The notion that trends in fashion take part in a phenomenon known as
the trickle down effect has long been recognised by fashion pundits. A
process of social emulation of society's upper echelons by the
subordinates provides myriad incentives for perpetual and incessant
changes in fashion through a sequence of novelty and imitation. Dior's
'New Look' of 1947 consisted of creations that were only affordable to a
minority of affluent women of the time. Fashion was governed by
haute-couture designers and presented to the masses to aspire toward.
However, this traditional prospective has been vigorously challenged by
many throughout the fashion world. Revisionist observations have
introduced a paradoxical argument that fashion trends have, on numerous
occasions, inadvertently emerged from the more obscure spheres of
society onto the glamorous catwalks of high-fashion designers.
These
styles can originate from a range of unorthodox sources, from
leather-jacketed punks and dramatic Goths, the teddy boys of the 1950s,
to ethnic minority cultures from all edges of the globe. Styles that
emerge from the bottom of the social hierarchy are increasingly bubbling
up to become the status of high fashion. There has been significant
concern over the implications of this so-called bubble-up effect, such
as the ambiguity between the notions of flattering imitation and
outright exploitation of subcultures and minority groups.
Democratization and globalisation of fashion has contributed to the
abrasion of the authenticity and original identity of street-style
culture. The inadvertent massification of maverick ideas undermines the
'street value' of the fashions for the very people who originally
created them.
The underlying definition of subculture, with
regards to anthropology and sociology, is a group of people who
differentiates from the larger prevailing culture surrounding them.
Members of a subculture have their own shared values and conventions,
tending to oppose mainstream culture, for example in fashion and music
tastes. Gelder proposed several principal characteristics that
subcultures portrayed in general: negative relations to work and class,
association with their own territory, living in non-domestic habitats,
profligate sense of stylistic exaggeration, and stubborn refusal of
massification. Hebdige emphasised that the opposition by subcultures to
conform to standard societal values has been slated as a negative trait,
where in fact the misunderstood groups are only attempting to find
their own identity and meaning. The divergence away from social normalcy
has unsurprisingly proliferated new ideas and styles, and this can be
distinctly observed through the existence of fashion diversity.
Ethnicity, race, class and gender can be physical distinctions of
subcultures. Furthermore, qualities which determine a subculture may be
aesthetic, linguistic, sexual, political, religious, or a mixture of
these factors.
Sigmund Freud and his nephew Edward Bernays
investigated the drivers of social control and the engineering of
consent. Their psychological theories provide insight into the causes of
deviation, by members of a subculture, from social norms. They
highlighted the irrationality of human beings and discovered that by
tapping into their deepest desires, it is possible to manipulate
unconscious minds in order to manage society. Freud believed that
stimulating the unconscious was crucial to creating desire, and
therefore is conducive to economic progress and mass democracy. Bernays
argued that individual freedom was unattainable because it would be "too
dangerous to allow human beings to truly express themselves". Through
various methods of advertising, a distinctive 'majority' can be created
in society, where a person belonging to this group is perceived to be
normal, conventional and conformist. By using techniques to satisfy
people's inner desires, the rise of widespread consumerism plays a part
in the organized manipulation of the masses. However, through the
unleashing of certain uncontrolled aggressive instincts, occasional
irrationality emerged in groups, and this repudiation of the banalities
of ordinary life is believed to be a key factor in the generation of
subcultures.
The expansion of youth styles from subcultures into
the fashion market is a real network or infrastructure of new kinds of
commercial and economic institutions. The creation of new and startling
styles will be inextricably linked to a process of production and
publicity inevitably leading to the diffusion and spread of the
subversive subculture trends. For example, both mod and punk innovations
have become incorporated into high and mainstream fashion after the
initial low-key emergence of such styles. The complexities of society
perpetuate continuous change in style and taste, with different classes
or groups prevailing during certain periods of time. To deal with the
question of which is the most influential source of fashion, it is
necessary to consider distribution of power. It is not the same for all
classes to have access to the means by which ideas are disseminated in
our society, principally the mass media. In history, the elites have had
greater power to prescribe meaning and dictate what is to be defined as
normality.
Trickling down to shape the views of the substantial
passive parts of the population, designers from high places were able to
set trends that diffused from the upper to lower spectrum of society.
Subcultures, it was suggested, go against nature and are subject to
abhorrence and disapproval by followers of mainstream trends.
Regrettably, criminal gangs, homeless subcultures and reckless
skateboarders, among other 'negative' portrayals of subcultures have
been accused of dragging down the image of other 'positive' subcultures
which demonstrate creativity and inspiration. There is an unstable
relationship between socialising and de-socialising forces.
Nevertheless, German philosopher Kant observed that actual social life
should and always will consist of in some way its own opposite asocial
life, which he described as "unsociable sociality".
Without doubt,
fashion exhibits a dichotomy of conformity and differentiation, with
contradictory groups aspiring to fit in and stand out from a crowd.
Previously, the pace of change that fashion went through has spawned
social emulation, a phenomenon whereby subordinate groups follow a
process of imitation of the fashion tastes adopted by the upper echelons
of society. Veblen, a Norwegian-American sociologist and economist,
criticized in detail the rise of consumerism, especially the notion of
conspicuous consumption, initiated by people of high status. Another
influential sociologist Georg Simmel, classified two basic human
instincts - the impetus to imitate one's neighbours, and conversely, the
individualistic behaviour of distinguishing oneself.
Simmel
indicated the tendency towards social equalization with the desire for
individual differentiation and change. Indeed, to elucidate Simmel's
theory of distinction versus imitation, the distinctiveness of
subcultures in the early stages of a set fashion assures for its
destruction as the fashion spreads. An idea or a custom has its optimal
innovative intensity when it is constrained to a small clandestine
group. After the original symbolic value of the idea has been exploited
by commercialisation and accepted as a part of mass culture, the balance
will have a tendency to tip towards imitation over distinction. An
example of the imitation of a distinctive subculture is the evolution of
blue jeans, which originating from humble American cowboys and
gold-miners, demonstrate a bubble-up effect of a subculture. On a larger
scale, it can be said that Western style dressing 'bubbled-up' from
19th Century Quaker's attire, rather than 'trickling down' from the
styles of Court aristocracy.
Simmel describes fashion as a process
by which the society consolidates itself by reintegrating what disrupts
it. The existence of fashion requires that some members of society must
be perceived as superior or inferior. From economist Harvey
Leibenstein's perspective, fashion is a market constituted of 'snobs'.
The phenomenon of 'snob-demand' depicts consumers as snobs who will stop
buying a product when the price drops too much. The trickle down effect
has been related to a 'band-wagon effect' where the turnovers of a
product are particularly high as a result of imitation. Every economic
choice is bound not only to the pure computational rationality of
individuals, but is influenced by irrational factors, such social
imitation, contrary to what Simmel calls the 'need for distinction'.
However, a 'reverse bandwagon effect' acts as an opposing force when a
snobbish consumer stops buying a product because too many others are
buying it as well. The resultant force depends on the relative intensity
of the two forces.
