The forms of incorporation
The concept of “incorporation” is instrumental if one is to understand and define the phenomenon of “trickle-up”. If George A. Field, following Charles W. King, defended the existence of movements against the “trickle-down” picture of fashion movements, we must now understand how trends actually reach the dominant layers. For this reason, we will focus on the notion of incorporation as understood by Dick Hebdige and Bruno Du Roselle.
The subcultural incorporation
Famous for his book Subculture, the meaning of style, and his membership of the CCSS in Birmingham, stronghold of British Cultural Studies, sociologist Dick Hebdige focuses on the concept of “incorporation” in Subculture, the meaning of style. After noting the ambivalence of the media treatment of peripheral movements, oscillating between exaltation and rejection, the author is interested in how these phenomena are finally trivialized and made available to the mainstream. In this way, he synthesizes two forms of incorporation of subcultures: the “commodity form” and the “ideological form”.
The first, aimed at “transforming subcultural signs into standardized consumer objects”, refers to the most customary form of the recovery mechanism to highlight how subcultural clothing practice is directly rooted in consumer practices. Thus, a commercial network is taking shape to support this consumer demand. This analysis can refer to the concept of incorporation such as the Ted Polhemus analysis in Fashion & Anti-Fashion, for which it is semiotically defined as the conversion of “‘natural’ anti-fashion style symbols into arbitrary ‘linguistic’ signs”.
To illustrate this phenomenon, Dick Hebdige takes the example of the famous British designer Zandra Rhodes, who presented a “punk” collection in September 1977. Let us add Jean-Paul Gaultier, still a young designer, making a similar gesture for his presentation of the Spring/Summer 1977. In a more contemporary perspective, let us mention the diffusion of the “UK Grime style”, widely appreciated by the UK suburbs since the beginning of 2000’s, and taken up by designers such as Ben Cottrell and Matthew Dainty from the brand Cottweiler.
We can summarize the phenomenon as follows:
- diffusion of a “subversive” style.
- diffusion of new standards.
- commercial diffusion.
Hebdige is also interested in what he calls the “ideological form”. He goes beyond the clothing field to refer more generally to “deviant” behaviors in order to identify the way in which “deviancy” is normalized. The author reveals two processes of standardization: 1. by trivialization, domestication of the other. 2. by exoticization of the other.
He takes as an example the figure of the “punk”, sometimes treated by the newspapers as a dangerous individual massacring “a young boy”, or on the contrary as a banal individual evolving in his family context.
Understanding the “new forms of fashion penetration”
If Dick Hebdige brilliantly dissects the way in which a subcultural clothing style is quickly captured by the commercial and media sphere, let us now turn to the words of the French fashion historian and former general delegate of the French Women’s Ready-to-Wear Federation, Bruno du Roselle, famous for his books La crise de la mode (1973) and La Mode (1981).
He raised the issue in a book entitled La crise de la mode, where he outlined several stages in what he called the “new forms of fashion penetration” that had emerged in the late 1960s:
- spontaneous creation of an individual. - intervention “fashion leaders”.
- diffusion.
- progressive attenuation.
Du Roselle distinguishes first and foremost between spontaneous creation and fashion creation. When the first refers to an individual creation with no ambition of diffusion, the second is framed with a designer’s brand. The couturier’s work, defined by his ability to be in phase with the “zeitgeist”, is influenced by his exposure to inspiring youth, and identifies their innovations. This is how the spontaneous novation is reformulated within an official collection. However, this is not enough for its dissemination, as the author notes that social groups are naturally resistant to change. It is at this moment that the figure of the “fashion leader” comes into play, by analogy with the “opinion leaders”. Unlike “anti-fashion” individuals with a contested/creative aim, who tends to look for novelty only, opinion leaders are characterized by du Roselle by an advantageous morphology. Through various means, they will allow the diffusion of novation to the entire population. Nevertheless, Du Roselle notes that this diffusion is not without effect on the original creation, which is attenuated by the sandstone of the social groups targeted.
Let’s now illustrate B. Du Roselle’s point with a video of the French rapper Kekra, during which he focuses on the relationship between Virgil Abloh, creator of the brand Off-White and designer of Louis Vuitton menswear, and the Parisian youth (23.15)
“These bridges (between French youth and major fashion houses) are not created in France. On the other hand, they (these big fashion houses) will hire a ‘Virgil’, something like that, takes the subway, comes to Paname (Paris), mixes in a party, and observes the youth who comes to watch it. Youth does not realize, comes with a Lacoste ‘tracksuit’, or Sergio (Tacchini), or any brand with an old retro inspired from France, 100% of French street, like the pants tucked into socks and TN (Nike). The ‘cain-ri’ (Virgil Abloh) comes, goes to Louis Vuitton, France, and sells it to you, and you buy it back like a ‘lossbo’ (a stupid guy).”
Although Kekra’s point is sometimes clumsy, we can see in it all du Roselle’s analysis of the recovery process, and in particular on the use of spontaneous creations from youth by fashion designers.
By their two approaches, D. Hebdige and B. Du Roselle therefore specifies how the field of fashion takes hold of subcultural creations before reformulating them and reducing them in official creations. This is precisely how the “low” creation can move upwards and target the “high”.
Is it the elite who influence the working classes? The working classes that influence the elite? Is fashion only the decision of a small group of designers present in the major fashion capitals?
No comments:
Post a Comment