The Faces of Change: How Modeling Reflects the Shifts of Society

The modeling industry has never existed in a vacuum. It has always reflected the cultural, political, and economic moment. Who is cast in campaigns, who debuts on runways, and who becomes the face of a generation has as much to do with society’s climate as with beauty or talent.

In the 1950s, advertising sold the post-war dream of suburban life, complete with the idealized wife and family. By the 1970s, campaigns mirrored rebellion—women’s liberation, counterculture, and social upheaval. The 1990s brought the supermodel era, when globalization and youth culture turned Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford, Christy Turlington, and Linda Evangelista into household names. They weren’t just booked for campaigns; they were marketed as brands, cementing the model as cultural icon.

The 2000s shifted that power away from models and toward celebrities. Actors and musicians increasingly fronted campaigns, redefining what it meant to represent a global brand. A decade later, the influencer economy disrupted the system again, replacing runway debuts with digital reach. Today, Instagram and TikTok are as influential as Fashion Week in determining who captures attention.

What’s important to understand is that these changes aren’t about fashion alone. They are about society. When culture moves, advertising pivots—and models are the faces of that pivot.

Take the Black Lives Matter movement. Fashion responded with one of its sharpest shifts, as luxury houses like Gucci and Chanel expanded casting for models of color and agencies rushed to diversify their boards. Commercial brands from Nike to Sephora made visible changes in representation. But casting alone was only part of the story. Behind the scenes, conversations grew louder about how unprepared many hair and makeup teams were to support diverse models. Too often, foundations for deeper skin tones were missing from artists’ kits, or stylists didn’t know how to work with textured hair. This became a public conversation, and it forced the industry to acknowledge that inclusivity must extend beyond the runway to the entire production team. Today, there is far greater awareness that true representation requires both faces in front of the camera and professionals behind it equipped to meet their needs.

The body positivity and inclusivity movement created a similar reckoning. Aerie’s #AerieREAL campaign broke ground by showing unretouched images of women of different shapes and sizes, and Savage X Fenty rewrote the rulebook on lingerie runways with casting that celebrated every body. Target even introduced mannequins in a variety of shapes, signaling a lasting change at the retail level. Yet here too, the shift exposed cracks. Mid-size and curve models often arrived on set only to find sample-size clothing that didn’t fit them. Stylists who had never been trained to tailor for a size beyond a two were suddenly forced to relearn basics of proportion and fit. The industry began to realize that booking a curve model was not enough—supporting them professionally required systemic change in styling and design.

Conversations around gender and sexuality deepened this evolution. As LGBTQIA+ visibility moved into the mainstream, campaigns began featuring trans, nonbinary, and queer talent. Valentina Sampaio’s historic casting as the first openly trans model for Victoria’s Secret was a symbolic turning point for an industry long criticized for exclusion. Pride campaigns and gender-fluid casting at international fashion weeks reflected the growing demand for inclusivity. Yet here too, progress wasn’t only about visibility. Production teams had to adapt, learning to respect pronouns on call sheets, rethink styling choices, and move away from forcing models into rigidly masculine or feminine presentations. Makeup and wardrobe became tools to reflect identity rather than override it, showing that genuine representation requires structural change backstage as much as it does in front of the camera.

The #MeToo movement struck fashion directly. Long-ignored abuses by photographers like Mario Testino and Bruce Weber came into the spotlight, and brands and publications were forced to respond. Fashion houses cut ties, Vogue pledged greater oversight, and agencies implemented new codes of conduct, including policies requiring chaperones for young talent. Dior’s “We Should All Be Feminists” campaign was one of many that leaned into narratives of strength and autonomy, signaling that the industry could no longer ignore workplace misconduct.

Even debates over women’s rights and reproductive freedoms have filtered into the industry. Levi’s publicly announced it would reimburse employees for healthcare-related travel, while other brands stayed neutral but quietly shifted their creative to emphasize female resilience, autonomy, and multigenerational strength.

Still, change in modeling is rarely linear. Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives opened unprecedented opportunities, only for many brands to scale them back once DEI became politically polarizing. Target’s Pride Collection backlash in 2023 showed how quickly strategies could pivot under consumer pressure. For models, these swings are immediate and personal. One season’s breakthrough moment can vanish by the next, not because of individual performance, but because of where the cultural pendulum lands.

And always, economics decides what endures. Nike’s decision to feature Colin Kaepernick in its campaign sparked controversy but ultimately boosted sales, proving that alignment with cultural conversation can be profitable. Other brands have retreated under pressure, showing that when profit is threatened, strategy shifts quickly. Casting decisions are rarely moral—they are commercial.

Looking ahead, the pendulum will swing again. Economic pressures, global politics, and consumer demand will continue to reshape who gets booked.

The next wave may not be defined by one aesthetic or one social movement, but by something far more pressing: authenticity in an era of artificiality. AI-generated models and digital campaigns are already entering the market, raising uncomfortable questions about the value of human representation. Brands may be tempted by efficiency, but the industry must tread carefully. Fashion has always been about aspiration, but it is also about connection—and connection requires humanity.

If the industry wants to protect itself, and the people within it, agencies and brands must commit to transparency. Consumers deserve to know when an image has been digitally created, and real models must be given opportunities that highlight their individuality—something no algorithm can replicate. The strength of this business has always been the ability of a model to embody a moment, to carry both a garment and an idea. That cannot be outsourced to code.

The path forward will not be without turbulence, but it does not need to be destructive. If history has shown us anything, it is that fashion adapts. The challenge now is ensuring that in adapting, we don’t erase the countless people who make this industry what it is—from the models in front of the camera to the agents, casting directors, producers, and artists working behind it. Protecting the people at every level of this business is the only way to protect the industry itself.