The entry of fashion into modern sociological and economic thought has occurred through the idea of a “natural” need for imitation in humans. This idea originated in the work of Bernard Mandeville, a Dutch philosopher of French origin who lived in England.
In the Fable of the Bees, written in 1714, he tells the story of a hive where all bees lived comfortably in luxury but without virtue. They complained about it, and their wish to live a moral life was fulfilled, leading them to poverty and despair. In one of his remarks that accompany the fable, Mandeville explains – in passing, and without further theorizing – that fashion comes from the need of the upper classes to express their power.
Once lower classes have imitated their current style, upper classes adopt new styles, triggering a new fashion. The English economist Adam Smith developed a similar idea, but instead of basing the need of imitation on pride and egoism, he related it to what he called “sympathy,” an emotion which leads to imitation as a need to relate to the rich and powerful in order to participate in their happiness.
The idea that imitation is central to fashion was further developed by French philosopher Gabriel Tarde, whose thought, as emphasized by French sociologists Bruno Latour and Vincent Lépinay, has been largely ignored during the twentieth century despite its depth, and more specifically its relevance in understanding the inner workings of the economy.
For Tarde, social life is characterized by a single principle that he calls “universal repetition.” Repetition is a dynamic phenomenon that occurs in three forms: “undulation,” “generation,” and, finally, “imitation.”
An important point in Tarde’s theory is that where these three forms of repetition are interrelated, they are not reciprocal or of equal conceptual importance. He writes: “Generation depends upon undulation, but undulation does not depend upon generation. Imitation depends upon them both; but they do not depend upon imitation.”
What earlier sociologists share in the discussion of fashion is the concept of imitation. It is a relational concept which is necessarily a social relationship and, therefore, of sociological significance. These sociologists explain how fashion, which is a process of imitation, is included in understanding culture and society.
Imitation, which is at the basis in making an analysis of fashion, is typically a view from above since it assumes that social inferiors envy superiors and engage in imitative activities to emulate their ‘betters’ in order to gain recognition and even entry into the privileged group (Hunt 1996). For Spencer, fashion is intrinsically imitative: ‘Imitative, then, from the beginning, first of a superior’s defects, and then, little by little, of other traits peculiar to him, fashion has ever tended towards equalization.
Serving to obscure, and eventually to obliterate, the marks of class distinction, it has favored the growth of individuality’ (1966[1897]: 205–6). He posits two types of imitations: reverential and competitive. Reverential imitation is prompted by reverence for the one imitated.
Veblen’s discussion of fashion (1957[1899]) remains within the framework of the creation and institutionalization of the leisure class through consumption activities. He identifies three properties of fashion: 1) It is an expression of the wearer’s wealth.
Expenditure on clothing is a striking example of conspicuous consumption. Clothes are the evidence and indication of economic wealth at the first glance. What is not expensive is unworthy and inferior. 2) It shows that one does not need to earn one’s living or is not engaged in any kind of productive physical labor.
Elaborately elegant, neat, spotless garments imply leisure. The less practical and functional a garment is, the more it is a symbol of high class. Some styles always require a help to wear them. 3) It is up to date. It must be ‘in fashion’ which means that it must be appropriate for the present time.
While the second point is not applicable to today’s fashion phenomenon because practicality or impracticality of a style does not define what is fashion, the first and third points must be considered in depth.
Finally, the third form, imitation, cannot exist without undulation, which is the basis of diffusion mechanisms. Nor can it exist without generation, which provides the elements to be diffused, such as philosophical ideas or a craft practice. The distinctive characteristic of imitation is that it occurs at a distance, both from a spatial perspective and a temporal point of view.
It is within this conceptual framework that Tarde developed his theory of fashion. For him, fashion is to be opposed to custom. Both are forms of imitation, but while for a given social entity, a nation or a city for example, custom is a routine imitation of the past of this entity, fashion is an imitation of what is distant, whether in a spatial or temporal sense.
Custom is the routine normality of imitation, which allows social entities to be reproduced identically, while fashion is a type of imitation which is less expected, more surprising, and brings something new to the table.
Tarde wrote illuminatingly: “In periods when custom is in the ascendant, men are more infatuated about their country than about their time; for it is the past which is preeminently praised. In ages when fashion rules, on the contrary, men are prouder of their time than of their country.”
In sum, for Tarde, fashion is a type of imitation that plays with social, cultural or geographical boundaries. No writer places more emphasis on imitation than Tarde (1903); imitation is the key to his overall social theory.
Tarde elaborates his thought largely through three central concepts: invention, imitation and opposition. Inventions, the creations of talented individuals, are disseminated throughout social systems by the process of imitation.
These imitations spread, regularly progressing toward the limits of the system until they come into contact with some obstacle. The three processes form an interdependent relationship, continuing to generate and influence one another in multiple ways.
Upper-class women invent new styles, and when they are imitated, in order to express their oppositions, these women come up with newer styles. Like Spencer (1996[1886]), Tarde (1903) postulates that social relations are essentially imitative relationships. Thus, fashion with its imitative nature is a crucial phenomenon in understanding society. He holds, like many others, that fashion fundamentally consists of the imitation of a few superiors by a great number of inferiors.