The “clothing as language” framework always felt slippery to me. Symbols shift and cultural associations change. If your grounding depends on getting the meaning right, 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 systems.

Jobs said he wore the same black top to reduce decision fatigue. Black was simple. Low noise. Fewer variables. More cognitive space for his work. For a long time I interpreted that as a quirky genius trait. Now I hear it differently. He was describing regulation. He was adjusting his environment to reduce internal load. Later this got repackaged into the symbolic “uniform” idea, but the origin was practical and sensory.

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. It was communicating an identity.

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

I’m not saying one is inherently good and the other bad, but semiotic dressing 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.