The polarity of the Haute Couture field
Bourdieu and Delsaut, in the article “The ‘couturier’ and his ‘signature’: contribution to a theory of magic” (1975), aim to study the logic of the functioning of the “field” of French haute couture. They perceive a quite decisive polarity in explaining the behaviour of the main actors of this market, that are qualified as an incessant struggle between the dominant companies of the moment, corresponding to an established bourgeoisie, and new companies, rather supported by the new bourgeoisie. While the former are defined as old prestigious houses characterized by their austerity and sobriety, the latter, on the contrary, carry “modernity”, “hatred of perfection”, “mass openness” in order to convince the new (younger) fringes of the bourgeoisie. In this respect, Dior or Balmain are opposed to firms such as Paco Rabanne or Ungaro who were the emerging talents at the time the article was written. The design of the stores reflect this opposition quite strikingly: while the first two are defined by their use of “white walls” and “grey carpet” and “monograms”, and are located in old school prestigious buildings on large arteries such as rue François Ier or Avenue Montaigne; the second two signal themselves by “white and gold metal”, “modern” shapes, significantly younger sellers, and are preferably located on the left bank of Paris. For the former, it is a question of retaining an acquired clientele; for the latter, of convincing new clients.
This dual logic of the fashion field may be explained by the attempt of the new actors to send the old ones back to their past, which, by the way, would ensure continuity. The function of the “dominants” would be, on the opposite, to maintain their positions through conservation means, i.e., “ostentatious refusal of conspicuous strategies of distinction”. For them, it would be better to tend towards “classic” elegance, to confine oneself to using strategies that deny the subversions of newcomers, so as to establish a high cost entry barrier from a symbolic point of view. Quite different is the logic of the contenders, who must necessarily claim a certain form of exaggeration, close enough to the “slightly too sustained brilliance of the first generation intellectual”. On the one hand, we have the rejection of conventions (introduction of new subjects, for example), “freedom”, “new”, on the other hand, the negation of these contributions for a certain form of “balance”, “refinement”. As one can see, the field of French couture is not only structured by economic parameters but also by cultural or symbolic ones: old and new players on the field align themselves with cultural codes and references that are as different and opposed as possible.
Developed by the authors, the attached diagram allows to visualize the functioning of the field with efficiency. Corresponding respectively to the turnover and the number of employees, the circles allow us to see the rise in importance of houses such as Courrèges, Saint Laurent, as well as the way in which new entrants actually obtain their “initial capital of authority” from former dominant houses (Courrèges from Balenciaga, Yves Saint Laurent passing through the Dior house). Nevertheless, Bourdieu and Delsaut note that seniority cannot be the only explanation for hierarchies. Thus “the relationship between seniority and capital can only be maintained within certain limits”, for example, the exploitation of the brand in the mass production of perfume. Basically, the couturier would obey operating logics opposed to those of the writer or artist, its necessarily declining value being based solely on the fashion/decay succession.
Although the fashion trend can therefore be expressed here in terms of field polarity and the struggle between newcomers and dominant actors, Bourdieu and Delsaut also defend the idea that this polarity is anchored within the restructuring of the field of power. The last entrants would address the women of the new bourgeoisie eager for a new way of life based on the importance of sport, a liberation of the body, a new professional life, and would distinguish themselves from the established houses aimed more at the dominant classes.
The interest of Bourdieu and Delsaut’s analysis resides in the way they manage to reconcile the logics of social distinction between the new and the old bourgeoisie and the logics of the field. If fashion takes shape with a view to distinction, it is nevertheless born within a defined field governed by its own logic.
The field of contemporary fashion
This is how we could try to analyse the field of contemporary fashion. The career path of designer Marine Serre is evocative. Having worked for Alexander McQueen, Maison Margiela, Dior and Balenciaga (dominant in the field), the young woman defines her company as a “start-up”, preaches “equal wages and positions” between men and women, underlines her totally Parisian manufacturing in opposition to the brands manufacturing in Bangladesh, as well as her “100% radical” approach and her practice of sport.
The position of Hedi Slimane, artistic director of the Celine house, is quite different. Claiming to put youth “at the heart of everything he undertakes, creates”, he nevertheless highlights the heredity of the figure of the “Parisian woman”, to highlight his way of “drawing and redrawing in an obsessive way” a “cloakroom codified to the extreme”, to think of “new classics”, to have “a stylistic grammar, a heritage and a silhouette or an invariable and identifiable appearance twenty years later”.
WHAT IS CONTEMPORARY FASHION?
Contemporary apparel is clothing that is accessible, in price and in terms of the way people wear it. The contemporary category often contains more modern-style clothes compared to the higher end luxury market. The voice of the contemporary industry is a bit more modern and a tad younger
American sociologist (1910-2003), former professor at Columbia University (New York), and known as the first sociologist to obtain the National Medal of Science in 1994, Robert K. Merton is the author of Social Theory and Social Structure (1949) from which we draw the concept of the “self-fulfilling prophecy”.
Inspired by the “Thomas theorem” formulated in 1928 by William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas, according to which “if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”, the sociologist begins by referring to the history of the bankruptcy of the Last National Bank in 1932, unable to satisfy the requests of depositors who came to withdraw their money because of rumours of the bank’s insolvency. Based on simple gossips, the bankruptcy becomes effective only because it is driven precisely by the strong demand for bank withdrawals (caused by ungrounded rumors). It is thanks to this story that K. Merton introduces his concept of “self-fulfilling prophecy”. Indeed, for him:
“The parable tells us that public definitions of a situation (prophecies or predictions) become an integral part of the situation and thus affect subsequent developments”.
In other words, under certain circumstances, the simple prediction of an event can be enough to make it real. A false definition of a situation can impact it to the point of making it true.
If Merton develops this theory outside the field of fashion, it is nevertheless easy for us to recontextualise it to explain how a trend can be artificially constructed and measure the importance of the belief system in the very existence of the fashion phenomenon. More specifically, it is notably through this concept of “self-fulfilling prophecy” that we can read the phenomenon of the numerous product placements. By relying on the idea of making clothing visible in a favorable environment, brands tend to try and impose their products themselves as “cool”, whereas there is no objective characteristic to defend such an idea.
The case of the Yeezy Boost, a line of pairs of sneakers resulting from the collaboration between rapper Kanye West and Adidas, might be a good example of this phenomenon. By calling in some of his family members, in addition to his extensive network of colleagues and friends, Kanye West was able to ensure the popular success of each pair even before its release. A similar recipe is applied each time: appearance and “stolen” photography of the rapper and his relatives wearing the shoes, promotion of his entourage on social networks, public release and success. In addition to its aesthetic characteristics, the pair can only impose itself on the market, since it has been precisely declared “fashionable” by an assembly of influential people.
Another example is the relationship maintained by rapper A$ap Rocky with certain brands. This is how he regularly tries to make his products, or those of his crew A$ap mob, visible in his own clips in order to make them appear relevant. Tony Tone’s video is striking. We can see the rapper around 2:30 wearing a Disco Inferno t-shirt from his friend A$ap Illz, AWGE shorts from the same brand, and a pair of sneakers from the collaboration between AWGE (A$ap Rocky’s creative agency) and Under Armour. Drowned in a set of other brands, these investments seem all the more natural and only come out more effective. The t-shirt will be sold out in a few days.
The concept of “self-fulfilling prophecy” brilliantly demonstrates the performative nature of certain fashion trends. Finally, what is declared as such by certain actors in a position of influence is “fashionable”. This is how fashion houses can choose to make certain products visible in order to define them as “trends”. This conception is perfectly in line with H. Blumer’s theory that the trend is born within the fashion field itself.
The trickle-down theory, a rebuttal
Adam Smith and Georg Simmel (among others) postulated for the idea of a vertical diffusion of trends, from the upper classes of society to the less privileged classes. This idea has been criticized in particular in the American context of the 1960s. Charles W. King has attempted to forge his “trickle across” theory, while George A. Field will identify different cases of new trend diffusions.
The “trickle across” principle
Former professor at the University of Illinois (Chicago), Charles W. King is particularly famous for his work on Network Marketing. Published in 1963, his article “Fashion adoption. A rebuttal to the trickle down theory” allows him to criticize the trickle-down theory, and to sketch out what he will call the “trickle across” theory.
King starts by deploring the lack of relevance and empirical anchoring of the “trickle down” theory for the situation in the early 1960s. Thought by economists such as John Rae, Caroline R. Foley, sociologists like Thorstein Veblen or G. Simmel, and defined by the premise that “the upper socio-economic classes adopt fashion first in the time dimension as symbols of distinction, and exclusiveness”, this theory doesn’t seem to be able, for him, to explain the behavior of contemporary consumers.
This logically leads him to propose a “rebuttal to the trickle-down” by noting three major factors of change: the changing social environment, the impact of mass media, the fashion industry manufacturing and merchandising. The averaging of society favors greater access for certain social classes to fashion. The emergence of mass communication entails the loss of influence of the figure of the “traditional, upper class fashion leader”. And the acceleration/multiplication of fashions does no longer leave room for external intervention like validation of a trend by the socioeconomic elite. Thus, the “trickle down” understanding of fashion relies on a misunderstanding and should be replaced by an industry-specific trickle down (vertical process corresponding to the diffusion of a style designed by a company on a market and to the consumer) while recognizing only its partial effective existence.
The author proposes to conduct a field survey. Carried out in Boston on a category of products related to “women’s millinery” in Boston, by means of telephone and physical interviews, in the period following Fall 1962, it aims to determine the time of the adoption of a fashion. Two groups stand out: “early buyers” or “innovators”, adopting the trend from the end of August to September, represent 35% of its sample, while “late buyers”, corresponding rather to an autumnal adoption (October to mid-January), concern 65% of the consumers questioned. Charles W. King tries to answer two questions: do early buyers really belong to the elite, an idea defended by the trickle-down? Do early buyers really have an influence on their predecessors?
To the first, the author answers in the negative, the “early buyers” defining themselves rather by a “higher status” without belonging to the “upper class”. 59% would have an income of less than 9000$/year, 62% would have a husband belonging to the “middle class” and 16% perceived themselves as “lower middle” or “lower class”. For the second, he focuses on “personal influence” by trying to determine “the frequency of interaction by the influentials within adopter groups”, “the number of influentials within the adopter group”, and “the status compatibility between the receiver and the influential in the reported interactions”. This leads him to conclude that, contrary to popular belief, early buyers are no more influential than late buyers, the proportion of influencers being substantially similar in both categories, and above all that exchanges of influence take place mainly within the same class, i. e. 80% of receiving interactions.
Thus, Charles W. King tries to sketch the first steps of his theory of the “trickle across” according to 4 principles:
- the simultaneous adoption of a trend by all groups due to industrial logic and merchandising. - the consumer’s freedom of choice in a wide repertoire of styles allowing personal practices - the important role played by innovators and influentials within the same social strata
- a personal influence more important at the horizontal level than vertical level, i.e. horizontal flow concept
The status float phenomenon
This critical discussion of the “trickle-down” theory will be followed in particular by George A. Field in his article “The status float phenomenon. The upward diffusion of innovation”, published in 1970 in Business Horizons. On this occasion, he proposes to return to the trickle-down theory, according to which the upper classes are copied by the most popular, to identify their shortcomings and propose a new diffusion model.
Like Charles W. King, he begins by noting the lack of empirical anchoring of the trickle-down theory, particularly based on Lazarsfeld’s work, to study what he would call the “status float” phenomenon. It would seem that “some fashions (…) climb the status of pyramid from below, trickling up, as it were”. This phenomenon would be perceptible on four levels: the appropriation of black culture by whites, the appropriation of youth culture by the elderly, the poor by the rich, and finally the man by the woman.
George A. Field first notes the propensity of the “dominant white culture” to draw on the “black culture”. Music, dance, fashion, or speech patterns would be irrigated with borrowed elements. Either the case of jazz, going from a black subculture to a culture prized by intellectuals and music critics, or the example of pop music strongly influenced by the music of the Black Churches.
However, we would also see the emergence of a new diffusion model, based less on the dichotomy between high and low than on the old vs young opposition. In other words, for the author, the eldest would now appropriate the cloakroom of the youngest, even in conservative circles, where he notices the spread of “sporting sideburns”, or “square-toed buckled shoes, etc.”.
But the tastes of the working classes would also spread to the upper classes. The attraction for camping, chewing gum, or certain language expressions should be interpreted in this way, as well as the civil adoption of work clothing, such as the famous Levi’s, boots, or sleeveless undershirt for the male population. Women would end up drawing from the male wardrobe, the result of what he calls the “sexual revolution”. The increasing number of “flare pants” at the end of the 1960s would be the symbol of this.
It is therefore by raising these four levels of borrowing that George A. Field sketches a critique of the trickle-down theory. The model for the diffusion of fashion would no longer be based as much on an imitation of the dominant classes by the dominated classes, as on a multiplicity of borrowings from black culture, young people, or male and female lockers. While this theory suggests the emergence of a new diffusion model in the post-war American context, other authors will nevertheless attempt to rehabilitate the Simmelian theory, or to amalgamate the two models like G. McCracken in Culture and Consumption (1988).
No comments:
Post a Comment