In contrast to other classical sociologists who argue that imitation is a positive behavior, Veblen degrades the act of imitation since the imitation remains merely an imitation, that is a second-order, second-rate reproduction. Nothing can compensate for the lack of ‘real’ products such as ‘real’ pearls or ‘real’ silk; in other words, the materials employed must be difficult to obtain or laborious to produce.
Veblen explains: We all find a costly hand-wrought article of apparel much preferable, in point of beauty and of serviceability, to a less expensive imitation of it, however cleverly the spurious article may imitate the costly original; and what offends our sensibilities in the spurious article is not that it falls short in form or color, or, indeed, in visual effect in any way.
The offensive object may be so close an imitation as to defy any but the closest scrutiny; and yet so soon as the counterfeit is detected, its aesthetic value, and its commercial value as well, declines precipitately.
Veblen argues that increasing wealth made the ruling class pay attention to the display of leisure as well as leisure goods. This ‘conspicuous consumption’ is at once an expression of wealth and a demonstration of purchasing power.
In his theory, he discusses why some consumers prefer to pay more but does not indicate how they come to know which objects would fulfill the purposes of conspicuous consumption or how the value of an object is created and determined.
In Spencer’s view, fashion is a symbol of manifestation of relationships between superiors and inferiors that functions as a social control. Various forms of obeisance through mutilations, presents, visits, forms of address, titles, badges, and costumes express domination and submission, and thus, fashion is a symbol of social rank and status (Spencer 1966[1896]).
The idea that fashion challenges social or cultural boundaries is essential in the theoretical developments that follow Tarde’s work, especially in Thorstein Veblen’s theory, and in the work of German sociologist Georg Simmel.
Both complement, in their own way, the concept of imitation as the main engine of fashion with a second concept: the concept of distinction. Their theories of fashion have much in common, despite some notable differences.
For Veblen, fashion must be understood as a byproduct of the dynamics of “conspicuous consumption,” as described in his main, and most famous, book, The Theory of the Leisure Class, written in 1899. Veblen’s theory is, in many ways, a study in social stratification, and begins with a distinction between the “leisure class” and the “working class.”
This distinction is different from the distinction made by Marx between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, because what Veblen is interested in is not the position of classes in the production process, but rather their relation to both manufactured objects and time.
Although Spencer does not make an explicit distinction between clothing and fashion, he implies that what is important is not the actual clothes that are worn, but the wearer’s position in society, which has the power to transform clothing into fashion.
Like Spencer, Toennies (1961[1909]) argues that we follow fashion ‘slavishly’ to indicate our acceptance of the leadership of those who dominate the groups in which we desire membership, just as we follow the customs and traditions of such groups as an indication of our desire to remain among or join them.
Simmel points out that, in addition to imitation, demarcation constitutes an important factor in fashion since the act of imitation arises out of the desire for class distinction. He argues that fashion serves to unite a given class and to segregate it from other classes.
It poses a threat to the upper bourgeois class and offers an opportunity to the lower working class to cross that class boundary. Simmel postulates (1947[1904]: 546): ‘the fashions for the upper classes develop their power of exclusion against the lower in proportion as general culture advances, at least until the mingling of the classes and the leveling effect of democracy exert a counter-influence.’
Therefore, for Simmel, fashion is a form of both imitation and social equalization, but paradoxically, in changing incessantly, it differentiates one time from another and one social stratum from another. It unites those of a social class and segregates them from others. The elite initiates a fashion and, when the mass imitates it in an effort to obliterate the external distinctions of class, abandons it for a newer mode; this is a process that speeds up with the increase of wealth. Fashion contains the attraction of highly changeable differentiation.
For Simmel, fashion is a singular object that can be advantageously used to illustrate, and account for, crucial tensions in society. It is the result, on the one hand, of the upper classes’ need to distinguish themselves from lower social classes, a phenomenon well described by Mandeville or Smith for example, and the need of the lower classes, on the other hand, to imitate the upper classes.
When the upper classes adopt a style, it is readily copied by the lower classes who wish to participate in the prestige of the upper classes by imitating them. This then pushes the upper classes to adopt a new style to distinguish themselves from the lower classes, and this new style is imitated again in a movement that continues forever, at least in modern capitalist societies where institutional barriers, such as sumptuary laws or customs, do not limit the spread of styles.
The dynamic of imitation and distinction as the origin of fashion is a well-known and oft-quoted element of the Simmelian theory of fashion. Yet, for Simmel, the theoretical and empirical interest of fashion lies in its ability to maintain a dynamic balance between opposite poles of social and psychological life, such as universality and particularity, or creation and destruction.
Fashion is what unites and reconciles individuals and collectives by enabling individuals to assert their tastes in a collectively determined framework. The tension between distinction and imitation is at the heart of fashion, and has repeatedly been used under different forms by fashion scholars to inform their understanding.
For example, French sociologist Edmond Goblot, in a short but insightful study of nineteenth-century French bourgeoisie, explains that the bourgeoisie is fundamentally defined by a tension between what he calls the “barrier” mechanism through which it makes it difficult to join and become a bourgeois, and the “level” mechanism which guarantees some homogeneity within the bourgeoisie.
Thus, the bourgeoisie protects itself from new entrants by adopting specific sartorial codes, which it keeps changing, and enforcing similarity within its ranks. Goblot, notes, however, that novelty does not come from the bourgeoisie itself, but from avant-garde groups which inspire the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie does not innovate in fashion, but it is an early adopter of changes.