We can now all wear whatever we want
...s may desire consumer goods which they cannot afford, thus altering the symbolic life of the poor. People are compelled by images and dramas in the media, so their imaginations become formed and shaped by ‘modern consumerism’. No longer do people spend foolishly on trivial items (calvanism; a moral disdain for worldly pleasures and life without work) but rather to articulate a sense of identity, of who they wish to be taken to be. Campbell traces ‘elective affinities’ linking movements in literature, culture and music to modern consumption. Simmel, Weber and Veblen use patterns of consumption to be significant in perceiving class, as it is used as a means of marking out and symbolising group identity and lifestyle from that of others. Complex and uncertain relationship between production and consumption of fashion. Eg jeans that don’t fade are good quality but jeans that do fade are ‘fashionable’. Which should be produced? Producers and retailers may misread taste but if all produce the same, we have no choice but to accept their taste (unless make own clothes-anti fashion). Conversely, producers who ignore the rise of street trends today can lose out commercially. Designers who dismissed the urban category in the 1980s will now realise the importance of understanding the changing face of America, and in general why and what should be produced. Certain phenomenon’s and trends on other areas may affect fashions in clothes. Changes can cause costly mark downs for producers It took 100 years for Levis to become synonymous with youth. Why? What caused this transformation? From then on, quickly moved onto designer innovations (Calvin Klein). Other designers quickly follow in pursuit of success. “Aura of conspicuous consumption to a garment of…..humble origins” Signifies that fashion does not necessarily emanate from elite groups but may also move ‘upwards’. Irony that designer jeans imitating the authentic original usually cost more Public may refrain from consuming certain designers selectives, giving credence to the notion of a considerable gulf between the look on a catwalk and what is primarily worn. What are the reasons for this? Veblen was the first to remark, in 1899 (The Theory of the Leisure Class, Modern Library, Random House, New York 1934), that, in a market, what and whether one buys is determined partially by what and whether many others have also bought. In short, demand by the consumer is bound partially to interpersonal effects. Veblen: “Expenditure for display is more obviously present and…more universally practiced in the matter of dress than in any other line of consumption” World Wars I and II delayed the development of mass consumption and therefore the rise of affluent workers. Those in new, rising industries experienced increasing wages and were accordingly enabled to consume conspicuously. The growing disparagences between these workers and those employed in declining, heavy industries increased the apparence of lifestyle and consumption patterns as indicators of identity rather than the paid work role. Marcuse distinguished between true and false needs, as the incomes rise, the role of media increases and choice widens, needs become increasingly false, whist true needs remain latently stable. Barthes appropriated a dual aspect approach to consumerism. This allowed for consumption to both fulfil a need but in addition to this convey social and cultural symbols and structures, referred to as significations and maintain distinctions and establish boundaries. No mention is made that these distinctions are related to class. (use postmodern stuff at end of this section going into subcultures) Whilst the concept of post-modern is not widely accepted or understood, those who do believe postmodernism does exist think most post-modernisms emerge as specific reactions against the established form of modernism. The unity of this new impulse, if it has one at all, is given not in itself but in the very modernism it seeks to replace. The modernisms of hip-hop street culture for example be the practical use of garments such as sweatsuits and fat-laced Adidas trainers for break-dance moves in the late 1980s. The postmodern displacement involves the widespread adorning of such attire in cities across the world because it reflects an affiliation with this group and separates from all others, even if the wearer has no experience of gang warfare or break-dance. If the parent culture reflects modernism, one subcultural example is the domination of the 1950s ‘Happy Days’ teddy boy scene. Black leather jackets, greased hair represented the zeitgeist. The displacement of this can be seen as our postmodernism. The white youth rebel against this, attracted by the ghetto romance displayed in baggy trousers, basket ball vests and expensive trainers, as worn by their favourite rap artists, just as youth in the 1950s copied the current rock and roll stars. Postmodernisms feature the effacement of some key boundaries or separations, most notably the erosion of the older distinction between high culture and mass/popular culture. Pastiche is a significant feature or practice in postmodernism. It involves the mimicry of other styles and mannerism but unlike a parody, is a neutral practice of such imitation. Hip-hop is a prime example for many of those who adopt the style, but it is impossible to reason that this style holds this meaning to all that choose to dress this way. In a world where stylistic innovation is no longer possible, all that is left is to imitate dead styles, but the reason for doing so is not homogenous. Post-modernism challenges ‘totalising’ explanations of the world and offers the opportunity to re-evaluate ‘kitsch’ and low aesthetic and cultural forms, and to break down the distinction between high art and popular culture Is fashion homogenous (created centrally by elites than transmitted downwards to mass and outwards to periphery---Traditional view) or is fashion more polycentric and diverse since the 1960s-70s onwards? There is a division as to whether postmodernism even exists, but contemporary society is demonstrably moving towards people dressing according to what they want to portray, if not what they innately want to wear. Wark spoke of “New modes of fashionability in a far more widely dispersed information landscapes”. A phase of knowing and practice, abandoning the assumptions, prejudices and constraints of modernism to embrace the contradictions, irony and profusion of mass culture. Pastiche and parody of multiple styles; old forms of ‘content’ become mere ‘styles’ for example Burberry. Stylistic masks, image styles without present content; the meaning is in the mimicry. “In a world where stylistic innovation is no longer possible, all that is left is to imitate dead styles” Jameson. No individualism, all signifiers circulate prior and existing images and styles. Sense of fragmentation and decentralised self, multiple and conflicting identities, rejection of totalising theories. Central and indispensable in the city. Served to underline elaborate rituals of bourgeois life (different activities = different outfits). Signal to other strangers the class and status of the individual, thus countering to some extent the social disorientation threatened by urban life. Large cities developed consumer centres and department stores from 1890 onwards and a new, distinctive culture emerged accordingly. Simmel observed the daily life of people as being affected by the need to cultivate a ‘blasé attitude towards others’. This was thought be done as a way to tolerate the extremes and rush of modern life by screening out complex stimuli. “Only outlet…is to cultivate a sham of individualism through the pursuit of signs of status, fashion or marks of eccentricity”. Dedicated followers have an urban audience to parade before. Rise of mass media makes the ‘performance’ more knowing. Fashion was and arguably still is used to preserve the autonomy and individuality of existence in the face of overwhelming social forces, as found in city environments. Frisby supports this claim in understanding the significance lies in the form of being different, standing out of the crowd or attracting attention in some way rather than the physical content. The shifting impression must be made in the shortest possible time, so attire is the ideal way to portray this. Living in cities increases style awareness and therefore the need to consume both distinctively to a specific social group and expressively of individual preference. The increasing presence of sub-cultures can often be linked to the rise of cities and metropolitan lifestyles. Sometimes however it is quite apparent why people decide to wear what they do. This is more obvious in the cases of sub-cultures, who adopt specific looks often to portray a very specific affiliation or rebellion. The rap genre started in the 1970s with funky beats resonating at house parties, basement gigs and on the New York streets. Black youth were expressing themselves at this time using this rhythmic form as well as graffiti and breakdancing. The commercial history began with the enormously successful release of Sugar Hill Gangs’ ‘Rappers Delight’. Critical difference between widely accepted clothing and ‘fashion’. Paradox that what is widely accepted is therefore (for this reason) no longer fashionable. The postmodern move towards niche groups and subcutures however mean that the movements of mainstream fashion are unimportant to an increasing number of people. In pre-modern times there was no fashion, but now, post modern times are moving towards a point where the singular idea of fashion (ie what is moved from catwalk and into shops in ready to wear form) which was prominent in the modern era is becoming smaller and smaller as the number of groups and their members breaking away from this and doing their own thing is growing. It certainly seems possible where a time will come when the ‘fashion’ is non-existent and the entire notion will be fragmented into the groups where the cause of the dress and the story it tells is all that matters, unlike modern times where the central fashion is prominent, and we are informed what we ‘ought’ to wear if we want to be fashionable. Maffesoli decided the conventional approaches to understanding solidarity and society are deeply flawed. Contended that mass culture has disintegrated and that today social existence is conducted through fragmented tribal groupings. Tribes are organised around catchwords, brand names and sound bites of consumer culture. Maffesoli insists that in the midst of fashion fads, new forms of social collectivity are taking root which challenge our established modes of politics and tradition Real innovators without peers are few and far between. But the same is true in fashion: one distinguishes oneself from the crowd by imitating some admired and envied personality. On the other hand, even the millionth girl who decides to cut her hair "according to the latest fashion" still distinguishes herself: from her mother or from the girl next door who still does not dare to do it. Fashion or antifashion? In America, urban youth such as ‘B-boys’ and ‘gangsters’ create a unique sense of style in the face of limited resources, which requires imagination and imagery to divert attention to a cause, rather than a lack of prestige in the clothes they wear. Labels in a way ‘do the work’ for people who could afford them, as the image is plainly displayed. The appeal of this is demonstrated by the success of designers and the growing market for counterfeits. Similarly, the rise in the number of students in cities such as London has created an eclectic, alternative breed of fashion which coexists with high fashion, constrained only by budget and imagination. ‘Others’ can find a voice through the move toward niche groups and away from massified culture. Those previously constrained by lack of affluences to adopt mainstream fashion branch out to create their own trends and methods of signifying identity and distinction. This notion supports the trancension of non-Western cultures in recent years, where western looks coexist with traditional attire and new unique looks amongst creative and expressive youth. Movement from massified culture towards niche groups. The dress and style of hip-hoppers bound members regardless of ethnicity in the same way the pidgin language used meant members could be understood regardless of their first language. The signs portrayed where universally understood in Tokyo, London, New York or Milan. Cultural and sub-cultural groups create their own fashions or adopt something to make it fashionable. Causes fashion to move upwards and outwards, even to the point where it becomes high fashion. Since the 1950s, contemporary youth culture has been dividided into subcultures, each distinguished by the objects and insignia of a particular consumer style. Often associated with strong differentiations from other groups apparent at that time and gang mentality. Only when young people earned enough to consume to symbolise a distinctive lifestyle, could this phenomenon arise, so it is generally regarded as a modern process. Patterns of consumption vary between dimensions but also within them, producing cultures split into a number of sub-cultures. Street culture is conveyed through a matter of glances and numerous but brief interactions. Clothing lends the best form with which to make a quick impression. Consume but also being seen to consume. Skinhead culture selectively reaffirms certain core values of traditional working class culture, expressed in dress, style, appearance and activities. The reaffirmation is symbolic rather than a real attempt to recreate aspects of the ‘parent culture’ through the ‘mob’. Similar in how postmodernism is said to replace specific modernisms. Elements of continuity in terms of style content and discontinuity in terms of the form of the style between the parent culture and youth subculture. Can be related to whether postmodernism exists or if we are still living an a modern age. Example: A business man may look at a boy with green hair and piercings as a freak and outsider, but to another person, the boy is a strict conformist. He dresses in a certain way to deliver the message of rebellion and separation, but within that group, the look is uniform. Acceptance or rejection of a style is a reaction of the society we live in. The perspectives that people develop (or content of subcultural belief systems) are a consequence of their location in social space and their experience of it. The implication of this is if peoples ideas, values and perhaps even sense of identity are dependant on their experience of different social contexts, class, community, job, religion etc it follows that there will be considerable heterogeneity in the culture of a modern or post modern society, whichever is considered to be the contemporary world we live in. If so, it may not make much analytic sense to speak of a societies culture as being more or less homogenous or integrated. Even if people speak the same language for example, they may desire or value different things, and possibly fight each other to achieve them. While Durkheim spoke of the need for the members of societies to be sufficiently attached to the conscious collective, Webers view of the social order was that conflict, competition and struggle for advantage are ubiquitous even when physical violence and overt conflict are absent. Teddy boys of South and East London, Mods of Carnaby Street, Punks of Kings Road made the streets a stage for sartorial delinquency. Commercialisation has blunted the shock value of styles like these, London is seen to have an edgy, amateurish grit. Ethnic communities have always been part of London’s demographic make-up. Fusion of traditional styles of cut, construction and decoration from across the world that is so characteristic of clothing designed and worn in London, reflects the city’s openness to other cultures but also its passion for novelty, style and change. Resistance is characteristic of many sub-cultures, and usually the seed of its popularity. As consumers become younger, their voices are heard earlier than twenty years ago. Rebelling against parents is a common start in life, and the controversy surrounding rap music is an ideal vehicle for the associated fashion to be adopted by youth searching for liberation. Simmels notion of the importance of novelty is important. Whilst the style is not a recent one, in many cases its novelty to an individual is all that is required, and the ability to shock parental or official figures goes hand-in-hand with this. In the same way as rock and heavy metal, which now largely forms part of a more acceptable parent culture, rap is a platform of rebellion for many youths. In twentieth century when mass fashion really starts to take over, it is also used as an expansion of elaborate self-definitions and group affiliations. Urban hip-hoppers adorn themselves with the most unlikely ‘preppy’ labels. Clothing styles that include such bourgeois labels such as Tommy Hilfiger, Hackett or Ralph Lauren seemingly contradict the image of the street. Young urban blacks coopted the dress of upper crust whites as a manifestation of their lack of power in American society. While actual material success maybe unattainable, the rationale for adorning expensive polo shirts, blue jeans and trainers is to present the image of success. White youth have romantisise the ghetto life black youth try to escape and express disdain of their fortunes by identifying with the renegade of the street, they respect the defiance of the black frustration. Although from a different angle, the act of rebellion is the same. Today 75% of the hip-hop culture consumers are white, which is ironically likely to be a result of their greater means to purchase these labels and music, and in larger quantities. The 100 year rein of Paris haute-couture acted as the ideal model for the classical sociological and philosophical analysis’s of fashion. However this model appears to be becoming increasingly unrepresentative of the society many of us live in today. Infact the theory that fashion creators always belong to the upper social classes is often contested. Instead, it is well known - and often said - that many fashions taken up by snobs come from the humblest origins. For example, blue jeans originated as the humble pants of American cowboys and gold miners. And Western-style male dressing - which comes down to us from the nineteenth century - derives from the Quakers' attire, not from the Court aristocracy, which means that it derived from the fashion of an oft-derided religious group. Much of the slang spoken by social fringe groups becomes fashionable. The classical French argot was the language of the underworld. Simmel himself realised this when he spoke about the demi-monde, the underworld: "The fact that the demi-monde is so frequently a pioneer in matters of fashion, is due to its peculiarly uprooted form of life. The pariah existence to which society condemns the demi-monde, produces an open or latent hatred against everything that has the sanction of law, of every permanent institution ... In this continual striving for new, previously unheard-of fashions, in the regardlessness with which the one that is most diametrically opposed to the existing one is passionately adopted, there lurks an aesthetic expression of the desire for destruction, which seems to be an element peculiar to all that lead” It is now futile to look towards Paris or Milan as the centre of fashion, fashion now originates from a range of sources, groups and designers. High fashion designers are now just as likely to adapt or appropriate street fashions in their own creations as they scour more traditional sources for ideas. This is signified through the move from fashion being determined by elite ‘trickling down’ to masses, to mass production and consumption to now, where flexible production and consumption becomes more diverse and segmented inline with increasingly polycentric origins. No seasons in street fashion or pop culture as in the classic ‘trickle down’ model due to lack of orderly couture dissemination. Blumer thought that style only comes into fashion if it corresponds to what he terms ‘the incipient taste of the fashion consuming public’. Taste The significant question this poses is why this is what it is, and why is there any conformism at all? The issue of taste can be problematical, particularly in contemporary society. We are aware of a standard of ‘good taste’ but do we know where it emanates from, and why it is accepted when there are quite obviously numerous opinions of what is tasteful and what isn’t. In addition to this, the question of why taste alters as the years pass, is ignored. Blumers theory departures from Simmel, who predicted fashion as an outcome or process of class differentiation. He sees fashion is an act of collective mood, taste and choice, “mysterious but it does take place”, which side-steps the questions surrounding the notion. As Schuhe stated good taste is always being followed by another good taste creating order in an increasingly individualised and aestheticsed modern society. In terms of fashion the creative principle states that each successive innovation is an effort to reach some form of display more acceptable to our sense than that which it displaces. However it is hazardous to assert styles ‘improve’ over time. Kant and Lyotard believe fashion and taste are unrelated. The non-existent consensus of taste has nothing to do with the universiality of fashion. Whilst this take did have relevance in modern times, the nature of postmodernity or for those who don’t believe in this, our current position in modernity, has made this less the case. Fashion forms a universal standard of taste which however allows for the singularity and subjectivity of individual taste according to Campbell, but surely this is only true if one chooses to ignore fashion and wear what they want? Taste is subject to the individual but good taste is referred to as being beyond the individual and socially binding. Fashion is a functional equivalent to the principle of good taste. A key problem of social theory is how do the objective features of modern society influence human agents to act collectively? Individuals reflect upon their social situation in the light of current concerns and projects. The issue of structure and agency has reduced the relevance of many theorists, as it cannot be assumed people will act collectively, and if they do it is more likely to be due to a coincidence of incentives. Blumer saw fashion as a process through which a collective and uniform taste was distilled out of numerous individual tastes, but this doesn’t explain why it changes continually. Value of clothes is made up more of fashionableness and reputation than mechanical service or function. In most cases the conscious motive of the wearer of conspicuously wasteful apparel is the need to conform to established usage and living up to accredited standard of taste and reputability. One avoids unfavourable notice and comment. The requirement of expensiveness is ingrained into our dressing habits, inexpensive apparel is odious to us. Inexpensive clothes are seen as unworthy, beauty is proportional to costliness. So close imitations as to deny most scrutiny have declining aesthetic and commercial value and therefore fall to a lower pecuniary grade. There cannot be any progress in fashion as it only repeats and varies old styles. Contradictory to this, markets for mass consumption goods are characterised by demand for novelty. We might substitute Simmel's distinction versus imitation opposition with one more general, and hence more rich: the opposition between intensity and extensity. When a novelty is absolute, it has a maximum intensity, in the sense that it creates real, true passions, be they positive or negative...