The introduction to ‘Fashion as Communication’ by Malcolm Barnard offers a broad overview of the highly complex term fashion, exploring the ‘complicated network of similarities’ with the words clothing, dress, adornment and style as recognised in Wittgenstein’s theory of  ‘family resemblance’ (Wittgenstein 1958: 66-7). Throughout the text Barnard highlights the ambivalence of fashion, explaining the importance of considering context in order to ‘determine whether a garment is being referred to as fashion’ as apposed to anti-fashion (fixed dress/ costume). This distinction between fashion and anti-fashion supports Barnard’s analysis with evidence from several theories by Polhemus and Procteur, Flugel, Braudel and Simmel which I find especially thought-provoking. Barnard refers to how this lack of clarity is reflected in the ‘ambivalent response of society’ which once again highlights the complexity of fashion and its inescapability in our western capitalist society. The text goes on to briefly examine the gender stereotyping within the fashion industry including its status as a “degraded and unacceptable face of art” (Wilson 1990:209). In my opinion the underlying message that Barnard conveys is that fashion is an inevitable ‘cultural phenomenon’ (Barnard, 2002:11) that exists at the intersection of ‘history, economics, anthropology, sociology and psychology’ (Tickner 1977: 56).

For me the most fascinating aspect of the chapter is the reference to Braudel’s thesis that fashion exists as a result of the wealth and freedom of aristocracy ‘where upward movement between classes is both possible and desirable’ (Braudel: 1981: 313). I find it particularly interesting that Braudel viewed the dress of the poor as anti-fashion during the time he was developing his philosophy. During the same decade Behling (1985) brought out the integrated theory model which appears to contradict with Braudel’s ideas, explaining how fashion was influenced by a range of factors including subcultures. Having read ‘Fashion Trends: Analysis and Forecasting’, I have developed the viewpoint that Behling’s model is much more suited to reflect the changes in fashion in our highly complex society; it not only combines aspects of the trickle-down and trickle-up theories but also considers the population and economy of a country (Kim, Fiore, Kim: 2011:15). In my opinion, this model proves that the trickle-down theory alone (which Braudel appears to advocate) is inadequate for analysing fashion trends. My disagreement with Braudel’s views around poverty and fashion is further evidenced by the subculture, street-style influences of the 1970’s punk trend that was prominent during the time he developed this thesis.

Comparatively, I think that Braudel’s philosophy of aristocracy-driven fashion would be more relevant between the fourteenth century and the beginning of the industrial revolution when the class system was rigidly structured and ‘dictated styles of dress’ (Wilson, 1985:22). In ‘Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity’ Wilson reflects upon how, during this period, individuals belonging to different social levels (including different professions and callings within these) were limited to distinctive dress (Wilson, 1985:22). In my opinion this strict system of dress, with its origins in class, seems to reinforce how the trickle-down theory dominated fashion trends before the societal shift that occurred during the industrial revolution. Overall I agree with Barnard, Braudel and Wilson’s mutual viewpoint that historically the movement of fashion demonstrated a desire to associate with an increased social position.

References:

Kim, E.  Fiore, A M. and Kim, H (2011) Fashion Trends: Analysis and Forecasting, London. Berg

Lister, K. (2017). Anarchy In The UK: A Brief History Of Punk Fashion. [online] Marie Claire. Available at: http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/fashion/a-brief-history-of-punk-fashion-79145 [Accessed 20 Nov. 2017].

Wilson, E. (1985) Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity, London. Virago