In the chapter ‘Etymologies and definitions of fashion and clothing’ of Malcolm Barnard’s Fashion as Communication, the idea of fashion and anti-fashion is raised. This idea circulates around the concept that in order for there to be fashion, people within any given society must have a desire to be both part of a larger social group and be an individual at the same time. Barnard poses that it is in more complex societies with “a number of clearly defined and segregated groups” that the desire for individuation is greater than the desire to adapt to society, and this is what brings about fashion. Societies in which one of the feelings is not present, or the desire to be part of the larger group is stronger than the need to be different, there can only be little, if any fashion. I agree with this theory as I know from personal experience the feeling of trying to be like and present myself like my peers, while still trying to communicate some form of individuality.

“The paradox of fashion is that everyone is trying at the same time to be like, and to be
unlike, his fellow men – to be like them in so far as he regards them as superiors, to
be unlike them (in the sense of being more ‘fashionable’) so far as he thinks they are
below him.” (Flugel 1950)

While these circumstances may facilitate fashion, I believe that it is the intention of the wearer that communicates whether something is fashion or not. If someone is using their clothing to signal that they wish for change and movement, then this is seen as fashion. However, if what someone is wearing communicates their wish for things to stay the same, then this is anti-fashion. Barnard shares the view, and gives the example of Prince Charles and Princess Diana to demonstrate this idea. Prince Charles would be said to wear anti-fashion as he wears pretty much the same thing as he has since he was a young man, and being part of the wealthy aristocracy, he probably doesn’t want much about society, for him, to change at all. Princess Diana on the other hand, would have been said to wear fashion, as she was always pushing for change, be it through her humanitarian and charity work, or simply by challenging the pre-conceived ideas of how a princess should act or dress.

As I stated before, I totally agree with this theory, and I especially agree that richer upper-class members rarely change the way they dress as a reflection of how they are perfectly comfortable in their lives and wish for nothing to change. However, I do not believe that this is the only way fashion is brought about.

Flugel makes an interesting observation in The Psychology of Clothes: he points out that as it is human nature to imitate that which is envied and admired, and so it is expected that the lower classes will start to imitate what the upper classes wear. However, those is the upper classes risk losing what makes them ‘higher’ and ‘different’, and so because they cannot enforce laws to stop the wrong class dressing like them (it has been tried, and failed), they change what they wear and create a new uniform for the upper classes. This creates a double movement and what appears to be a never-ending cycle of fashion. So, it seems that it is not only Barnard’s distinction that creates fashion, just as not all rich, upper class members wear anti-fashion like Prince Charles, but some do help to create fashion through the fear that they will be associated with a lower class.

Bibliography

Barnard, M. (2002). Fashion as Communication. New York: Routledge, 2nd edition.

Flugel, J. C. (1950). The Psychology of Clothes. London: Hogarth Press.

Kawamura, Y. (2005). Fashion-ology: An Introduction to Fashion Studies. Oxford & New York: Berg.