This article was co-authored with
Matthew Rozsa.

As the culinary world continues to be rocked by the scandal over Paula
Deen’s racist remarks, the fashion world is being revisited by a similar
specter from its past – i.e., the ghost of John Galliano. 

The ghost has broken his silence. He’s been torn down to his simplest form
or ‘Galliano in the Wilderness,’ as Vanity
Fair is choosing to call it.

It’s been about two and a half years since Galliano went on a hateful
diatribe in Paris. Now he has broken his silence and has chosen to speak to the
public who once relished in his genius.  This is the man who brought the
fantastical feathers to his work and the chiffon cut on the bias.  The man
who ended each runway show with a costume: he was the definition of camp and
brought glamour and drama to each piece of work.  This kind of artistry
can never be taken away from him.

This brings us to Paris: February 23rd, 2011.  Cobblestoned
streets lined with cafes, patrons imbibing their nightly wine as they watch the
“City of Lights” morph from day to night.  What made this night different
from all other Parisian nights?  John Galliano: head designer at reputable
and storied couture house Christian Dior found himself at La Perle, his
neighborhood haunt and a stone’s throw from his flat. 

Although it was unknown to his adoring fans and cohort (with the exception
of his closest confidantes) Galliano had been operating under a dangerous
cocktail of medications and alcohol.  This night was no exception. 
Even in an industry known for its lenience toward hedonistic excesses, it was
clear that Galliano had crossed
a line.  First there was his verbal assault at La Perle, where he had
attacked the man for his Asian background (“Fucking Asian bastard, I’ll
kill you”) and the woman for being Jewish (“Dirty Jewish face, you
should be dead”). To make matters worse, the British tabloid The Sun posted a video four days later
of Galliano telling a Jewish woman, “I love Hitler. People like you would
be dead today. Your mothers, your forefathers, would all be fucking gassed, and
fucking dead.” Even his superficial comments about not wanting world peace for
“people that are ugly” seemed tame by comparison.

Instantly, Galliano went viral: for all the wrong reasons.

This news hit the fashion industry like a hard rock.  It was time to
make a decision about the future of John Galliano.  First, there was the
widely publicized humiliation, his dismissal from Dior, Saks Fifth Avenue
pulling his men’s collection from their floors, and the criminal charges
(anti-Semitic and racist remarks are illegal in France). Things culminated in
his public disavowal by actress Natalie Portman – who ironically, was the face
of the Dior fragrance at the time, and refused to wear a Dior confection to the
Oscars that year.

This was promptly followed by two years of apologies, synagogue visits, and
rehab. Now, with an interview and feature story in Vanity Fair, Galliano is hoping that this up close and personal
character study can convince the public to decide that his days of repentance
have come to an honorable end and will warrant forgiveness.

Two questions come to mind.

First, to what extent should a professional legacy be tarnished by
revelations of severe character flaws?

It’s noteworthy to mention that not everyone in the fashion world shunned
Galliano after the 2011 scandal broke.  Some of his closet allies stood by
him personally and professionally.  Soon after the incident, Galliano
entered rehab, and upon his return to the real world, supermodel Kate Moss
asked him to design the dress for her wedding five months after the incident.
Anna Wintour, Editor-in-Chief of Vogue, is also a longtime friend and supporter
of Galliano, and as such published a spread of his work for Moss’s wedding.
Neither Wintour nor Vogue ever released an official statement on Galliano’s
fall from glory, but putting such a spread in Vogue was a statement in and of
itself.

The other question is whether, in an era that is oversaturated with
celebrity proclamations of remorse, to what extent can these apologies be taken
seriously anymore?

In a strange way, the answers to both these questions can be reduced to a
single word – catharsis. As defined by H. L. Mencken (in an essay,
ironically enough, devoted to defending the death penalty), the Aristotelian
notion of catharsis hold that societies have a visceral need for the
“salubrious discharge of emotions, a healthy letting off of steam”
whenever there is a sense that they have been wronged. For better or worse,
public figures like John Galliano are held in such high regard that society
itself feels wronged, even betrayed, when they fatally undermine our confidence
in their character. When such a wrong is perceived to have occurred, the needs
of collective social catharsis dictate that it must somehow be rectified.

Has Galliano rectified it? It seems like he has relieved it for himself,
certainly. Few can doubt that he earnestly desires to move on from this
incident. Then again, in his interview, he focuses a great deal on how these
were manifestations of his subconscious mind. Over and over again he seems to
relapse into the language of excuses – not denying accountability, per se, but
still attempting to contextualize his past rather than simply accept it. He
cites professional projects, personal traumas, and just about anything else he
can to send the message that the monster who appeared on those Paris streets
wasn’t really him. It leaves the reader with a sense of questions only
partially answered.

Then again, what could he say? If he is an anti-Semite, could he ever openly
admit it? If he isn’t, how could he reconcile what he said with his true inner
convictions?

Can the public truly determine that Galliano has paid his dues, that he has
showed his respect and fully come around? 

It’s hard to know.  But as more celebrities embarrass themselves by
slipping into the realm of the un-PC – and there is no doubt that many more
will do so – this is a question that we will need to answer.