The “clothing as language” framework always felt tenuous to me. Symbols shift and cultural associations change. If your understanding relies on interpreting meaning accurately, then stability is fragile.

What finally helped me articulate this difference was an unexpected comparison: Steve Jobs and Elizabeth Holmes. Both wore black tops. But the motivation behind the same visual choice came from completely different mindsets.

Jobs said he wore the same black top to reduce decision fatigue. Black was simple. It reduced distractions and limited variables, which allowed more cognitive space for his work. Initially, I interpreted that as a quirky trait, but now I hear it differently. He was describing regulation. He was adjusting his environment to reduce cognitive overload. Later this got repackaged into a symbolic productivity hack, but the origins were practical and sensory

Similarly, Holmes also wore a black turtleneck, inspired by Jobs. But in her case the garment functioned as a symbol. It was meant to communicate seriousness and credibility. The clothing wasn’t about her environment at all. It was communicating an identity.

So that is the same garment, but two different motives.

I’m not saying one is inherently good or bad, but semiotics always carries more volatility, because symbols depend on interpretation. Environmental dressing depends on your lived sensation. One is negotiated socially. The other is experienced directly.