Simmel and fashion

In 1904 Simmel was one of the few sociologists to write about the subject of fashion. He observed how fashion can be a product of class distinctions and how fashion is discarded once adopted by the lower class. He offered commentary on the ways fashion unites members of the upper class and segregates them from lower classes. In his analysis of fashion, he explained that women are more associated with fashion than men and explored how fashion is connected to imitation and individuality (Simmel, 1904).

Simmel suggested that one of the roles of fashion is to perform as a product of class distinctions ‘fashions of the higher strata of society distinguish themselves from those of the lower strata’ (Simmel, 1997). The upper class decides what is fashionable in society. Fashion satisfies the need for differentiation among the elite and unites members of the upper class. Fashion is still a form of class distinctions today as the brands people wear can be an indicator of someone’s social class. However, the idea that fashion is a form of class distinctions may not be as true as it was in the past. This is due to the fact that fashion is more accessible now. Although many fashion events and shows will be invite only and open for just the elite, they are often streamed or recorded online making them available for the public to view. Furthermore, more affordable designer brands now exist making them more them more accessible for lower classes. For instance, unisex fashion brand Telfar created a bag which was nicknamed the ‘Bushwick Birkin.’ This is because it became a status symbol for people who have an interest in fashion but cannot afford the cost of a Hermès Birkin bag which costs between $40,000 to $500,000 (Businessinsider, 2019). This shows that it is now easier for lower classes to enjoy fashion than in the past implying that Simmel’s ideas are not as relevant to today’s society.

In Simmel’s analysis of fashion, he suggested that the upper classes use fashion as a way to distinguish themselves from the lower classes. Fashion worn by the elite is copied by the classes beneath them who do this to try to identify with the elite. As Blumer explains, ‘the distinguishing insignia of the elite class filter down through the class pyramid.’ (Blumer, 1969). This leads to the elite losing the insignia that separates them from the lower classes. Furthermore, upper classes are forced to create new fashions in order to separate themselves from the masses again. Therefore, repeating the process when lower classes imitate them. This could still occur today, especially with the increasing use of social media and the popularity of influencers. This idea is illustrated when influencers and celebrities post images of them wearing designer clothing and accessories and lower classes following these influencers on social media try to imitate the same fashions. It could even be argued that Simmel’s ideas are more relevant today than in the past as fashions spread faster due to the internet and pop culture. Due to globalisation and mass production it is easier now for fashion to ‘spread throughout society and to transcend class barriers’ (Pundir, 2007). For instance, designer brands are frequently mentioned in popular music and fashion events such as the Met Gala and fashion weeks which are highly publicised. It is now easier to create and sell imitations of designer fashions. For example, at the Hollywood beauty awards Kim Kardashian wore a vintage one of a kind Thierry Mugler dress. Less than 24 hours after she wore the dress, fast fashion website Fashion Nova had a copy of the dress ready for pre-order on their website (Ilchi, 2019). Simmel offers an explanation for this. He examines that the ‘more an article becomes subject to rapid changes of fashion, the greater the demand for cheap products of its kind’(Simmel,1904). This suggests that the quicker fashion trends change the need for cheaper copies increases. Fashion Nova could be considered below the elite but above the lower classes. Fast fashion companies like this contribute to the imitation process. As the poorer classes have ‘enough purchasing power to regulate industry and demand’ (Simmel, 1904). These companies fill the demand created by lower classes after upper classes create new fashion trends. This is evidenced in the example of companies like Fashion Nova copying fashions from designer brands in order to sell them to a wider consumer base for a lower, more affordable price.

According to Simmel, once fashion is adopted by the lower classes it is discarded by the elite, ‘As fashion spreads, it gradually goes to its doom’ (Simmel, 1904). Once fashion is imitated by lower classes it is no longer exclusive and fails to distinguish the elite. This is still relevant today in the example of designer brands burning goods to prevent them from being sold for lower prices in sales. Brands such as Burberry have destroyed over £50 million worth of products in the past five years (BBC, 2018). However, today individual members of the elite such as celebrities may try to profit from the trends they start by selling them to members of lower classes, rather than discarding them. Contrasting Simmel’s idea, Blumer argued that fashion doesn’t die because it is discarded by the elite but because it gives ‘way to a new model more consonant with developing taste.’ (Blumer, 1969). He suggests that fashion dies to make room for new fashion because the world and peoples tastes change frequently. It could be said that this is more relevant today than Simmel’s argument because fashion trends come and go at a fast pace. As fashion develops, tastes change more often and so does the demand.

Another observation made by Simmel is that women are more associated with fashion than men. Simmel explained that in society women are an oppressed group due to ‘the weakness of her social position’ (Simmel, 1904). He describes fashion as a valve in which women’s desire for ‘individual prominence finds vent, when its satisfaction is denied her in other fields’ (Simmel, 1904). He suggests that women use fashion as a way of showing their individuality. This might not be direct as women may only be following fashion and not imitating it. This is still partially relevant today as for some women fashion is one of the only ways they can express themselves. Although women have more freedom than in the past and can express themselves through their careers and interests.