It makes sense to remind the reader that fashion is all about change. Without an engine to drive change, fashion would not exist. This book has been focused on analyzing the various theories that account for the engine or momentum that pushes fashion inexorably forward. It is also important to remember that fashion movement surrounds us and sweeps us along from birth to the end of our days. Quotidian activities such as what we do, who we are, and how we present ourselves to each other are all constantly in evolution driven by subtle forces that fashion professionals need to understand. To that end, in this book we have discussed in detail the various theoretical perspectives that are consid- ered most relevant to contemporary scholars and practitioners when analyzing and forecasting fashion change.
Using the diamond gemstone as metaphor, we see that each of the theoret- ical perspectives considered in this book allows us to view fashion change from the variety of angles that a multi-faceted gem presents to us. When each facet is viewed in isolation we see a finite, logical explanation that accounts for the fashion phenomenon; however, if we step back from the diamond it is possible to see in the flashing spectral lights that threads exist binding the various theo- retical explanations together. In essence, many of the theories that make perfect sense when viewed independently from within their respective frameworks borrow from or share key elements with each other. It is not our aim that this chapter should create a unified theory of fashion, as this has been attempted before (Miller, McIntyre and Mantrala, 1993). Instead we delineate the impor- tant threads that suggest common ground among the various perspectives presented throughout the book. We conclude this analysis of fashion change theories by discussing the more prominent threads that bind the many theoret- ical perspectives together: the never-ending search for novelty; identity conflict as instigator of fashion change; the human drive to mark status; and emulation as a key to understanding fashion-driven behavior.
The Never-ending Search for Novelty
In our chapter that focused on the underlying psychological principles that drive fashion change, we were introduced to the Freudian notion that our
subconscious sexual energy, which resides in the id and is referred to as the libido, virtually compels us to seek visual novelty as part of our human condi- tion. As you may recall, Steele (1985) referred to this phenomenon as the libido of looking, and it accounts, from a psychological perspective, for why people have a never-ending thirst for new and novel fashionable appearances.
We also see the impact of Freudian psychology in our chapter on fashion and style which focused on fashion evolution as a continuously changing relation- ship between body form and dress. Steele (1997) suggested that the underlying momentum which drove the changing perceptions of body form, resulting in a subsequent new design problem, was in fact the same libido-driven search for novelty that Freud theorized. In agreement with Steele, Hollander (1975) also viewed sexuality as the engine which drove reinterpretation of the body/dress relationship. It is further possible to link Freudian theory and fashion theory as style to Kroeber’s (1919) century long majestic procession of style change that he discovered during his anthropological overview of civilization’s evolu- tion. What would cause the slow but steady progression of style change other than the incessant human need for novelty? Though he never stated it explic- itly, Kroeber’s observation of decades-long movement in style certainly speaks to the continuing alterations of the relationship between body form and design solutions. In addition, we note that many of the short-term cyclic explanations for fashion change such as Robinson’s (1975) rely on the drive for novelty as a primary force behind the repetitive inception, growth, and demise of fashion products. Finally we note the relationship between the continuous searching for novelty with one of the key millennial themes addressed in the introduction to this book. As we pointed out, with the world at our fingertips via the ready accessibility of the World Wide Web, we are now inundated at any moment with fresh novel fashion looks which appeal to our libido and accelerate the movement of fashion change.
Where There is Identity Conflict, Fashion Change is not Far Off
Central among all the factors that correlate closely with fashion change is iden- tity conflict. Cutting across almost all of the basic fashion theories the concept of identity in flux is often used to explain and examine the hidden forces that push new fashion forward. As we saw in the introductory chapter, today we exist in an era of negotiable identity which is a major global trend. Our identity is not cast in concrete, but is open to construction and reconstruction, often with fashion as a primary creative component of identity development. All this identity flux and conflict accelerates the rate of transformation and increases the role of changing fashion in construction of contemporary versions of self.
Most often when we see identity conflict, there is a tension that exists between polar opposites. For example, from a psychological viewpoint, Young (1956) suggested two of the key purposes that dress served: on the one hand dress preserved modesty while on the other it was used to generate sexuality and eroticism. What tension is more exquisitely human than our identities as defined in terms of modesty versus our sense of individual sexuality? What direction do we choose at any particular moment and how do we use fashion to express our choice?
As we read in the chapter on anthropological fashion theories, identity ambivalence is common in a world where unstable and shifting cultural cate- gories compel us to redefine ourselves. The corresponding experiments with newly emergent identities that are often constructed to accommodate or respond to external pressures serve as important grist for the fashion mill. This is because fashion change is often used to bridge the gaps created by these anthropologically based conflicts. In a related manner, the historical and performance theorists also spoke of destabilized identities, which they linked to pressures on gender construction, role, and class status leading to fashion change. Finally, fashion theory emanating from the field of collective behavior also drew upon identity conflict as a key explanation for fashion movement. Very important is the tension that exists between maintaining individuality in contrast to an equivalently forceful desire to self-assign ourselves to a desirable group. Fashionable dress and appearance very often straddle the divide between these simultaneous but conflicting desires for union and segregation.
Status Combat Drives Fashion
For centuries in Western culture, a predominantly and consistent behavior among people was competition for status positioning. In other words, we make status claims we feel we deserve or chase after a higher level of status to embel- lish our sense of position and well-being. Status combat is the conflict that occurs between individuals on either side of a status boundary. The conflict occurs most often when those possessing status respond disagreeably to perceived incursions by ‘others’ they feel belong elsewhere. Because of tensions occurring between those seeking and those preserving status positions, status combat ensues taking the typical form of upper-class inhabitants rapidly devel- oping alternative symbols, often in the form of new fashion, to distinguish themselves anew from those chasing them.
With the growing economic disparity of ‘haves and have-nots’ that we iden- tified in this book’s introduction, we now observe status combat becoming even more prevalent throughout the world. Introduction of new apparel fash- ions and other forms of conspicuous consumption such as exorbitantly priced
mechanical wristwatches fuel status combat resulting in the phenomenon referred to as ‘chase and flight,’ which propels fashion change along. Status combat exists primarily but not exclusively on social and economic playing fields. For example, social status conflict is seen to exist between those laboring under a sense of discrimination or ‘otherness’ when they compare themselves to those in hegemonic positions who will fiercely protect their social status. We saw this in the case of Tulloch’s (1992) analysis of West Indian blacks strug- gling unsuccessfully to break into the all-pervasive white world of England. Collective behavior theorists such as Tulloch have established, on the one hand, that dress and fashion are often weapons used to express social alien- ation by the discriminated ‘others,’ while conversely fashion is used to preserve the status quo and social position of hegemons. Similar to the collective behav- iorists, performance theorists and anthropologists have also observed evolving identities and shifting cultural categories which lead to status repositioning, subsequent crossing of status boundaries and resultant conflict too.
In the same vein, the short-term cycle theorists almost invariably select status combat as the primary motivation behind the repetitive and cyclic beginning, middle and end of fashion adoption patterns. Pesendorfer’s (1995) cyclic theory hinges on people using fashion to signal membership to other individ- uals who reside in the same social plane, while Coelho and McClure (1993) spoke of fashion as a basic form of status marking. And of course we cannot forget the economist Thorstein Veblen (1899), who wrote in his classic work on the pecuniary behavior of the upper classes that fashion served as a status delineator marking class differences.
Mimetic Behavior: A Basic Instinct that Drives Fashion Forward
Mimetic behavior is a simple concept: people observe and then copy what they see. Fashion spreads largely because of this common human characteristic. Without this behavior fashion would not diffuse and would not have the mass adoption aspect to it that almost, in and of itself, defines fashion. Fashion trends discussed in Chapter 1 such as improved communications through the Internet, the globalization of taste, the increasing proximity of people to each other through urbanization, and the intensified quest to emulate those who vault into fame all drive mimetic behavior to an even more fevered pitch.
The performance theorists saw mimetic behavior pushing the diffusion of fashion and cultural transformation to the larger population. Similarly, the collective behavior theorist viewed the copying that occurs across lines of social status as an elemental human behavior that drove fashion forward. Finally, the short-term cycle theorists frequently relied on the mimetic instincts
of humans to explain the diffusion of fashion from its early innovation phase to large-scale mass acceptance.
The Threads That Bind
In conclusion, it is instructive to remember that theoretical explanations of fashion change have emanated from multiple disciplines all with their own internal logic that make perfect sense when examined in isolation. Those inter- ested in the subject matter of fashion change, whether fashion professionals, or from other disparate fields such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, and performance studies will find fashion theories that will work within their own disciplinary frameworks. Nonetheless, it is also instructive to remember the similarities in theoretical underpinnings exist that cut across the various disci- plinary perspectives. Some examples of those common underpinnings have been examined in this conclusion section because they are, in fact, the threads that bind us all together when we examine this fascinating subject.