Fashion as communication – Etymologies and definitions of fashion and clothing

The piece starts by using etymology to attempt to clearly define the term ‘fashion’ and then explores the family of associated synonyms to help the reader to understand the scope of that definition. It seeks to provide the reader with as wide a sense of the term as possible, linking the term ‘fashion’ with ‘fetish’ – perhaps to give some explanation to both the idea of fashion as an obsession and fashion as challenging the norm.

Having defined the term, the piece then goes on to contrast it against anti-fashion and ceremonial or tribal costumes and argues that certain social conditions must be met in order to support the establishment of fashion – those being the need for union and the desire for an individual to be part of a larger society (Simmel, 1971:301). This point is backed up by the statement that “Fashionable clothing is used in western capitalist societies to affirm both membership of various social and cultural groups” (Wilson 1992a:34).

It goes on to discuss how fashion is viewed from different perspectives and raises the argument that fashion is both fraudulent and trivial, fit only for the intellectually disenfranchised. The argument for stating why fashion is both trivial and fraudulent is not very comprehensive, the piece then states three reasons why this is not the case; firstly that it is an inevitable consequence of socio-economic organization (class), second that it is a cultural response and third that it is about decoration – none of the three arguments are very strongly made and very little reference is made to fashion as an art form and also the commercial contribution made to the economy.

In the text it states that tattooing is fashion, this point is challenged by Matteucci and Marino claiming that “for tattooing to belong in the domain of fashion, it must reflect the wish for a fashion that does not change…tattoos have made a start toward anti-fashion status and they are surely intended to be anti-fashion”. (Matteucci and Marino: 17).

I am disappointed that the author does not draw a stronger parallel with the Arts world, preferring to spend more time in defining the term. The author Elizabeth Wilson compares fashion to photography explaining that “both (are) liminal forms, on the threshold between art and not-art. Both are industrially produced, yet deeply individual. Both are poised ambiguously between present and past”, (Wilson, 2003). To me this definition is easier to comprehend and links fashion far more strongly with the Arts.

Given the amount of text in the introduction to defining the term fashion, I feel the arguments raised in support of fashion not being trivial are quite weak, the author clearly shows their personal opinion by stating that “the idea that fashion and clothing are trivial pursuits is just one popular prejudice” but the main argument they use to support this is that fashion is “inevitable”. The second argument, social justice, is also poorly made with little reference made to the issues associated with third-world production, child labour, pollution or sustainability or, conversely, the economic contribution of the fashion industry to the global economy.

References:

Matteucci, G. and Marino, S. (2017). Philosophical perspectives on fashion. London: Bloomsbury.

Google Books. 2017. Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity – Elizabeth Wilson – Google Books. Available from: https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Adorned_in_Dreams.html?id=j-kBAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. [Accessed 12 November 2017].