Chapter 2. Literature Review
2.2 Sociological discourse
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the grand motor force of taste, and the influence of fashion goes beyond individual taste and our past perceptions of fashion; it molds our concept of what is beautiful” (p. 79). However, the people’s taste in clothing is only considered fashionable when it is constructed by institutional factors.
Squicciarino (2012) explains that during the 17th century, upper classes in France dressed
“à la mode”, i.e. according to the French taste, in order to differentiate themselves from the austere dress of the dominant Spanish court (p.151). The word ‘mode’ has been used to refer the constant changes in clothing. Continuing with the perspective of innovation, Squicciarino (2006, p. 156) borrows Squillace’s definition of fashion: fashion is “a social phenomenon of psycho-collective origin and of aesthetic character, that satisfies the need of innovate and change, as well as the desire to look, to shine, to compete and to win.”
Other authors have seen fashion as a way to express oneself. For instance, Kawamura (2005, p. 28) quotes Cannon:
Fashion is an inherent part of human social interaction and not the creation of an elite group of designers, producers or marketers. Because of its basis in individual social comparison, fashion cannot be controlled without undermining its ultimate purpose, which is the expression of individual identity. If self-identity were never in doubt and social comparison never took place, there would be no demand for fashion, and there would be no need or opportunity for style change.
2.2 Sociological discourse
First, we will analyze the concept of imitation in fashion. Kawamura (2005, p. 20) quotes
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Hunt: “imitation is typically a view from above since it assumes that social inferiors envy superiors and engage in imitative activities to emulate their ‘betters’ in order to gain recognition and even entry into the privileged group.” Similarly, Squicciarino (2012, p.
153-154) uses Spencer’s observation: fashion is intrinsically imitative, as fashion attempts to produce the similarities and the equalization of the inferiors with the superiors through a competitive imitation. It is about rivalry, rather than admiration from inferiors. In Spencer’s theory, upper classes try to differentiate themselves from the lower classes, while these, at the same time, by imitating the upper classes in clothing, try to satisfy their desire to belong to an upper class, and to differentiate themselves from the lower classes. Quoted by Crane (2000, p.6), Simmel adds that the highest-status groups sought once again to differentiate themselves from their inferiors by adopting new fashions. And this, in turn, starts the cycle all over again. Simmel’s scheme elevates the prestige of the elite to the position of major importance in the fashion process. Kawamura (2005, p. 20, 22) continues with Spencer’s observations when he implies that what is important is not the actual clothes that are worn, but the wearer’s position in society, which has the power to transform clothing into fashion.
In addition, Spencer considers two types of imitations: competitive and reverential. The former is prompted by the desire to assert equality with a person. And, the latter is prompted by reverence for the one imitated. For instance, any modification of dress adopted by a king is imitated by courtiers and spreads downwards; the result of this process is ‘fashion’ in clothing. This is exactly a fundamental principle of the trickle-down theory, which was studied by Spencer in 1896, Veblen in 1899 and Simmel in 1904. As the name implies, fashion is launched at the top of the social structure and eventually works its way down to bottom, i.e. fashion is diffused vertically. In Squicciarino’s book (2006) Simmel positions
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the roots of fashion in two tendencies the human being adopts: the tendency for imitation or social equality and the tendency of individual differentiation or change (p. 154). Thus, this creates the following paradox: does fashion encourage a democratized equality or a differentiated exclusion? In other words, whether fashion aggregates individuals of a social class from others, or fashion poses a threat to the upper class, while offering at the same time an opportunity to lower classes to cross that class boundary.
According to Squicciarino (2006, p. 155) Veblen in his The Theory of Leisure Class defends the trickle-down theory, as fashion and consumerism phenomena depend on the social structure and not on natural needs. He argues that in its origins, fashion served to express one’s wealth and to demonstrate consumption without any physical effort. In Kawamura’s study (2005, p. 97) we find that within Veblen’s analytical framework regarding to the institutionalization of the leisure class through consumption activities, he identifies three concepts: Conspicuous consumption, conspicuous waste and conspicuous leisure. The first aims to impress others and demonstrate one’s purchasing power. The second demonstrate one’s wealth by giving away one’s possessions. And, the third shows a life devoted for leisure, without any labor or effort, thus it displays one’s social status.
Veblen’s discussion emphasizes the fact that people acquire goods to compete with others.
We copy those of higher status with whom we are competing. Thus, as Kawamura (2005) concludes in Veblen’s analysis, being fashionable has to be something that is envied and desired; otherwise, the consumer would not adopt fashion nor wish to be fashionable (p. 97).
Martínez Barreiro (2006, p. 188) limits the validity of the trickle-down conception solely for pre-consumerist societies, such as those studied by Veblen. But it can also be valid for consumerist societies, as those studied by Bourdieu, as the trickle-down theory depends on
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the class structure of a capitalist society. However, a society, in which a developed capitalist system favored by the mass production, the mass communication and the social mobility, has gradually removed the strict class distinctions. Squicciarino (2012, p. 165) argues that new fashions appear and stay within the middle-class, who constitutes the main subjects in this contemporary period. Therefore, democratization and social change have allowed fashions to be spread both to the top and to the bottom within a less obvious social hierarchy.
Regarding to our contemporary society, fashion is no longer only a trickle-down process,
“but also a ‘trickle-across’ process,” argues Veblen, quoted by Kawamura (2005, p. 58).
Such ‘trickle-across’ process claims that fashion moves horizontally between groups on similar social levels. Spencer also suggested a similar view when he explained fashion is intrinsically imitative. In addition, fashion can even be a ‘trickle-up’ or ‘bubble-up’ process, and Kawamura (2005, p. 31) uses Blumer’s proposition when he situates consumers in the construction of fashion. Fashion is initiated and adopted from the bottom and it eventually moves to upper classes. According to Kawamura (2005), as consumers become increasingly fashionable and fashion conscious in modern and postmodern societies, they themselves become producers. For instance, street fashion began as anti-fashion, but ironically it was acknowledged as fashion (p. 101).
On the other hand, Squicciarino (2006, p. 166, 167) adds a fourth model, which he defines as model of the marionette or trickle-effect. This concept can be present in consumerist societies: although there is a general improvement in life quality, it would still exist an invisible stratified pyramid among social classes. This can be influenced by the increasing “bombing” of advertisement to encourage consumption.
Contemporary sociologists have reviewed these earlier works on fashion and most of
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
them reject the class-differentiation. For instance, Kawamura (2005, p. 30-31) uses Blumer’s perspective, as he replaces the trickle-down theory with the collective selection theory. He argues that the class differentiation model is rather suitable for European fashions in the 17th-19th centuries, but no longer applicable to fashion in contemporary society. For Blumer,
“the fashion mechanism appears not in response to a need of class differentiation and class emulation, but in response to a wish to be in fashion, to be abreast of what has good standing, to express new tastes, which are emerging in a changing world”. Thus, fashion is led by the taste of the contemporary collective mass, rather than by the prestige of the elite.
After we have reviewed the theoretical frameworks around fashion, with a special focus on the concept of imitation within stratified societies resulting in various theories (the trickle-down, the trickle-across, the trickle-up and the trickle-effect), we have also observed that fashion is not always influenced by socioeconomic factors, but by the tastes and preferences of the individuals themselves. As we can see, by giving a social perspective to fashion, we can better understand the significance of fashion in the society today.