George Simmel and Fashion - Essay Example

? Georg Simmel and Fashion The term fashion reflects interminable and recurring changes within the realms of a modern society. It highlightsvarious aspects that are relevant for analysing the social and political psychology, structural modifications within social systems, various modes of social control that address these changes, rise and growth of innovative ideas, fashion as an identity for the upper classes, and fashion as an aggregate behaviour of the masses. Besides these, fashion, as a part of economic sociology, has always been a favourite topic. This is primarily because in developed societies the trend has always been to place culture at the core of goods manufacture and consumption, making fashion an integral part of market economy. A broad delineation of the term fashion relates to being first with what is new in the market. This implies that fashion oscillates, wherein a certain object or an activity becomes popular amongst a certain segment of the society, while others view this segment as possessing the right status to start a fashion or trend. However, when this same object or activity gains widespread popularity, it becomes too common and does not remain in fashion any more, thus placing only certain people as the rightful trendsetters, clearly linking social structure to fashion. While fashion originally involved clothes, modern theories suggest that the term encompasses various social aspects besides haute couture. While there are many writings on fashion, Georg Simmel was the first one to make an in-depth analytical study on the subject. While his contemporaries viewed fashion as highly irrational in nature, Simmel suggested that the upper classes used fashion to set themselves apart from rest of the society. His theory revolved round concepts of individualism and collectivism, where it was conceptualised that fashion spreads from upper classes to the masses through remodelling. When a certain object or activity reaches the middle classes, the upper class must invent a new fashion to maintain distinction, which according to Simmel, illustrates the notion of recurring changes within fashion. Georg Simmel’s 1904 essay “Fashion” examines sociological aspects of fashion and its role in conciliating the tension/conflict evident within modern social dynamics, related to gender and class. According to Simmel, fashion, which is a non-summative transformation in cultural attributes, evolves from a tension that is distinctive to an individual’s social conditions. While each individual tends to imitate or emulate others, at the same time there is also a tendency to remain separate from others. Undoubtedly, while some adopt imitation (conformism), others prefer to remain distinct (dissidence), and for fashion to be effective, it is necessary to allow functioning of both the opposing tendencies. Reviewing Simmel’s article is significant from current sociological perspectives, as it stands out as the only real attempt towards deriving basic theories on fashion. This essay reviews theories suggested by Simmel, and examines how the underlying tension (desire for conformation and distinction, at the same time) operates at group and individual levels, and how it reflects and influences wider social conditions. This essay also derives from Simmel’s writing that fashion is a kind of social relationship, which makes it an important tool in understanding modern urban society. Introduction Since the beginning of 20th century, there has been a great deal of discussion on fashion. However, a closer look reveals that is a dearth of analytical and generic theories on this topic. Amongst the various available literatures, the best analysis on fashion is the essay written by Georg Simmel in 1904. This remains to this day, probably the only real attempt towards framing a basic theory on fashion; consequently, while the paper is now more than a hundred years old, theories and concepts suggested in it remain relevant, even in post-modern twenty-first century social structure (Coser, 1977). In the context of fashion and creation of a personal identity, observations reveal that people interact with clothes and other fashion related accessories the same way they interact with other humans, whereby using fashion to show what they wish to exemplify (Ritzer, 2007; Adelman, 2008). The closeness and direct touch of clothes with the wearer’s body creates a kind of personal and gender identity, while at the same time, being visible to others it establishes a social relationship between the physical world and one’s body (Davies, 1992; Gronow, 1993). Fashion tends to reflect the relationship between personal values and physical objects, owing to its close links with self-perception. Clothing influences self-perceptions since it is in direct touch with the body, functioning as a filter between an individual and the society (Crane and Bovone, 2006). The body becomes the corporeal self that works as collective experience, while acting as an intermediate between social and personal activities it turns into an integral part of all social relations. Observations show that human bodies act as social symbols, where female bodies are often used as a mechanism to preserve society’s age-old traditions and culture (Fisher and Loren, 2003). Fashion does not simply dress a body, but it is a procedure involving creation of a social character and imprinting them on a body (Butler, 1993). Fashion acts as a social skin, and helps to connect individuals with the wider society (Dodd, Clarke, Baron and Houston, 2000). While creating an individual identity, fashion also helps to establish a specific social position and status, where one assumes that clothes reflect true self of the wearer, as for example, celebrities use fashion to uphold their special social status (Gibson, 2012). While consumption of clothes is primarily to serve functional purposes, it also reflects one’s social status, identity and lifestyle (Solomon and Douglas, 1987; Sweetman, 1999). In this context, fashion often relates to a mix of various attributes that includes wearing specific high-end brands (such as Armani, Prada), having a certain attitude, mannerism and bearing (Tungate, 2008). Often there are stringent social norms that dictate fashion, along with laws that subjugate citizens (especially women) to adopt specific social standards, which creates a tension, giving rise to various subgroups within the precincts of the same society (Voss, 2008). Here culture tends to dominate, creating a clear conflict between conformists and dissidents. Therefore, here fashion on one hand exemplifies the drive for social control and gender subjugation (as prevalent in traditional Islamic countries), and at the same time it represents a break away from conservative social norms. Thus, fashion and clothing has a close link to various aspects of the society and culture that it represents (Breward, 2000). In this context, it is essential to review Simmel’s essay Fashion, as it presents an in-depth study of the close relationship that exists between social dynamics and fashion. Georg Simmel, fashion and the underlying conflict that influences socio-cultural relationships: Georg Simmel (1858-1918) was a well-known German philosopher and sociologist. In his sociology essays, he adopted a neo-Kantian approach, which formulated theories on anti-positivism, while expounding new methods of analysing notions of individuality, distinction, and conformism (Frisby, 1992). According to Simmel, culture is “the cultivation of individuals through the agency of external forms that have been externalised from individual minds in the course of history” (cited in, Gorlitz, 1998, 414). Simmel analysed sociocultural developments in terms of contents and forms that have an inter-changeable relationship, where content changes to form and vice versa, based on specific contexts. Simmel was also the first sociologist to analyse topics related to social networking, symbolic interactionism and city-based sociology (Wellman, 1988). Simmel wrote extensive discourses on social structure, culture, nature of association, economy and the metropolis. His writings attracted the European intelligentsia and contributed largely towards sociological studies in the first half of the twentieth century. One of his well-known writings is The Metropolis and Mental Life, written in 1903, and his most famous piece of work is The Philosophy of Money, published in 1907. Simmel's ideas influenced the well-known scholar Georg Lukacs (a proponent of Marxism), while his theories and concepts on economy and the city are extensively used by modern sociologists (Wolff, 1950).   Simmel brought together theories and concepts from the three main classical philosophers, Marx, Durkheim and Weber. This is evident in his essays on modern society, economy, the city, and social structures, where his analyses bear resemblance to Marx (theory of alienation), Weber (rationalisation effects) and Durkheim (notions on social and individual problems) (Frisby, 1992). According to Simmel, society is an organisation, comprising of independent individuals, and it cannot be analysed in a manner as the physical world. In other words, sociology does not merely relate to the study of natural laws that control human relationships. As Farganis highlighted, “For Simmel, society is made up of the interactions between and among individuals, and the sociologist should study the patterns and forms of these associations, rather than quest after social laws” (1993, 133). Simmel suggested that a sociologist must necessarily keep a strong focus on social interactions at both group and individual levels, and make an analysis of the studies made on these interactions. It is this notion that segregates Simmel from other classical writers, such as Durkheim and Marx. In his essays, Simmel aimed at integrating studies of individual activities with a structural approach that in turn made his writings important for the modern sociological scientists. In his writings, Simmel started his analyses from the lower part (bottom rung), where he studied minute forms of social interactions and later observing how higher institutions evolved from these low-key interactions. Owing to this approach, Simmel observed social phenomena overlooked by other sociologists in their studies (Farganis, 1993). As for example, Simmel found that often the number of members within an interaction could influence the nature of interaction taking place. He suggested that an interaction between two parties known as a dyad tends to be different from an interaction that involves three members known as a triad. Another point of difference between Simmel and other sociologists is that the former goes back to analysing the individual, studying how he/she copes within the modern society, taking into account the development of individual personalities under such circumstances. Simmel claimed that individuals would uphold a certain personality in an attempt to stand out and remain different (Levine, 1971). An individual would adopt certain styles, fashions, and manners, in order to appear complete and strikingly different. The shortness and transient nature of human interactions as seen in cities signify that here deep-rooted impressions that develop from regular and long interactions fail to develop. Under such conditions, gaining self-confidence and deriving a sense of fulfilment could be developed by creating awareness amongst other people (Farganis, 1993). In such cases, an individual would attempt at adopting specific styles, fashions or activities and making it a part of their personality, in order to drive home a certain point. Here the term personality does not relate to a separate entity, but is a part of one’s social entity that is based on various interactions. Therefore, according to Simmel, social interactions that take note of reactions from other people and look for an acknowledgment from others, forms an important element of individual personality. Using this perspective, thus, Simmel integrates the society and an individual, where both are dependent on the other for their very existence. In his essay, Simmel also claimed that individual psyche and intellect developed in a different manner within the modern and traditional societies. In rural areas, impressions of people develop gradually, over a long period, based on regular interactions and often these impressions lead to emotionally deep relationships. On the other hand, urban relationships are based on discontinuities, minimal glances, and a series of rapidly developed impressions. Therefore, an urban individual tends to develop a protecting organ (he reacts more often with his head or intellectually) that safeguards him/her against all danger and conflicts originating from the surrounding environment that may cause him/her harm. Therefore, according to Simmel intellectuality helps to maintain and safeguard an individual, against the paralysing power of an urban life (Farganis, 1993). In his writings, Simmel suggested that culture tends to have an impact on individuals, and in his studies considered how cultured modifies an individual’s development, how one comprehends this influence, interactions between individuals, and the manner in which relationships shape an urban social life. Simmel viewed fashion as more of an urban culture, “because it intensifies a multiplicity of social relations, increases the rate of social mobility and permits individuals from lower strata to become conscious of the styles and fashions of upper classes” (Ashley and Orenstein, 1990, 314). Within the rural and traditional setting, according to Simmel, fashion would be unnecessary, as it would not hold any meaning to the people living in such areas. Since individuals residing in the urban areas are disconnected from their traditional roots and lack the social support system, a metropolitan dweller would choose to express his/her individual values or personality through fashion. In the context of social relationships and fashion, Simmel claimed that “fashion represents nothing more than one of the many forms of life by the aid of which we seek to combine in uniform spheres of activity the tendency towards social equalization with the desire for individual differentiation and change” (1904, 133). Therefore, in all social relationships there are two major forces operating. One force pushes an individual to link with other people in the society using imitation, while the other force pushes the same individual to unbind himself/herself from rest of the society, which implies breaking off from social networks, using distinction. However, social life is transient in nature, which makes the balance between de-socialising forces and socialising forces rather erratic and tentative. Therefore, from Simmel’s studies we find that fashion exemplifies the manner in which social life encompasses its own antithesis, the ‘asocial’ aspect of life. His essay also reveals how the underlying conflict within fashion inherently influences modern society and its need for a change. Fashion as a driver of sociocultural changes In his 1904 writing on fashion, Simmel demonstrated an undulating dynamics that is basic to social behaviour. These conflicting forces come face to face within the realms of fashion and the ensuing results reveal present social conditions while simultaneously giving an insight into individual human character and the nature of his social interactions. From a Simmelian perspective, fashion comprises of paradoxes that match those seen within a larger social context, where simultaneously an individual tries to emulate yet segregate, to generate and at the same time demolish, to show while also trying to hide. This constant motion and instability is an essential part of social change, while stability and balance tends to impede social progress. In his essay, Simmel analyses certain aspects of fashion where it relates to the incompatible forces that propel towards compliance and innovativeness that Simmel views emphasising social behaviour. Therefore, it is clear that the conflict that exists between formulating and obeying social norms and the breaking of these standardised norms are the basic attributes of a modern society. Under such circumstances, nature of compliance is cumulative change, followed by a revolutionary shift from this change. Fashion is result of dynamics that occur between prevailing opposing sociocultural forces, such as, compliance and dissidence, the urge to hide and the need to show, and desire to exert social control and the fight to break free. However, fashion exists only as long as any one of the two forces does not reign supreme at the end. Fashion results due to the instability and lack of balance between two forces, and it is from this that the self-destructive graph of fashion emerges. Simmel contended, “As fashion spreads, it gradually goes to its doom. The distinctiveness, which in the early stages of a set fashion assures for it a certain distribution, is destroyed as the fashion spreads, and as this element wanes, the fashion also is bound to die” (1904, 138-139). The impulse to emulate, which is equivalent to unification or equalisation, is not directed towards one’s peer. Instead, one imitates people that are superior in one form or the other. This leads to the Simmelian theory, “fashion…is a product of class distinction” (1904, 133). Therefore, it is clear that for fashion’s existence there must necessarily be a social stratification, where there are clear demarcations between superior and inferior members (worth imitating or not worth imitating), where the inferior member imitates the superior, and never vice versa. Therefore, the derivation one draws is that “fashion [implicating latest trends in terms of attitude, aesthetics, clothing] affects only the upper classes” (1904, 135.) As for example, a top dress designer presents a new dress, and women from upper classes (affluent segments) start wearing it. Soon, the women from lower classes start imitating them and owing to this market demand, there begins a supply of cheap copies. Now since all women are wearing low-priced imitations, the dress no longer separates the upper class women, hence going out of fashion. Therefore, the women from upper classes will now look for something new to segregate themselves, which in turn imitated, keeping the cycle alive. Simmel in his essay also focused on social changes that transcend the group or individual, and moves to an analysis of the society from a wider perspective. He suggested that fashion is never given, instead “Two social tendencies are essential to the establishment of fashion, namely, the need of union on the one hand and the need of isolation on the other. Should one of these be absent, fashion will not be formed, its sway will abruptly end” (1904, 136). In correlation of these social needs, Simmel contrasts societies, stating that fashion is a mode through which the developed States retain a social autonomy, thus presupposing that conformity is a side effect of civilization. The attempts to meet this need for distinction are where large-scale sociocultural changes arise. Simmel also stated, “Fashion always occupies the dividing-line between the past and the future, and consequently conveys a stronger feeling of the present…What we call the present is usually nothing more than a combination of a fragment of the past with a fragment of the future” (1904, 140). This heightened awareness of the present, as transmitted by fashion, involves a major sociocultural phenomenon, that starts when a society decides to move away from its past, thus breaking way for its past tradition and culture. Conclusion From a review of Simmel’s essay, one can suggest that fashion reflects the society of which it is a part, while at the same time promoting the need for sociocultural changes. This want for a change, however is an expression of the social conflicts that exist between various opposing poles, such as, the urge to follow social norms and a contrasting desire to break away from them. As Simmel examined role of fashion within various social aspects such as gender, and class, he derived that fashion transcended the superficial layers, affecting the philosophical and moral dimensions. In this context, Simmel suggested that all opposing forces are dynamic and philosophical in nature, where the opposing impulses are contrasting bearing that move towards a single physical dimension, always transforming themselves in their orbits, but never moving away. This dynamism was considered by Simmel to be the vehicle for sociocultural transformations, and these changes necessary for the progress of society, where the actual contents of progress remain a secondary issue. References Adelman, ?., 2008. Reviews: Gender Matters: Malcolm Barnard, ed., Fashion Theory: A Reader. International Sociology 23, 735 – 739. Ashley, D., and Orenstein, D., 1990. Sociological Theory: Classical Statements. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Breward, C., 2000. “Cultures, Identities, Histories: Fashioning a Cultural Approach to Dress.” In, N. White and I. Griffiths (eds), The Fashion Business: Theory, Practice, Image. Oxford: Berg. Butler, J., 1993. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Routledge. Coser, L., 1977. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Crane, D, and Bovone, L., 2006. Approaches to Material Culture: The Sociology of Fashion and Clothing. Poetics 34, 319 – 333. Davies, F., 1992. Fashion, culture and identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dodd, C., Clarke, I., Baron, S., and Houston, V., 2000. Looking the Part: Identity, Meaning and Culture in Clothing Purchasing — Theoretical Considerations. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 4, 41 – 48. Enwistle, J., 2002. “The aesthetic economy: the production of value in the field of fashion modeling.” Journal of Consumer Culture 2, 317-339. Farganis, J., 1993. Readings in Social Theory: the Classic Tradition to Post- Modernism. NY: McGraw-Hill. Fisher, G., and Loren, D., 2003. “Embodying Identity in Archaeology: Introduction.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13, 225 – 230. Frisby, D., 1992. Sociological Impressionism: A Reassessment of Georg Simmel's Social Theory. London: Routledge. Gibson, P., 2012. Fashion and celebrity culture. London: Berg. Gorlitz, D., 1998. Children, Cities, and Psychological Theories: Developing Relationships. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. Gronow, J., 1993. “Taste and fashion: the social function of fashion and style.” Acta Sociologica, 36, 89, 89-100. Levine, D., (ed), 1971. Simmel: On individuality and social forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ritzer, G., 2007. Modern Sociological Theory (7th ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill. Simmel, G., October 1904. “Fashion.” International Quarterly, 10(1), 130-155. Solomon, R., and Douglas, P., 1987. “Diversity in Product Symbolism: The Case of Female Executive Clothing.” Psychology & Marketing 4, 189 – 212. Sweetman, P., 1999. Anchoring the (postmodern) self? Body Modification, Fashion, and Identity. Body and Society 5 (2), 51-76. Tungate, M., 2008. Fashion brands: branding style from Armani to Zara. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Voss, ?., 2008. Poor People in Silk Shirts: Dress and Ethnogenesis in Spanish Colonial San Francisco. Journal of Social Archaeology 8, 404 – 432. Wellman, B., 1988. “Structural Analysis: From Method and Metaphor to Theory and Substance.” In, Social Structures: A Network Approach, Barry Wellman and S. D. Berkowitz (eds.). Cambridge: CUP. Wolff, K., 1950. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Illinois: Free Press. Read More