as well as too sexual to be worn out in the street of a Soviet, Communist society.

Interestingly however, according to Vitranen (2021) one of the most alternative and marginal fashions in the late 1960s in the Soviet Union were considered to be jeans – with numerous unsourced caricatures which can be found on social media sites and anonymous blogs, showing young people wearing ‘ridiculous’-looking jeans – with people purchasing them regardless of size or cut, simply being willing to purchase any stye of jeans that was made available for sale. Also, while analysing and looking at primary sources in the form of fashion catalogues, advertisements, and magazines, (Figures 3,4,5) it can be seen that shorter silhouettes, resembling Western fashion of the time were being designed for, sold to and worn by Soviet women in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which begs the question of why Krokodil and E. Shukaeva chose to ridicule such fashion in their 1968 issue.

An inference to answer the query could be that considering the economic and social circumstances of Soviet society, anything that was seen as excessive or unnecessary (mainly spending) – was usually labelled as bourgeois, which was strongly stigmatized. Inevitably, society was changing, and so were the necessities and preferences of people. Many, in the cities, wanted to follow Western fashion on a budget, however the government wanted fashion to stay as stable and long-lasting as possible in order not to spend excessive amount on the production of it (Vitranen, 2021). Consequently, considering the deep commitment of the Krokodil publication to the principles of a Communist (Marxist-Leninist) agenda (Etty, 2019), it can be said that this particular cover is satirising numerous things simultaneously, namely – the West, Capitalism, the bourgeois, young people/stilyagi, non-Soviet fashions and most importantly, the evolving mindsets and perspectives of people – who perhaps did not consider the Capitalist West to be as evil and malicious as Soviet propaganda set it out to be.

The second cover of Krokodil that I will be analysing (Figure 2) is from September 1969. The illustrator is unknown; however, this is also another cover which was dedicated to satirising the fashion of young people, and members of the stilyagi subculture. The cover features two people, dressed nearly identically in an archetypal 1970s hippie or bohemian style, holding hands with signs around their neck showing what gender they are, with the male being on the right and the female being on the left. The caption reads “signs of difference” – ridiculing the appearance of unisex clothing and hair trends. As is the case with the first satire (Figure 1), this satire is also deeply rooted in the political, social, and economic conditions of the time. With the style of hippies first appearing in the West, and subsequently ‘infiltrating’ many different parts of the world, in this case the Soviet Union.

Hippies were a common enough style and ideological subculture for Krokodil to pick up on them and make a caricature ridiculing them. While it was not explicitly against the law to dress like a hippie, it was highly looked down upon in society to speak out against widespread Communist ideologies, rebel against social norms and choose to reject clothing gender norms which were set by the patriarchal structure of society. To elaborate on that, “hippies, while rebelling against the bourgeois order in the West, shared values and modes of behaviour that Soviet authorities perceived as ‘bourgeois’, … public stereotypes of hippies did much to marginalize them, and such stereotypes reveal assumptions about the social order and gender relations,’ (Risch, 2005, p.566) at the time. This proves intriguing, as most would interpret this satire as anti-Western – critiquing ideas such as capitalism, clothing trends and gender neutrality – most probably without the average Krokodil realising that hippies were, in fact, anti-bourgeois. This does not mean that Soviet hippies were fully accepting of the government at the time, but this can mean that the Krokodil publication wanted to ‘demonize’ everything which was connected in any manner with the West, while ignoring any signs of similarity.

Regarding theories of humour and satire, arguably all fashion satires produced by Krokodil at any given time between 1922-1991 are very similar in tone and style. The two covers analysed in this essay are also similar in what they are trying to say to the public about young people and attitudes towards the West. When analysing what type of humour approach these Krokodil covers took, in accordance with the trinity of humour theory which was set out by John Morreal (1998), both satires adhere to the explanation of The Superiority Theory, which can be defined as laughter in the form of ‘an expression of a person’s feelings of superiority over other people,’ (Morreal, 1998, p.4).

Drawing from the definition without any context, analysis, or explanations, both Krokodil satires very blatantly fall under the category of The Superiority Theory. In the 1968 cover (Figure 1), the modestly dressed, elderly couple is lampooning the young woman whose fashion choices they deem to be immoral, provocative, and shocking to see outside the comfort of the home (‘why go out in the street like this?’). Editors and illustrators have to find common ground in terms of what humour is being enjoyed and consumed by their readers, and considering Krokodil was a widespread publication at the time, while also having declared a ‘”war on stilyagi”’ (Kharkhodin, 1999 cited in Etty, 2019) this kind of content in the form of caricatures and satires must have resonated successfully with their audiences, who, solely based on assessment of the 1968 cover, must have felt superior in comparison to the ‘immoral’ youth. Furthermore, since stereotypically the older Soviet population (Krokodil target audiences) were always opposed to change, in this case specifically Westernisation, perhaps Krokodil fashion satires of the stilyagi were a ‘consequence-free’ outlet for them to project their frustrations on to, in the form of laughter, with the ultimate objective being to make them feel morally and intellectually superior to young subcultures who followed Western fashion trends.

Likewise, a similar interpretation can be applied to the 1969 cover (Figure 2) of Krokodil. Another way of analysing the Krokodil covers, is through an argument outlined by Michael Billig (2005, p.202) which states that some forms of satire take the role of social control through ridicule, to condition non-conformers into avoiding ridicule through adhering to social rules. Krokodil is a prime example of this – even though its socio-political nature of content meant there was a need of some form of cultural capital as knowledge of such topics in order to read and understand Krokodil, despite this, such cartoons could have also been aimed at the stilyagi themselves. The purpose of this was to ridicule their beliefs, their intelligence, their interests, particularly in Western fashions and notions, and to make a bold statement of the superiority of the traditional Soviet way of life and mindset over the Western.

Over the years that Krokodil was in print, it satirized fashion and the fashionable youth countless times, indicating that they perceived fashion as both a threat and a powerful tool capable of disrupting the contemporary social order. This perception led to the extensive inclusion of lampooning people for their appearance as a significant part of the Krokodil/Soviet agenda.



Bibliography:
Billig, M. (2005) Laughing and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Laughter. London: SAGE.
Critchley, S. (2011) On Humour. Florence, UNITED STATES: Routledge.
Dokuchaeva, I. (no date) Почему говорят ‘родился в рубашке’? [Why do they say ‘born in a shirt’?], Culture. Available at: https://shorturl.at/uS045 (Accessed: 06 March 2024).
Etty, J. (2019) Graphic Satire in the Soviet Union: Krokodil’s Political Cartoons. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
Karpova, Y. (2009) The Stilyagi: Soviet Youth (Sub)culture of the 1950s and its Fashion. thesis.
Morreall, J. (1998) Taking Laughter Seriously. Albany, New York: State University of New York.
Museum of Modern Art Oxford, Crafts Council of England and Wales (1984) Art into Production: Soviet Textiles, Fashion and Ceramics 1917-1935. London: Shadowdean.
Risch, Wi.J. (2005) ‘Soviet “Flower Children”. Hippies and the Youth Counter-culture in 1970s L’viv’, Journal of Contemporary History, 40(3), pp. 565–584. doi:10.1177/0022009405054572.
Shipakina, A. (2009) Мода в СССР: Советский Кузнецкий, 14 [Fashion in the USSR: Soviet Kuznetsky, 14]. Moscow: Slovo.
Vitranen, M. (2021) Советская Мода 1917-1991 [Soviet Fashion 1917-1991]. Moscow: Дримбук.