Defining Fashion Through Multifaceted Areas of Sociological Culture Patrik Aspers and Frederic Godart’s (2013) article Sociology of Fashion: Order and Change analyzes the sociological understanding of fashion and its connection to history, academic theory, international studies, and sociological theory. Because fashion’s various definitions have been defined narrowly in each subtopic of fashion (Aspers and Godart 2013), their purpose is to find their own definition of what fashion is, taking these numerous areas into consideration. The article connects to Back et al.’s chapter on fashion. Both of these texts on the concept of fashion share a clear similarity. Fashion is not just clothing, but is multifaceted in most aspects of society (Aspers,
…show more content…
Back et al. (2012) explains Simmel’s (1997) idea of imitation starting that “imitation was a fundamental component of this process, because it was the central practice or technique for individuals to orient themselves to the social through imitating the styles and fashions of others” (2012:168). Aspers and Godart (2013) explain that how and why fashion is imitated by the middle class, using Spencer’s (1897) ideas of ‘reverential imitation’ “i.e., to follow the fashion of the upper class because of its status” and ‘competitive imitation’ when fashion is imitated “to show that there is nothing special about the upper class” (2013:179). Granted Back et al. (2012) goes on further about Blumer’s (1969) theory of how imitation from the trickle-down effect is not the only way that fashion can change, but can also be a interactional chain. However, the idea of imitation from the trickle-down effect is still important in defining how fashion is created and …show more content…
2012). Back et al.’s (2012) relevant conclusions were that first, fashion has been identified as the domain where the upper class can establish their preeminence over the other lower social classes, who then try and imitate those at the leading edge of fashion. Second was that the change, evolution, and addition of fashion, “have meant that theories of fashion have had to engage with a much broader theoretical palette in order to remain relevant” and therefore be identified as a topic that can connect to all aspects of society (2012:176). I believe that Aspers and Godart’s (2013) final definition, from studying the multiple facets of what fashion influences, mirrors these ideas and is defined as “an unplanned process of recurrent change against a backdrop of order in the public realm” (2013:185). In addition to this they recognize that part of the “unplanned process” in the social phenomenon of fashion ever changing, and that once a phenomenon, aspects of fashion with or without the context of clothing, is adopted by “everyone,” then falling out of fashion. Perpetuating the
Back et al. (2012) explains Simmel’s (1997) idea of imitation starting that “imitation was a fundamental component of this process, because it was the central practice or technique for individuals to orient themselves to the social through imitating the styles and fashions of others” (2012:168). Aspers and Godart (2013) explain that how and why fashion is imitated by the middle class, using Spencer’s (1897) ideas of ‘reverential imitation’ “i.e., to follow the fashion of the upper class because of its status” and ‘competitive imitation’ when fashion is imitated “to show that there is nothing special about the upper class” (2013:179). Granted Back et al. (2012) goes on further about Blumer’s (1969) theory of how imitation from the trickle-down effect is not the only way that fashion can change, but can also be a interactional chain. However, the idea of imitation from the trickle-down effect is still important in defining how fashion is created and …show more content…
2012). Back et al.’s (2012) relevant conclusions were that first, fashion has been identified as the domain where the upper class can establish their preeminence over the other lower social classes, who then try and imitate those at the leading edge of fashion. Second was that the change, evolution, and addition of fashion, “have meant that theories of fashion have had to engage with a much broader theoretical palette in order to remain relevant” and therefore be identified as a topic that can connect to all aspects of society (2012:176). I believe that Aspers and Godart’s (2013) final definition, from studying the multiple facets of what fashion influences, mirrors these ideas and is defined as “an unplanned process of recurrent change against a backdrop of order in the public realm” (2013:185). In addition to this they recognize that part of the “unplanned process” in the social phenomenon of fashion ever changing, and that once a phenomenon, aspects of fashion with or without the context of clothing, is adopted by “everyone,” then falling out of fashion. Perpetuating the