We shall discuss the nature of fashion in society as it relates to the practical issues of consumption and production. Also, we shall explore fashion in the context of the consumer society, highlighting its social and political dimensions, in particular class, gender and ethnicity.

The management of fashion is central to the design, manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of clothes, in particularly women’s clothing. The essence of fashion in clothes means that we discard and throw away clothes before they have been worn out (this refers to ‘semiotic redundancy’). Fashion is not only a matter of creation, consumption and identity, it is also a matter of production.

‘Fashion cycle’ describes how a dress code that is widely accepted becomes unfashionable. At the beginning of the fashion cycle, wearers of new fashion appear distinctive. But within a short time those who do not adopt the new fashion stand out. The new fashion exerts a degree of conformity, and customers find that shops are full with the new fashion. However, the more fashion-conscious customers begin to look urgently for fresh fashion. The once new fashion becomes old-fashioned because as the fashion spreads, it is on its way to destruction. Throughout the C20th the pace of fashion cycle has quickened, and a new fashion may only survive a year.

There are two accounts of diffusion of fashion and the emergence of taste: class differentiation theory, and collective taste approach.

The first, theory of ‘class differentiation’ or ‘trickle-down’ model. George Simmel argued that fashion is a process by which the elite separates itself from the mass by adopting observable signs (especially in dress). This adoption has the effect of encouraging those closest to the elite to emulate or copy these same signs in order to gain the superior status that is associated with the elite. They, in turn are copied by those inferior in status to them, and so the process is repeated down through the social strata. The elite class loses its distinct identity, and devises new signs of differentiation. This sets off the entire cycle of demarcation and emulation. In this account, the central feature of fashion is change. It is the presence or absence of change that distinguishes fashion from style, custom and convention.

The second approach was developed by Herbert Blumer. He suggests that fashion is an act of collective mood, taste and choice, and not an outcome or process of class differentiation. Blumer claims that fashion reflects ‘common’ and ‘collective’ taste. Blumer discovered that dress designers created their new styles by examining former and recent fashions and of costumes of ‘far-off’ people. The designers developed a deep sense of expressions as manifested in the arts, literature and politics. They were able to sense the current identity and tastes prevailing in society. In other words, fashion can originate from a diverse range of groups, sources and designers. Fashion does not spread from a single creative centre (e.g. Parisian fashion houses that tailor for the elite class) to more remote fashion-consuming places. In effect, there are multiple fashion systems, such as new fashions on the street, from colleges of fashion, from ‘pop’ designers, among ethnic minorities, and so on, and not only Parisian fashion houses.

This second approach suggests that there is a complex relationship between high fashion and everyday fashion. High fashion designers borrow from the ‘street’ and ‘everyday’ fashion. High fashion designers do not only operate from Paris, but other fashion and creative centres such as New York, Tokyo, Milan, Moscow and Sidney. There is not a great distinction between elite designer fashion and high street fashion.

Until the 1970s, it had be assumed that the manufacture of clothes was a matter of high-volume production, of slowly changing range of garments, and therefore fashion was of relatively marginal or little importance. This consumption of fashion meant that production of clothes shifted from advanced industrial countries (AICs) to newly industrialised countries (NICs – Hong Kong and Thailand) and less developed countries (LDCs – India and Brazil). This shift occurred because of LDC and NICs had lower labour costs and AICs had high social and welfare costs that protected workers from extreme exploitation.

However, since 1970s, the mass market for clothes has become fragmented and fashion occupies a high importance. As a consequence of this new consumption of fashion, the balance of advantage has shifted in favour of AICs as some production of fashion no longer takes place in NICs and LDCs. The nature of production has changed as manufacturers operate with lower level of stock, and have to respond quickly and be flexible to orders from retailers and fluctuations in consumer demand for different fashions, styles and designs. Sometimes, this change of production system is represented as a shift from ‘mass production’ to ‘flexible specialisation’.

There are three models of garment production that identify the most efficient form of production and the most desirable location for that production.

• Relocation of production to LDCs and NICs where labour is cheaper than AICs, and advances in transport mean that deliveries can arrive quickly. Yet, the manufacturers from AICs have attempted to gain competitive advantage in their ability to provide variety in design, flexibility in production and quick response to changing orders from retailers and fluctuations in consumer demand.
• Subcontracting production within AICs to inner-city manufacturers who employ a mixture of cheap labour and women working from home, who are cheaper still. In this type of production, women work on a casual and part-time basis. Interestingly, many of these subcontracted firms are run by ethnic minority businesspeople, who employ largely ethnic minority workers, and pay them wages comparable to LDCs and NICs levels.
• New forms of production and subcontracting (flexible specialisation) have developed in parts of AICs, notably in some places of Italy. The essence of flexible specialisation is to utilise new technology to permit economic production in small batches and just-in-time production. Manufacturers are able to operate with minimal levels of stocks (Benetton).

Benetton has developed a particular arrangement of production with a particular form of retailing. Benetton’s production relies on utilising advanced technology in its central operation while using more traditional methods of manufacture in its peripheral operations. Benetton’s retailing operates through franchises that are not owned by Benetton, but can only sell Benetton clothes. Benetton only produces goods in response to direct orders, and the pattern of sales are monitored by its headquarters. The headquarters send out orders to manufacturers and re-stocks shops. Information technology within the production system has increased productivity and enhanced flexibility, while maintaining quality control and product differentiation.

To re-cap, we have discussed the implications of changing fashion (market niches and fragmentation) has made on production of clothing. We identified three models of production.

There are three key dimensions to the relationship of fashion to the consumer society.

The analysis of fashion highlights some of the central contradictions between production and consumption, as fashion is simultaneously one of the most exploitative and underdeveloped forms of production (Asian countries and inner-cities of the West), which contrasts sharply with its luxurious and hyper-cultivated importance as a mode of consumption (Parisian fashion).

On the one hand, there are several dimensions to fashion’s production: fashion has a high speed of turnover; fashion as an industry is largely employs intensive-labour techniques (e.g. home-working) and; the necessity of the physical body, climate and social activities that stimulate demand. On the other hand, there are several dimensions to the consumption of fashion: consuming fashion lies in the desire to maintain a sense of style; fashion renders perfectly satisfactory commodities wholly redundant on the grounds of style alone; fashion is connected with questions of self and identity and; as part of the wider processes of lifestyle advertising, products reinforce certain notions of status and personality.

Fashion is associated with questions of signification, or meanings associated with commodities. The study of fashion informs much of the wider relationship of the individual and the commodity. Fashion is seen as unusually important in the overall process of ‘conspicuous consumption’ (e.g. sport’s car, gentlemen’s suit, and diamonds), for it displays an individual’s status visually, directly and independently of the context in some sense.

Fashion is perceived as a form of communication, a particularly accident-prone form of communication. For example, ‘suit and tie’ may be appropriate in a business meeting, but not in a swimming pool. Significantly, people mis-read and differ in their interpretations; e.g. designer clothing may mean ‘cool’ or ‘poser’.

Consequently, appearances are increasingly seen to constitute personality, equating how one looks with how one is. This is a process open to positive and negative consequences alike, from parody and masquerade to deception and misunderstanding.

Fashion is associated with uncertainty and confusion concerning social values, especially concerning what is real or authentic (especially ethnic cross-overs in clothes and body decorations). Some suggest that the nature of fashion is a ‘depthless culture’, stressing the fascination of fashion as the fascination of surfaces, of packing and of seduction.

Fashion seems to epitomise many of the more political elements of the consumer society. Fashion is often seen as self-selected or as part of an overall process of individual choice and expression, yet decisions concerning personal dress and appearance are often ingrained in social divisions and inequalities such as sexual and racial exploitation.

The rise of designer cultures highlights a key contradiction in fashion. On the one hand, fashion is accessible to all and meritocratic. On the other hand, fashion is socially divisive as it excludes those on low pay, unemployed and single parents.

In terms of gender, fashion has an immediate and important impact on sexing the person. For example, pink is appropriate for female babies and blue for males. More importantly, some clothes are sex-typed, particularly skirts and suit and tie. In addition, there is a tendency to sex-type processes of self-presentation. For example, make-up and most cosmetics and jewellery remain almost exclusively feminine.

To a certain extent, women’s fashion allows an element of playfulness and experimentation, to experience prevailing modes of seductive power. Yet, their power is limited. Women suffer from anorexia and similar eating disorders in part because they have become victims of fashion’s images of femininity and slimness. The tyranny of fashion ideals still dominates many women’s lives.

Consequently, the key point that emerges is that although fashion styles may be playful and seductive, the bodies are increasingly subject to ruthless surveillance and control. Many women undergo a diet regime in order to look more like ‘ideal women’. The irony is that fashion and style, far from expressing personal and individual ideals, increasingly conform the tyranny of gendered beings and the pressure of appearances.

Interestingly, Benetton clothes suggest that ethnicity is a matter of style. At the level of fantasy, ethnicity, as a matter of style, is something that can be put on and taken off at will. The fantasy holds out that the consumer can acquire ethnicity. In this process of calculated hedonism, ethnicity, or ‘the Other’, is made safe since ethnicity is not a lived reality but a realisable dream. The question posed by Benetton is what colour is your skin going to be today? However, this style is not equally available to all, and reducing ethnicity to just a style obscures the harsh reality of racial discrimination and inequality.

A single fashion centre or an elite group does not dictate fashion. A broader view of fashion recognises that there are several creative fashion centres, and that ‘popular’ or ‘street fashion’ is just as valuable as ‘elite’ or ‘high fashion’. There is a complex relationship between street fashion and high fashion, whereby they borrow from each other.

We identified three models of production in the light of the changes in the consumer fashion market. One of them is highly exploitative mode of production that takes advantage of women and ethnic minorities’ lack of social and economic power.

We have also considered three key dimensions to the importance of fashion in consumer society:

• as a site of extreme contrasts in terms of its outmoded and exploitative modes of production juxtaposed with its often wasteful and extravagant significance as a form of consumption in the affluent West;
• highlighting the importance of consumption practices and display as forms of social communication or signification;
• as a political site in simultaneous formation of individual and collective identities and social divisions.

To end, we can suggest that there are three dimensions to clothing and body decoration: as an expression of self in relationship to society, as an aesthetic and artistic form, and as a sensual experience. For example, the wearing of a smooth, black, velvet evening dress not only communicates socially maturity and portrays aesthetic ideal, it also creates physical set of sensations.