Fashion as Communication is all about finding the definition of the words fashion, dress, clothing and style and whether or not they can be explained individually. This book is also about defining what makes fashion such a controversy; Barnard undergoes defining fashion demand through the use of the social community.
Barnard begins by suggesting that fashion and clothing is a way of being recognised by others in terms of social class as he suggests that it ‘may be the most significant ways in which social relations between people are constructed, experienced and understood. (Barnard, 7). This means that us humans automatically feel comfortable with people of similar fashion sense as ourselves, as if fashion is some sort of conversation starter. Similarly, Fred Davis agrees to an extent with the concept that socially we communicate to one another through similar clothing styles, ‘we know that through clothing people communicate some things about their persons…locating them symbolically in some structured universe of status claims and life-style attachments’ (Davis:4). Additionally, I do agree with both these statements as when I am surrounded by strangers sometimes I think to comment on a piece of clothing that someone is wearing as I find that some people like to inform you of where they bought the item from and the price it costs, then the conversation just ends up flowing really nicely into things like where you shop and what you do for a living.
Barnard begins to break down the meanings of the words fashion, clothing, dress, adornment and style and concludes ‘it is simply not the case that these ideas and concepts can always be easily distinguished or separated from one another’ this shows that these words despite being used to make up different sentences, they cannot be separated in terms of meaning as they all relate to one word if not the other.
In the ‘fashion and anti-fashion’ Barnard mentions the work of Simmel. Barnard refers to Simmel’s account ‘two social tendencies are essential to the establishment of fashion’ (Simmel 1971:301) leading to the ‘need for union’ and the ‘need for isolation’ suggesting to me that although we may consider ourselves to be needy of being categorised into a subgroup, it is always nice when we are unified as it is an uncontrollable instinct to feel welcomed and part of something. On the other hand, it is also our instincts to be apart from others in order to remember to find and know ourselves as individuals outside of a social group.
Additionally, Barnard continues with Simmel’s account of there being a conflict between ‘adaptation to society and individual departure from its demands’ (Simmel 1971:295) further adding to the idea that we want to keep update with the happenings of society, which is where social grouping plays a part, but simultaneously, we want to adapt in our own speed and being away from a group gives us a sense of power to do so. Comparably, Davis states ‘what is worn lends itself easily to a symbolic upholding of class and status boundaries in society.’ (Davis:9) Suggesting to me that what we wear plays a heavy part in the knowledge we have of fashion whilst living or working in a certain area of society.
Through analysing these books, I believe that fashion plays a heavy role in who we know as we all want to hang around with people who are similar to us as it is easier to empower and understand each other’s points of view. Fashion can mean different things to different people in society especially because of the era they may have been brought up in.

Barnard, Malcom Fashion as Communication (2002) psychology press
References:
Davis, Fred Fashion, Culture, And Identity
Simmel, George. 1904. “fashion.” Rpt. In American Journal of sociology 62(May 1957): 541-58