Who, according to Georg Simmel's theory, dictates fashion? Georg Simmel: biography

Kiloshenko M.I. Psychology of fashion. – St. Petersburg, 2000. The textbook allows you to learn a lot about how people build relationships with fashion. Chapter 7 – Psychology of choosing fashionable clothes .

Simmel G. Philosophy of fashion. (1905.) Founder of the concept of Fashion Theory. Alexander Markov's thoughts on this work.

Simmel G. Favorites (Faces of Culture): in 2. T.1: Contemplation of life. Fashion /G. Simmel. – M.: Lawyer, 1996.

Bart R. Fashion system. Articles on semiotics of culture. M. Publishing house named after. Sabashnikov, 2004.

Goffman A.B. Fashion and people. New theory of fashion and fashionable behavior. 4th edition, corrected and expanded. M, 2010

Svedsen L. Philosophy of fashion. – M., 2007. Read or

Kawamura Juniya. Theory and practice of fashion creation. – M., 2009. Sociological analysis of the practice of creating and consuming fashion.

Wilson E. Dressed in dreams: fashion and modernity.– M., 2012. Read

Goffman A.B. Fashion and customs // Rubezh, 2002, No. 3.

Simmel G. Psychology of fashion // Scientific education. 2001, No. 5.

Vainshtein O. B. Clothes as meaning: ideologemes of modern fashion. // Foreign literature. 1993. No. 7. pp. 224–232. – not found on the web

State autonomous educational institution

higher professional education in Moscow

Moscow State Institute of Tourism Industry named after. Yu.A. Senkevich

MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING IN TOURISM"

DISCIPLINE

"Motivation of the service consumer"

TEST

On the topic: G. Simmel's fashion theory

Is done by a student

V course 501 group

Faculty of Correspondence Studies

Hayrapetyan Yuri

Checked by the teacher

FULL NAME.

MOSCOW 2013

Contents

Introduction

Every day we come across the concept of fashion: magazines and newspapers constantly shout at us what is fashionable now and what is not; television broadcasts to us fashion shows and fashion weeks in Paris, Milan, we know by heart the names of all famous designers and fashion designers; We know what is fashionable this season and what will be fashionable next season. And at first glance, the meaning of the concept of fashion is obvious to us. However, we never think about the mechanism of its functioning, because at first glance, what can we think: every season fashion designers create new collections, and through the media, fashion dictates its terms to us. But upon closer examination, not everything is so simple. The mechanism of fashion is very complex. Even scientists could not come to a single opinion on the issue of the essence of fashion.

The study of fashion is a wide field of activity for representatives of various fields of science: philosophers, psychologists, economists, historians, cultural scientists, sociologists. However, because fashion concerns various aspects of social life, human consciousness and behavior, social groups and communities, sociology remains the main discipline in fashion research. Fashion research has been and remains relevant to this day. This is confirmed by the fact that the study of fashion began from the birth of sociology (Tard. Zimel, Spencer) and continues to this day (Yaltina L.I., Baudrillard J., Goffman A.B.). Each of the concepts reflects the social essence of fashion the way it was in a certain era.

Simmel outlined his reasoning about fashion in his “Essay on Fashion” and in the article “Psychology of Fashion.” An analysis of the phenomenon of fashion led G. Simmel to the conclusion that its enormous popularity in modern society is due to the fact that it allows a person to assert himself, to be only similar to others, but also to show your individuality.

G. Simmel laid the foundations for the study of urban lifestyle. He saw the positive role of large cities in the fact that they provide an opportunity to expand and deepen the division of social labor, increase the efficiency of the economy, allowing a person to satisfy various needs, thereby promoting personal development.

At the same time, he also noted “the increased nervousness of life, resulting from a rapid and continuous change of impressions.”

The spread of fashion in modern society is the result of a broader social process of liberating a person from the stereotypes and norms of traditional pre-industrial society, which limit the possibilities of personal development.

1. Conditions of occurrence

Fashion is a process. It did not exist in ancient times and in the Middle Ages. It replaces folk traditions and political despotism. Fashion is associated with urbanization and modernization. New layers coming to the forefront of life emphasize, with the help of fashion, their independence from old authorities and official power, and wish to quickly establish their special position. The need for identification with the advanced cultural layer manifests itself in the form of fashion in mass, democratic societies. In a caste-based, closed state, fashion is not needed. Venetian doges dressed in the same black clothes. The same tunics, jackets, and uniforms were worn by party functionaries in the era of Hitler and Stalin. Fashion demonstrates the possibility of individual achievement. After all, not everyone can “keep up with fashion.” A fashionably dressed person proves that he has taste, energy, and resourcefulness. Fashion is attractive because it gives a sense of the present, a sense of time. This is a self-accelerating process. What has become especially fashionable and widespread no longer indicates personal achievements and “goes out of fashion.” Fashion is universal. It concerns not only the length of skirts and trousers, but also political beliefs, philosophical ideas, scientific methods, religious quests, and love relationships.

Simmel writes that the main condition for the emergence of fashion is, on the one hand, the need for individualization, separation, and on the other hand, the need for imitation, connection with the group. Where one of them is absent, fashion will not be established and “its reign will end.” Also, for the emergence of fashion, a socially heterogeneous society is necessary, which is divided into various classes and social groups that are not separated by barriers (a society without classes and castes). Since in societies with a rigid hierarchy of social groups there cannot be a free exchange of individuals and cultural patterns.

The essence of fashion is that only a certain part of the group follows it, while the rest are on the way to it, striving to imitate them. And once a fashion has spread to everyone, once it has become completely accepted by a group, it is no longer called a fashion, that is, its complete spread leads to its end. This is explained by the fact that complete expansion led to the destruction of diversity, the charm of novelty, the differences between individuals, removing the moment of separation. Simmel writes: “Fashion is one of those phenomena whose aspiration is aimed at ever greater dissemination, ever greater realization, but the achievement of this absolute goal would lead them to internal contradiction and destruction.” Regarding the socializing phenomena of the social order, they often say “they have value, while they are spreading in a society that is individualistic in nature, but if the demands of socialism are fully implemented, they would lead to nonsense and destruction.” Fashion also obeys this formulation. “From the very beginning she is characterized by an attraction to expansion, as if she must subjugate the entire group every time; but as soon as it succeeded, it would be destroyed as a fashion due to the emergence of a logical contradiction of its essence, for complete distribution removes the moment of isolation in it.”

Something new and suddenly appeared in our lives cannot be called fashion if we believe that it is designed for a long stay and also has its own factual validity (Simmel, at the beginning of his work, wrote that from the point of view of objective, aesthetic and other factors of expediency it is impossible to discover the slightest cause of its forms). We can call an item fashionable if we are sure that it will disappear as quickly as it appeared. In other words, if a thing satisfies the vital needs of people, then it has the least chance of becoming fashionable. As Sombart wrote, “the more useless an object is, the more it is subject to fashion.” For example, jewelry, clothing decorations, pop music, etc. Or it happens that a thing is vital, but its characteristics, which do not affect the ability to satisfy people's needs, can change significantly when subjected to fashion. This can be seen in clothing: it is an integral part of our life, but its appearance changes significantly with each season.

2. The role of fashion

Simmel begins his essay by defining dualism; it is expressed in the fact that on the one hand we strive for the universal, and on the other to comprehend the unique. We seek quiet dedication to people and things, as well as energetic self-affirmation in relation to both. We achieve this through imitation, which can be defined “as the transition from group to individual life.” It gives us confidence that we are not alone in our actions, that is, a kind of reassurance. By imitating, we transfer responsibility for related actions to another, free ourselves from the problem of choice and act as a creation of the group. “The attraction to imitation, as a principle, is characteristic of that stage of development when the inclination towards purposeful personal activity is alive, but the ability to find individual content for it is absent.” This is what happens with fashion. By imitating a certain model, we find social support, but at the same time, fashion satisfies our need for difference, to stand out from the crowd. Thus, “fashion is a genuine arena for those internally dependent individuals who need support, but who at the same time feel the need for distinction, attention, and a special position.” Fashion elevates an insignificant person by making him a representative of a special group. When fashion as such could not yet become universally widespread, an individual who follows a new fashion feels satisfaction, and also feels a sense of community with those who do the same as him and with those who strive for it. The attitude towards fashion is fraught with a mixture of approval and envy (envy as an individual and approval as a representative of a certain type). Envy here, writes Simmel, has a certain coloring. It reflects a kind of ideal participation in the possession of the object of envy. “The contemplated content, simply as such, evokes a pleasure that is not connected with the actual possession of it.” By envying an object or person, we acquire a certain attitude towards it. Envy allows us to measure the distance to an object. And fashion (since it is not absolutely unattainable) provides a special chance for this coloring of envy.

Another essential feature of fashion is that fashion is a mass phenomenon. And all mass actions are characterized by a loss of the sense of shame. Being part of a crowd, a person can do many things that he would not do alone. Simmel writes: “Some fashions require shamelessness, which the individual would refuse, but accepts this action as a law of fashion.” As soon as the individual becomes stronger than the public, a feeling of shame is immediately felt. The basis for the dominance of fashion is that deep and lasting convictions are increasingly being lost its power. Sometimes what becomes fashionable is so ugly and unpredictable that it seems as if fashion wants to show its power precisely in the fact that we are ready to accept the most absurd things at its will. Simmel considers it simply the result of social or formally psychological needs.

Following fashion can become a kind of mask that hides the true face of a person, the inability of an individual to individualize his existence on his own. This mask hides or replaces what the personality could not achieve on a purely individual path. However, an essential feature of fashion is that it does not completely embrace the whole person, and always remains something external for him (remains on the periphery of the personality). Therefore, following fashion and generally accepted norms can come from the fact that a person is trying to preserve his feelings and taste only for himself, and does not want to open and make them accessible to others. Many people resort to fashion out of danger of revealing the peculiarities of their inner essence. Fashion is also one of those forms through which people who sacrifice the external side, submitting to the slavery of the common, want to save their internal freedom. Here we can recall the psychologist Maslow’s concept of self-actualization of personality. He wrote that society strives to make a person a stereotyped representative of the environment, but we also need it for self-actualization. At the same time, complete alienation puts us in opposition to our environment and deprives us of the opportunity to self-actualize. He considered optimal identification with society on the external plane and alienation on the internal plane. It is this approach that will allow you to effectively interact with others and remain yourself. This can be applied to fashion as well. “In this understanding, fashion, touching only the external side of life, those aspects that are addressed to the life of society, is a social form of amazing expediency. It allows a person to justify his connection with the universal, his adherence to the norms that are given by time, class, his narrow circle, and this allows him to increasingly concentrate the freedom that life generally provides in the depths of his essence.” A striking example is Goethe in his later years, when, with his indulgence towards everything external, strict adherence to form, and willingness to follow the conventions of society, he achieved a maximum of internal freedom, complete unaffectedness of vital centers by the inevitable amount of connectedness.

Simmel considers individuals in whom the demands of fashion reach their highest point and assume the appearance of individuality and specialness. He calls him a dandy. The dandy takes the fashion trend beyond the preserved boundaries. Its individuality consists in the quantitative strengthening of elements that, in their quality, are the common property of a certain circle. He is ahead of everyone and it seems that he is “marching ahead of the rest,” but in essence he follows the same path: the leader becomes the follower.

The life of the German thinker and sociologist was intellectually rich. His biography is full of difficulties, but it also has many achievements. His views became widespread and popular during his lifetime, but the greatest demand for Simmel’s ideas came in the second half of the 20th century.

Childhood

The future philosopher was born in Berlin on March 1, 1858 into a wealthy businessman. Georg's childhood was quite normal, his parents took care of their children and tried to give them a better future. The father, a Jew by birth, accepted the Catholic faith, the mother converted to Lutheranism, in which the children, including George, were baptized. Until the age of 16, the boy studied well at school and demonstrated success in mastering mathematics and history. It seemed that a typical fate of a businessman awaited him, but in 1874 Simmel’s father died, and Georg’s life changed. The mother cannot support her son, and a family friend becomes his guardian. He finances the young man's education and sponsors his admission to the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Berlin.

Study and formation of views

At the university, Simmel studied with the outstanding thinkers of his time: Lazarus, Mommsen, Steinthal, Bastian. Already in his university days, he clearly demonstrates his dialectical mindset, which would later be noted by such philosophers as Pitirim Sorokin, Max Weber and But then the main life collision is outlined, which will complicate the lives of many people in Europe during that period. Georg Simmel was no exception, whose biography was greatly complicated due to his nationality. After completing his university course, the philosopher tries to defend his doctoral dissertation, but is rejected. The reason is not directly stated. But in Berlin at that time anti-Semitic sentiments reigned and, despite the fact that he was a Catholic by religion, he was unable to hide his Jewish nationality. He had a distinctly Jewish appearance, and this would later hinder him more than once in his life. After some time, thanks to perseverance and perseverance, Georg managed to obtain an academic degree, but this did not open the doors he wanted.

The difficult life of a German philosopher

After graduating from university, Simmel is looking for a teaching position, but he is not given a permanent job, again because of his personal data. He receives the position of private assistant professor, which does not bring a guaranteed income, but is entirely made up of student contributions. Therefore, Simmel gives a lot of lectures and writes a large number of articles that are addressed not only to the academic environment, but also to the general public. He was an excellent speaker, his lectures were characterized by breadth, original approach and interesting presentation. Simmel's lectures were energetic; he knew how to captivate his audience by thinking aloud on a wide variety of topics. He was a constant success with students and the local intelligentsia, and during his 15 years in this position he gained a certain fame and friendship with significant thinkers in his circle, for example, with Max Weber. But for a long time the philosopher was not seriously recognized by the scientific community; sociology had not yet gained the status of a fundamental discipline. The Berlin circle of scientists laughed at the original scientist-thinker, and this hurt him. Although he continued to work persistently: reflect, write articles, give lectures.

In 1900, however, he received official recognition, he was awarded the title of honorary professor, but he still did not achieve the desired status. Only in 1914 did he finally become an academic professor. By this time he already had more than 200 scientific and popular science publications. But he receives a position not at his native university in Berlin, but in provincial Strasbourg, which was the source of his worries until the end of his life. He did not get along with the local scientific elite, and in the last years of his life he felt loneliness and alienation.

Ideas about the laws of life

Georg Simmel differed from his great contemporaries in the absence of a clear affiliation with any philosophical movement. His path was full of tossing and turning; he thought about many things, finding objects for philosophical reflection that had not previously interested thinkers. The lack of a clear position did not work in Simmel's favor. This was another reason for the difficulty of integrating the philosopher into the scientific community. But it was precisely thanks to this breadth of thought that he was able to contribute to the development of several important themes in philosophy. There are many people in science whose work begins to be appreciated only years later, and that was Georg Simmel. The biography of the thinker is full of labor and endless reflection.

Georg Simmel's dissertation was dedicated to I. Kant. In it, the philosopher tried to comprehend the a priori principles of social structure. The beginning of the thinker's path is also illuminated by the influence of Charles Darwin and G. Spencer. In line with their concepts, Simmel interpreted the theory of knowledge, identifying the natural and biological foundations of ethics. The philosopher saw the existence of man in society as the central problem of his thoughts, which is why he is considered to be a movement called “philosophy of life.” He connects cognition with the concept of life and sees its main law in going beyond biological limits. Human existence cannot be considered outside of its natural conditioning, but it is impossible to reduce everything only to them, since this coarsens the meaning of existence.

Georg Simmel

In Berlin, Simmel, together with like-minded people, including M. Weber and F. Tönnies, organized the German Society of Sociologists. He actively thought about the object, subject and structure of the new science, and formulated the principles of social structure. Describing society, Georg Simmel imagined it as the result of contacts of many people. At the same time, he deduced the main features of the social structure. Among them are the number of participants in the interaction (there cannot be less than three), the relationship between them, the highest form of which is unity, and it is he who introduces this term into scientific circulation, which denotes the sphere of communication that the participants define as their own. He calls money and socialized intelligence the most important social forces. Simmel creates a classification of forms of social existence, which is based on the degree of proximity or distance from the “stream of life”. Life appears to the philosopher as a chain of experiences that are determined simultaneously by biology and culture.

Ideas about modern culture

Georg Simmel thought a lot about social processes and the nature of modern culture. He recognized that the most important driving force in society is money. He wrote a huge work, “The Philosophy of Money,” in which he described its social functions and discovered their beneficial and negative effects on modern society. He said that ideally a single currency should be created that could ease cultural contradictions. He was pessimistic about the social possibilities of religion and the future of modern culture.

"Functions of social conflict"

Society, according to Simmel, is based on enmity. The interaction of people in society always takes the form of struggle. Competition, subordination and domination, division of labor - all these are forms of hostility that certainly lead to social conflicts. Simmel believed that they initiate the formation of new norms and values of society; they are an integral element of the evolution of society. The philosopher also identified a number of others, built a typology, described its stages, and outlined methods for its settlement.

Fashion concept

Reflections on social forms form the basis of philosophy, authored by Georg Simmel. Fashion, in his opinion, is an important element of modern society. In his work “Philosophy of Fashion,” he explored the phenomenon of this social process and came to the conclusion that it appears only with urbanization and modernization. In the Middle Ages, for example, it did not exist, says Georg Simmel. Fashion theory is based on the fact that it satisfies individuals' need for identification and helps new social groups gain their place in society. Fashion is a sign of democratic societies.

The scientific significance of the philosophical views of Georg Simmel

The significance of Simmel's work cannot be overestimated. He is one of the founders of sociology, identifies the causes of social development, and comprehends the role of money and fashion in human culture. Georg Simmel, whose conflictology became the basis for social philosophy of the second half of the 20th century, left a serious work on social confrontations. He had a significant influence on the formation of the American direction of sociology and became a harbinger of postmodern thinking.

In the history of sociology, G. Simmel is known as one of the prominent representatives of the analytical school, who anticipated many of the essential provisions of modern theoretical sociology. Thus, he studied “pure” forms of sociality, i.e. relatively stable formations, structures of social interaction that give integrity and stability to the social process.

In his works, G. Simmel described and analyzed many “pure” forms of sociality relating to various aspects of social processes: dominance, subordination, competition, fashion, conflict, etc., social personality types: “cynic”, “aristocrat”, “ poor man", "cocotte", etc.

G. Simmel is known for his original studies of social conflict, the phenomenon of fashion, urban life, culture, etc. Unlike social Darwinists and Marxists, who consider conflict as a means of struggle between different social groups, the German sociologist drew attention to the positive functions and integrative aspects.

An analysis of the phenomenon of fashion led G. Simmel to the conclusion that its enormous popularity in modern society is due to the fact that it allows a person to assert himself, to be not only like others, but also to show his individuality.

At the same time, he also noted “the increased nervousness of life, resulting from a rapid and continuous change of impressions.”

Fashion, it would seem, is voluntary. But it is also forced. It can be considered the democratic equivalent of political and cultural tyranny. Peter the Great forcibly cut the beards of his boyars. A modern politician looks for a hairdresser himself, consults with psychologists in order to develop an attractive, popular image. Fashion is a field for mediocre, dependent fame-lovers. But it is functional: it makes industry work, helps unite new groups and classes, serves as an instrument of communication, and the promotion of gifted individuals “up.”

The German sociologist Simmel put forward a number of key ideas in fashion theory. He showed that fashion is based, on the one hand, on the desire of the upper strata to break away from the masses through consumption, and on the other, the desire of the masses to imitate the consumer models of the upper strata. Simmel drew attention to the fact that consumption acts as a tool of flirtation, and gave an analysis of this form of gender relations.

The German sociologist and economist Sombart proposed the concept of luxury. He also gave an analysis of the phenomenon of early consumerism - philistinism. Another German sociologist, Weber, formulated the concept of status groups and the Protestant ethic. However, the ideas put forward at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. did not attract much attention at the time. They were not assembled into a coherent body of ideas, which would give grounds to talk about the emergence of the sociology of consumption as an independent discipline. Many fruitful ideas are almost forgotten. The sociology of consumption never had time to be born, remaining a complex of interesting and fruitful, but disparate approaches.

Anthropology of consumption. In parallel with classical sociology, the problem of consumption was mastered in cultural anthropology. Its main object was initially primitive exotic societies. Accordingly, consumption patterns were examined based on their material. However, Malinovsky and Moss’s study of the gift provided the key to understanding the modern phenomenon of the gift as an instrument for the reproduction of various kinds of social relations.

Georg Simmel's essay on fashion appeared in 1904, and was an early articulation of what would become known as the trickle-down theory of fashion diffusion. Simmel takes a dualistic view not only of fashion, but also of society as a whole. There is a relationship between the principles of generalization and specialization. As Simmel writes:

Significant forms of life in the history of our race have invariably shown the effectiveness of two antagonistic principles. Everyone in his field tries to combine an interest in longevity, integrity and uniformity with an interest in change, specialization and particularity. It becomes self-evident that no institution or law or sphere of life can fully satisfy the demands of two opposing principles. The only possible way for humanity to realize this condition is to find expression in ever-changing approximations, in everlasting attempts and everlasting hopes.

So change results from a constant tension between two opposing principles, a tension that is never released and never comes into equilibrium. Simmel then translates the opposing forces into two different types of individuals. The first type correlates with the principle of generalization and is embodied in the imitating individual. He comments: "By imitation, we transfer not only the requirement of creative activity, but also the responsibility for action from ourselves to another. In this way, the individual is freed from the need for choice and becomes simply a creation of the group, a vessel with social content." Recall that Tarde made a similar statement when he wrote about fashion “the transformation of one personality type into hundreds of thousands of copies.” So the imitator is a proper member of the group who doesn't have to think too much about it. The imitator is contrasted with a type that correlates with the principle of specialization, called by Simmel the theological individual. By this he meant someone who is “constantly experimenting, constantly struggling, and relying on his personal beliefs.” It will not surprise the reader that Simmel sees fashion as an ideal example of the result of the relationship between two opposing principles. According to him:

Fashion is an imitation of a given sample; it satisfies the need for social adaptation; it leads the individual along the roads along which all travel; it creates a general condition which reduces the behavior of each individual to a simple example. At the same time, it no less satisfies the need for differentiation, the desire for difference, the desire for change and contrasts: on the one hand, through a constant change of content, which gives today's fashion an individual imprint, contrasting it with the fashion of yesterday and tomorrow, on the other hand , because fashion differs for different classes - the fashion of the highest stratum of society is never identical to the fashion of the lower. In fact, the first one abandons it as soon as it adapts to it. Thus, fashion is no more than one of the many forms of life through which we try to combine in one sphere of activity the desire for social equalization and the desire for individual differentiation and change.

Figure 1. Fashion as a result of tension between oppositions, Simmel

If we accept that there are different fashions for different classes, we can see that fashion performs the dual function of inclusion and exclusion at the same time: it unites all those who have adopted the fashion of a particular class or group and excludes those who have not. didn't. Thus, fashion produces sameness, unity and solidarity within a group and simultaneous segregation and exclusion of those who do not belong to it.

Simmel's idea of class is central to understanding fashion change. If everyone successfully imitates every other, then there will be no fashion, because we will have a society of one external appearance. If no one imitates anyone, there will be no fashion either, because we will end up with a society of unrelated individual appearances. By adding class to the equation, we end up with groups trying to look the same within a group, but different from other groups. However, this does not necessarily lead to fashion either, since groups can happily display differences and not strive to look like others. But if groups really want to look like those higher up in the class hierarchy, then we get a change in fashion, as Simmel thought: “As soon as the lower classes begin to copy their style, the upper classes abandon this style and adopt a new one, which, in their turn distinguishes them from the masses; and thus the game happily continues." This, of course, presupposes a society that accepts the legitimacy of hierarchy and believes that one can, in some sense, rise in that hierarchy by imitating the upper classes.

The phenomenon of fashion arises on the threshold of the New Age, when the class regulations that were in effect throughout the Middle Ages weaken and clothing (like luxury) becomes one of the forms in which the lower social strata imitate the higher ones. It is blind adherence to fashion standards, replacing genuine taste, that becomes the main motive for fashion criticism from the 18th century to the end. 19th centuries I. Kant in his “Critique of Judgment” contrasts “good taste” and bad taste with fashion. Fashion leaders in the 18th and early 20th centuries. are the elite. Therefore, initially in sociological theories it is considered as a process of production of fashionable standards and their subsequent drift from top to bottom. Accordingly, the main categories in discussions about fashion are the concepts of “imitation” and “isolation, elites maintaining their group distinctiveness from other layers.” Thus, G. Simmel writes: “Fashion... is an imitation of a given model and thereby satisfies the need for social support, leads the individual to a path followed by everyone, provides a universal, turning the individual’s behavior simply into an example. However, it is to the same extent satisfies the need for difference, the tendency to differentiate, to change, to stand out from the general mass... It always has a class character, and the fashion of the upper class is always different from the fashion of the lower, and the upper class immediately refuses it as soon as it begins to penetrate into the lower sphere".

This concept of “fashion production” persisted throughout the first half of the 20th century: only the image of the elite changed. Thus, in T. Veblen’s theory of the leisure class and conspicuous consumption: in the USA, fashion is set not by old aristocrats, but by nouveau riche, emphasizing their high, but recently acquired status. In “autocratic” theories of fashion (Beau Brummel, Mlle De Fontanges), the elite can also mean fashion designers, experts, and fashion trendsetters. The search for the main motive driving the development of fashion is the other side of these “one player” theories: not only imitation is proposed as such, but also, for example, eroticism. Fashion is interpreted as a “change of erogenous zones”, in which a part of the body that has been exposed for a long time, and therefore no longer speaks anything to the imagination, is covered and thereby acquires symbolism, while other areas, on the contrary, are opened.

The situation changed dramatically in the 1950s. Fashion is turning into an industry, fashion standards are being replicated and distributed to the masses. The development of mass communications makes it possible to impose the same model on millions of consumers. This is what Christian Dior’s “New Look” became in 1947. It was at this time, in 1947, that the term “cultural industry” itself appeared. It is characteristic that if Jeanne Lanvin at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries it took 300 years to open her own business francs, then Marcel Boussac invests 500 million dollars in the House of Dior. The female fashion designer on the captain's bridge of fashion is replaced by men: the fashion house turns from a small luxury studio into a large international industrial and trading corporation. In the sociology of fashion of the 1950-1960s, it wins the so-called "theory of collective acceptance" of fashion standards. According to the leading representative of this concept, G. Bloomer, fashion leaders are no longer elites, fashion standards are formed by the masses. Those styles that most fully coincide with already existing mass taste trends and lifestyles become fashionable , and the behavior of innovators must, as it were, “grow” out of tradition in order to be accepted and legitimized by the majority.

The formation of fashion is translated into technology, so socio-psychological theories of fashion are being actively developed, empirical sociological studies are being conducted, and mathematical models of fashion cycles are being built.

The departure from the class concept of fashion can be noted in other theories of fashion. Thus, from the point of view of the “mass market theory,” fashion spreads not so much vertically (from top to bottom) as horizontally—within the same class, between colleagues and friends, through reference groups specific to a particular social environment.

In the 1960-1970s. Fashion trends were greatly influenced by youth counter-cultural movements (primarily hippies). Therefore, according to the “concept of subcultures,” fashion leaders become separate communities based not on a common social status, but on the coincidence of tastes, cultural traditions, and ideologies (youth groups, ethnic minorities, blue collar workers, etc.

Hippies, through their denial of fashion as an attempt to “suppress personality,” achieved the opposite: the fashion industry has absorbed this logic of individuality and meaningful “anti-taste”: marketing technologies and commercials include the vocabulary of “freedom,” “choice,” and “independence” of the consumer. The characteristic title of a book about fashion, published in 1976: "Looking Good: The Liberation of Fashion."

The universality of the language of fashion, equally suitable for the expression of group affiliation and eccentric individualism, sexuality and restraint, status and social protest, prompted French intellectuals to describe the “fashion system” as the realm of the pure sign (“The Fashion System” by R. Barthes (1967), “The Fashion System” things" by J. Baudrillard (1968), "Empire of the Ephemeral" by J. Lipovetsky (1987)). In J. Baudrillard’s book “Symbolic Exchange and Death” (1976) we read: “Fashion signs no longer have any internal determination, and therefore they acquire the freedom of limitless substitutions and permutations. As a result of this unprecedented emancipation, they, in their own logical way, obey the rule of madness. strict repetition. This is the case in fashion, which regulates clothing, the body, household items - the entire sphere of “light” signs.”

In the 1970s - 1980s. segmentation of the fashion market is taking place, instead of one “look” for everyone, a set of equally fashionable styles (looks) is gradually emerging, a kind of artistic worlds, between which you can only choose: Modernist, Sex Machine, Rebel, Romantic, Status Symbol, Artistic Avant-Guarde and Dr. Gilles Lipovetsky describes this process as a change from a century-old “dirigiste” uniform fashion to an “open” fashion with an optional, game logic, “when one chooses not only between different models of clothing, but also between the most incompatible ways of presenting oneself to the world.”

In the 1990s. this trend is intensifying, the focus is no longer so much on generations, classes or professional groups, but on virtual “taste cultures” (taste cultures, style tribes) and even individual consumers: the Internet, cable television, space- and time-burning airlines allow you to choose your style on-line. Fashion cycles are increasingly accelerating, turning into a continuous online flow, not tied to any place or time. Daily choice of identity, arbitrary changes in body and mood become possible. Each participant in mass communications becomes an agent of fashion; many authors state the end of fashion - the fashion that was known in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Fashion is already inseparable from the media industry, show and film business, from a vague, all-encompassing “visual culture”. One of the consequences of these processes was the loss by fashion historians of clear boundaries of their subject. Works about fashion include seemingly unexpected topics. The connection between fashion, the body and identity, power, ideology is becoming key for fashion theory; attempts are being made to deconstruct fashion as a socio-historically determined concept. The postmodern mistrust of metanarrative also affects the discourse about fashion itself: now it is an essay, sketches, a search for an unexpected angle, but in no case a systematic monograph on the history or sociology of fashion.

Alexander Markov
Georg Simmel: fashion coming to life

In focus. To the 100th anniversary of the publication of “Philosophy of Culture” by G. Simmel

Georg Simmel (1858-1918) was one of the pioneers of fashion as an “industry”: before his work, fashion was understood primarily as a game that brings the required variety to life, and only Simmel began to interpret fashion as a direct expression of the life of a modern city dweller. Before Simmel, fashion was either seen mainly as pretense, allowing for a stricter separation of social roles; or they noted an attempt to introduce an element of adventure into ready-made social roles, to add an element of imitation and disguise. As a result, fashion turned out to be a much more boring thing than high art - the dream of a poet or artist could rush into unknown worlds, while creativity in the field of fashion, at best, looked like an attempt to try on someone else's image.

Simmel laid the foundations for a new understanding of fashion primarily because he understood life itself differently. Life, according to Simmel, is not an empty space filled with things waiting for their death hour. On the contrary, it is a direct continuation of any human feelings, thoughts, motives; one might say, an experience in real time. Feeling and thought were not for him artificial constructions that a person imposes on reality in order to better adapt it to his needs; on the contrary, they were rather a echo, an echo of reality, inspiring a person to take real action.

This trust in life determined a revolution in the understanding of fashion. In Simmel's time, the popular understanding of fashion associated it with wealth, with the leisure of the richest - in popular history books published at the end of the 19th century, the fashion of the Middle Ages or the Renaissance was shown as an example of the clothes of the court. If freedom in creating fashion, according to old opinions, was given only by the highest power, then everyone else could only “chase fashion.” This expression, which now cannot be used without condescending irony, in the 19th century was the only direct way to describe the attitude of a common man to fashion: not being able to keep up with power, wealth, suffering defeats in the hunt for fame, he can chase fashion . And then a suburban resident can feel like he belongs to the brilliant urban world, and a city resident can feel like a participant in the enduring values of high society, an elite that does not have to justify itself to anyone.

The neuroticism of such an attitude towards fashion was not very pleasant for Simmel - his idea of \u200b\u200b“value” differed from the generally accepted one. In the everyday sense, value is something that can be acquired and spent and that is valued only from the point of view of receiving pleasure. The figure of the flâneur, discovered by Baudelaire and repeatedly interpreted in the 20th century (primarily in the works of Walter Benjamin and Richard Sennett), is the most convincing expression of such waste, which at the same time does not create anything, is not invested in anything, but is only an extremely extended pleasure.

In Simmel’s philosophy, value began to be understood differently: not as “tender value”, “accumulated wealth”, but as the core of human life. A person always evaluates the world around him before acting; makes judgments before achieving the fullness of life. With his eyes wide open, a person, as a representative of civilization, takes a closer look at what else valuable can be revealed to him in the life unfolding before him, and takes a deep breath, “takes in the fullness of life” before making a new assessment.

This understanding of value as a criterion, as a judgment, as a kind of skill that allows one to profitably deal with the fact of life and receive emotional “profit” from any discoveries and rational “profit” from any exciting experience was unexpected. It made it possible to connect the rationalism underlying textbooks and encyclopedias, embodied in scientific formulas and diagrams, with everyday experience of mastering the world around us. It turned out that it is not enough to simply systematize the material in a catalog and then draw unambiguous “conclusions”; Only after a person has passed knowledge through himself, having discovered for himself new facets of long-familiar things and states, can we say that science has fulfilled its mission.

It is no coincidence, as contemporaries recalled, that the author of “Philosophy of Culture” was a diligent visitor to art salons: he was interested not in things in their places, not in works about which it is known who created them and why, but in unexpected combinations of artistic styles, spontaneous and conflicting manifestations of seemingly predictable trends in spiritual life. Closely following the life of large cities, Simmel preferred to see conflict even on the main paths of art development: just as on the central streets of the city the contradiction of interests of citizens becomes most clearly visible, so at the forefront of art development one can see not only the self-affirmation of “avant-garde” artists, but also their debates about the reality of beauty, about the possibility of finding beauty in modern times.

With such a deeply personal approach to the surrounding social world, Simmel turned to the topic of fashion, developing it both in a separate book and in the most avant-garde section of “Philosophy of Culture”. Just as in the lives of contemporary writers and artists, he did not want to see only conflicts of ambitions and low passions, to which straightforward positivist scientists were inclined, but sought to see a dispute about the essence of beauty, anguish about the ideal, so fashion, from his point of view, goes far beyond ordinary ambitions, the philistine desire to boast of oneself and belittle others. Simmel’s undeniable merit is that he stopped seeing the melodrama of rivalry in fashion and revealed its most important potential for progress - the potential of “socialization” that introduces a person into society.

Of course, the philosopher reasoned, a person begins to join fashion, trying to attract the attention of others, show off his best side, or simply get ahead of others in the big game of styles. But very soon fashion turns from the rivalry of private individuals into a direct expression of a person’s social role. If fashion were not a mechanism of socialization, it would remain only the conventional language of a community, disappearing along with this community or after its privileges were shaken.

First of all, fashion forces a person to set clear and understandable goals - some of these goals, such as “healthy lifestyle” or “communication skills”, which determine the character of our modern civilization, were just emerging in Simmel’s time or were considered the property of some group, and not the goal of every person. Thus, the doctors of Simmel’s time, while promoting hygiene, least of all thought about the possible fashion for such a lifestyle - it was important for them to urgently prevent an epidemic or disease at work; They looked at the body as a “factory” that needed the right supply: it was necessary to achieve the greatest result with minimal means. Whereas Simmel assessed the role not of the minimum, but redundant costs in the healthy and happy development of society: it is excess costs that make it possible to create ideals that interest people, laws of social life that restore taste for life, inspired fashion fads that allow you to escape from current affairs and imagine yourself as a participant in a great life drama with a good ending.

Other equally clear and obvious goals of fashion, according to Simmel, are to demonstrate one’s taste and involvement in the exchange of current information and, most importantly, to show that in the conditions of a modern noisy city one can dispose of one’s body as serenely as in original wild state. In Simmel's philosophy, which has tormented everyone since the time of J.-J. Rousseau, the dilemma of the “naive savage” and the “cunning representative of civilization” was removed - the philosopher showed that a representative of civilization, putting on an elegant piece of jewelry or a multi-colored dress, is trying to capture nature in the same way, to dissolve in nature, just like a savage. Moreover, the goal of this dissolution is not an ecstatic merger, but the acquisition of distance (in Nietzsche’s terminology, “the pathos of distance”): to objectively see one’s own past and cope with at least some difficulties that have received “objectification” (one of Simmel’s favorite terms). The fashionista does not enter into the game with other members of the community, and carries himself, not with ideas, but with nature itself. This allows him to objectively, from a distance, as if through the eyes of nature itself, see his past, his capabilities, and the social ideals towards which the fashion spreading in society is pushing him. Simmel’s “dandy”, who loves excess in fashion and brings fashion trends almost to the point of absurdity, paradoxically turns out to be the best exponent of “public opinion” as a general opinion about the “objective”.

Further, fashion is the mechanism that transforms the private desires and aspirations of citizens into a public ideal. For example, when the fashion of the upper classes penetrates into the lower classes, the upper classes immediately reject it - if a banal newspaperman would see in this the foppishness of the upper classes, then Simmel here sees the formation of the very idea of \u200b\u200b“society”. How is the formation of a modern civilization, what is now called “modernity,” connected with fashion? If for the upper classes of many generations fashion was a dramatic self-expression, an attempt to express in the form of clothing or in furniture styles a vision of their own everyday destiny (for example, in overly revealing clothing - openness to gossip or in heavy outfits - an excess of current responsibilities to the state or household), then for the lower classes it became a sign of participation in all aspects of public life. Having received the keys to fashionable styles, the lower classes can feel as much participants in the “common economy” of the state as the upper classes, regardless of what share in the economy goes to whom. And the upper class, too, changing fashion, reorganizes its own participation in politics - if earlier, with the help of fashion, it “named itself”, complaining about its fate or entrusting it to the supreme power, now it becomes a participant in the distribution of benefits, at first symbolic (Simmel said about this long before Bourdieu with his idea of “symbolic capital”), and then real ones. Simmel truly believed that fashion in the 20th century would cease to be an expression of wealth inequality, but, on the contrary, would turn into a mechanism for generating social justice.

Where each class controls the development of “its” fashion and creates its own norms for updating styles in clothing or architecture, there is no society - fashion simply serves as a way to spread the will of the state, and trends in architecture represent the language in which power speaks to by the people. Whereas in modern society, the society of realized modernity (modernity), Simmel believed, power is a variable function, not a constant one: the one who finds himself in line with fashion, who knows how to foresee new trends, is close to influencing and on individual political decisions of the authorities: he does not simply predict possible turns in domestic and foreign policy (this could have been done before, noticing “trends in the world”), but actively programs these turns, introducing new styles of politics.

But this fashion, said Simmel and his followers, is subordinated to social ideals. For example, if in past centuries luxury showed the power of local authorities, now it speaks of the elite’s desire to create a canon of social interaction at the international level, a kind of fashion diplomacy. Whereas, on the contrary, the spread of simplicity, moderation and purity does not indicate at all that the moral ideal of modesty has won, but only about the success achieved in the development of society - a representative of the elite does not need special insignia so that, if necessary, receive moral, intellectual, and labor support from society.

Discussing fashion, Simmel referred to the concept of mimesis, or imitation, central to the entire European theory of art. In classical culture, starting from ancient Athens, imitation was the ability to be like someone, “imitation of nature” - the ability to act as nature acts, including how it acts in man himself when it does not encounter interference. Therefore, classical culture did not know the contradiction between “reproduction of samples” and “creative self-expression” - on the contrary, creative self-expression was only supposed to reveal the properties of nature imitating another nature. Fashion, according to Simmel, allows us to return to the classical understanding of imitation: by defending his individuality in fashion, a person allows the general nature to act within himself - because every desire for individuality is cast into some kind of “form” that is absorbed by the general nature. Nature, as a continuation of human aspirations, according to Simmel’s teachings, is capable of absorbing any unusual forms created by man and humanity, turning them into metaphors of desires.

Unlike Roland Barthes, who, as everyone remembers, in “The Fashion System” (1967) argued that fashion can manipulate any desires, giving them meaning in the same way as a linguistic system gives meaning to individual words, Simmel believed that desire can never be completely manipulated. Man, of course, has many passions, he often becomes their victim and often tries to give some of them new meaning. But in Simmel’s system, all desires pale in front of one big and undeniable desire - the desire to merge with nature, to feel the fullness of natural life in oneself, so that later, with full right, to find the truth of life in oneself, to escape from hysterical despair. And this desire drives fashion, with all the diversity of trends. Even now we see how the desire for progress suddenly turns into “biological” motives, the desire to emphasize the political progress of modern civilization - into retromotives that look like buds from which the achievements of today hatch. We see that the strange interweaving of techno- and biomotives, and retro waves, and the cyberbioaesthetics of catwalk fashion, and many phenomena that we have already become accustomed to almost as “natural” speak of precisely this return to nature, with a secret plan harmonize the social world.

Of course, not all plans become reality: the desire to explore all the forms that exist around itself needs a new form of thought in order to sound in full force for new generations. Simmel's great project to explore the essence of desire and reveal the laws of “objectification of forms” was only partially realized. Subsequent philosophy did not stop at the “impulse of life” as the best means of imitation of nature; she began to analyze those properties of language that allow us to talk about the reality of nature. The study of reality turned out to be closely intertwined with the study of language: this is what we know from structuralism and post-structuralism with their invaluable contribution to the study of meanings in fashion (fashion semiotics). But the 100th anniversary of Simmel’s book is the best way to remember, if not the philosopher’s services to the science of fashion, then at least the special nobility of his thought.