The article makes a common "mistake" (from my world view) of assuming that "self" is independent of one's actions and will. But self is defined by one's actions. Your socio-economic status, background, life experience, your friends, your work, your accent are all parts of who you are. Clothing is but one of the various ways to communicate it. If you do great things, you are a great person. If you commit a crime, you are a criminal, even if you say "that's not me, that's not who I really am, that was just a one off". If you feel a particular affinity to the social group that likes Southern Trad, then that is part of your identity as well. YOU choose to spend time educating yourself about various trends in clothing, and then expressing yourself within the constraints of that "artform" - the choice of context is a personal choice for which responsibility should be taken, not absolved or blamed on "circumstances". It is not a negation of self but an affirmation of individualism. It is a source of happiness and pride, not anxiety, even if others perceive it that way (just as you think a Rolex is a waste of money and many posters feel pride and joy every time they put theirs on).
I haven't replied to your reply in our earlier discussion (whether art is propaganda or free of message), although I wanted to. So I'll dump some quick thoughts here and blend it back onto this subject.
I still stick to my guns: all art has a message, all authors are trying to convince you of something. Now what that something is might have been paid for by someone else (Bach, Haydn, Da Vinci) or it could be the author's own opinions and world view (Kerouac). Some authors take something and use it in a different context to give it a different meaning, thus creating new propaganda for their ideas and observations (e.g. in Senso: Bruckner's 7th is basically the entire soundtrack; Bruckner was a deeply religious man whose music can be considered inspired by religion and the sacred; yet the context in which it is used in Senso is such that the emotions are "reused" for a romance that is "bad" from a religious point of view: betraying her husband and her country). I struggled a lot with this as a young composer, because I wanted to believe in art qua art, yet my best works came about as a result of constraints and conformity and a patron: for example the music for a theatre play, in other words, implementing someone else's message and adding a little bit of mine with it.
Art is fundamentally manipulation: it attempts to hijack and direct your emotions to achieve a particular goal. If you look at the mechanics of manipulation - be it ad hominem, red herrings, appeal to moderation, fallacy of composition - they all rely on departing from logic and using some form of appeal to emotion to cover it up and lead you to accept a conclusion you might have rejected. Another argument might be that communication between humans is naturally high bandwidth and even with the bandwidth afforded by commonly understood context and the fuzzy logic of the language itself, emotions are a necessary path to communicating higher order things that would be otherwise impossible to "word". For example: if I make a mental picture of a wife telling her husband "can you be more considerate?" every married man out there understands and is laughing right now, there is a common ground here, a lesson that experience teaches you about EQ, first with instinct and only much later with logic as you have gained the necessary experience.
And so we get to fashion as emotional manipulation (using the physical world, this time, instead of fallacies) to achieve a goal. What you put in the morning sets out to achieve a series of goals: it might be to obtain attention and consideration from others ("your dress is so nice, it makes me happy just to look at it"), it might be to signify your social status, which is not linear: putting on a suit for clients is telling clients you have a professional kind of personality; shining your shoes that you are detail oriented; being on time that you are reliable. The suited man does this because he is professional, detail oriented and reliable - these traits are part of his personality and thus his "conformist" dress counts as self expression.
This very post is also attempting to convince you of something, it is thus also propaganda, caveat emptor.