Fashion as Part of Youth Culture - Essay Example

In the recent movie The Devil Wears Prada, the editor of a powerful fashion magazine puts the concept of fashion in interesting terms while trying to point out the relevance of fashion even to those who claim to be the most unfashionable: "'Stuff' Oh, OK. I see. You think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet, and you select, I don't know, that lumpy blue sweater because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue. It's not turquoise. It's actually cerulean. You're also blindly unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves St. Laurent, wasn't it, who showed cerulean military jackets And then cerulean quickly showed up in collections of eight different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores and trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs, so it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry, when, in fact, you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room ... from a pile of 'stuff.'" (The Devil Wears Prada) This harangue neatly sums up what we call the trickle-down theory of fashion, where a look or style begins at the top of the society or in the hands of the visionary designers, who decide what would be worn by people for the next season as the ultimate in up-to-the-minute trends. Fashion is literally supposed to percolate down from the top, and to be unquestioningly adopted by the bottom as the sermon from the high lords and ladies of fashion. 'Most sociological analyses of clothing and fashion, classical ones in particular, have stressed consumption over production. Classical sociologists (Simmel 1904/1957; Spencer 1896/1966; Sumner 1906/1940; Sumner and Keller 1927; Tarde 1903; Tnnies 1887/1963; Veblen 1899/1957) treated fashion as a concept of imitation which forms a basis of a trickle-down theory of fashion. When the highest class adopts a particular style, the class next to it, wanting to move up or even to appear to have already moved up, will proceed to adopt the new style which will continue a downward adoption through the classes until it reaches the lowest class economically able to afford it. As the fashion moves downward, its reproductions are usually made with less expensive materials and poorer workmanship. By the time the style has been consumed by the majority, it is no longer a sign of class status, and the highest class will have already begun the process over again by putting on a new fashion.'(Kawamura, 2004, 6) But in the past few decades this theory has been repeatedly questioned, particularly with respect to youth culture and its role in modifying, focusing and even creating fashion. It will be my effort in this paper to examine the relationship between the world of fashion and youth culture, and the way this has affected fashion theory and practice. To do this we have to establish working definitions for the terms "fashion" and "youth culture", and the driving forces behind both so as to be able to understand the veiled interconnections, and how youth culture has managed to change the very definition of fashion in some cases. Fashion has been a part of human nature, an offshoot of our tribal ancestry which loved to adorn the body and home in an attempt to establish an iconographical identity and be seen as one of the group. It has served as a means of non-verbal communication of one's status, rank, occupation, locality and gender since time immemorial, and theorists have considered clothing in terms of aesthetics and semiotics: 'All the same, if clothing may, indeed, be said to satisfy needs that are 'natural' in the sense of being held in common with other creatures, we should recognize that it also serves needs of a more strictly aesthetic and semiotic kind which are exclusive to human beings..... clothes have been very extensively used to assert the cultural status of human beings, to police the border between humans and animals, to deny or cover over our animality and thereby preserve a seemly distance from the beast'.(Wilson, 2001, 17) Fashion was thus seen as the imposition of a mode, of a way of adornment that was dictated by the leaders of society, which was then followed to whatever extent possible by the rest of the social strata, and this definition was by and large applicable from early times to the end of the nineteenth century. But things began to change in the twentieth century, especially in places like London which had a majority of working class population, and twentieth century fashion came to be young, vibrant, experimental and colorful, quite at odds with the sedate fashions of the past century. London's role as the nation's capital of fashion was already centuries-old when the 20th century began. Fashionable dress, music and la mode behaviour traditionally took their cue from London's royal court and its aristocratic salons. During the 20th century London's position as the place where fashions were set remained the same but the pacemakers changed. Fashions were now led by the young. From the bright young things of the 1920s dancing the Charleston to hot jazz; through to the punks of the 1970s pogo-ing to The Damned, the young assumed a new cultural importance in 20th century London. (Youth culture & fashion, 2006) After the World Wars, came the boom generation which wanted to live life to the lees, and with it came various subcultures both in the United States, Britain and in other parts of the world that wanted to celebrate youth. The fashion scene was not far behind in the swinging sixties, the rock 'n roll, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones that clamored for attention from the young, from the eighteen-year-olds who had recently been given voting rights. This cauldron of music, politics and cultural hub bub gave rise to trends that could be associated with the youth and the youth alone: 'As the young began to assume a new confidence and cultural authority, so fashions in dress reflected the change. The 20th century saw London fashion become more closely entangled with the young than ever before, a change embodied by three of London's most creative fashion designers of the 20th century: Norman Hartnell, Mary Quant and Vivienne Westwood. Norman Hartnell emerged in the 1920s from the spirit of the jazz age rather than haute couture traditions. He had come to fashion through theatrical costume design and his playful, colourful dresses perfectly suited the hedonistic mood of London's young aristocrats. In the 1960s Mary Quant encapsulated swinging London through her bright colours and simple 'dolly bird' shapes. Most famously through the mini-skirt, Quant's clothes visibly expressed the new mood and optimism of the baby boom generation. Fifteen years later Vivenne Westwood also marked a new mood but drew her inspiration from a darker set of references. Her clothes resonated with echoes from London's more anti-establishment and disaffected youth cults, from teddy boys to punk rockers'.(Youth culture & fashion, 2006) While we acknowledge the revolution in fashion led by the youth, we need to take a look at the reasons behind it, almost all of them related to the emergence of the youth culture. "Youth culture" is a 20th century term, which had no significance before and came to be very significant in the middle decades of the last century. 'Young people experience the conditions of their lives, define them, and respond to them, and in the process, they produce unique cultural forms and practices that become the expressions and products of their own experiences (Brake, 1985). Thus, youth culture is broadly referred to as a particular way of life, combined with particular patterns of beliefs, values, symbols, and activities that are shared, lived, or expressed by young people (Frith, 1984)'. (Lee, Zhou, 2004, 3) The reason why the youth began to form a separate culture of their own, with their own set of norms, practices, fashions, styles and activities is intriguing, because these were totally different from the adult world: Teds, Mods, Rockers, Bikers, Skinheads, Punks and Rastafarians are a far cry from the adult world of business and office-going people. To figure out how these different cliques, together known as members of "youth culture" came to be drivers of fashion, we need to understand the motivations behind the formations of their culture. One of the reasons why the youth needed to create their own sense of culture was their increasing isolation from the adult world. In the nineteenth century, the youth was a part of responsible public life: terms like "adolescents" and teenagers became relevant only by the middle of the twentieth century and were coined by theorists. Historians speak of the "invention" rather than the "discovery" of adolescence, because the new views were not based on actual observation of youth behavior, but on new psychological theories. Prior to the late 19th century, the changes in size, sexual maturity and intellectual capability associated with the teen years were viewed as milestones of progress toward competent adulthood, rather than a cause for crisis and alarm. Since the 1950's, adults have provided young people with money and leisure, and created a huge electronic entertainment industry that is committed to sustaining and expanding the "youth culture." It is obviously in the best interest of this multi-billion dollar industry to keep as many people in a state of so-called "adolescence" for as long as possible, i.e., segregated from the adult world and assaulted with the message that sex, popularity, fashion and consumption are the only things that matter. (Keyes, 2000) The discovery of the teenager as a market segment gave an impetus to teen fashion, and the baby boom generation was made aware of fashion trends at hitherto unheard of speed by the mass media. It also struck out on its own, creating an identity for itself, distinctly different from the parent generation, adopting trends that went with its new liberated outlook that included higher sexual freedom and empowerment for women following the availability of options such as contraception and abortion. Women felt empowered enough to display their bodies, and fashionable swim wear that is a multi-million dollar industry today was brought to the forefront by ordinary young women in the 1920's and came to its high point after the bikinis of 1946: '...swimwear was one case where popular endorsement and demand for the new garment overcame official and moral objections. In other words, contrary to the usual trickle-down argument about fashion, the swimming costume was a trickle up phenomenon-adopted by ordinary women and only reluctantly and belatedly sanctioned by the arbiters of taste and conduct. This is a fashion that did not trickle down from the styles proposed by designers and worn first by the wealthy. On the contrary, this is a fashion that bubbled up as a result of popular demand'. (Craik, 1994, 146) But there exists documented evidence that women in France were wearing "bathing-suits" quite like the bikini even before it was officially put on ramp by by French engineer Louis Rard and fashion designer Jacques Heim in Paris. While young women were taking strides to make fashion history, men were not far behind: the jeans became a symbol of youth culture in the 1960's and another example where there were symbols of middle-class revolt by wearing working-class outfits. The break came in the 1950s when middle-class, white rock singers and film stars (such as Elvis Presley, Eddie Cochran, Gene Vincent, Marlon Brando and James Dean) adopted the Levi Strauss 501 style (with buttoned flies) and black leather jackets to convey a 'tough, rugged, youth-rebel appearance' (ibid.: 227). Their working-class and black counterparts, on the other hand, wore anything but jeans which were a reminder of their poor roots. Jeans were a symbol of middle-class revolt from the strictures of respectability and conformity. Parents frowned on their jean-clad offspring, some American colleges banned them from being worn on campus, and places like restaurants displayed signs prohibiting customers in jeans. ..Perhaps more than any other object, jeans epitomised the values of 1960s youth culture. The success of Levi's meant that young men escaped the pressures of the male fashion industry and clung to this basic garment with minimal variations.(Craik, 1994, 194) The rise of the jeans is an instance of the status float model of fashion in action, which states that higher status segments with more power imitated those with lower status-that is, status markers were floating up the status pyramid rather than trickling down or across it".(Field, 1970) This is all about the emergence of a new youthful sensibility that is appealing and marketable at the same time, and soon gets adopted universally by people of all ages and status in society. Unlike the trickle-down explanation, the status-float model suggests that trends start in the lower and middle classes and then spread upward. To illustrate, Levi-Strauss introduced the rugged, tight-fitting blue jean that dates back to the 1848 California gold rush days. The blue jeans were first sold to miners who needed durable clothing in their work. The product gained widespread acceptance in the United States among lower and middle class teenagers since it symbolized rebellion against the establishment. The wearing of jeans spread to upper class youths as a symbol of rebellion against their parents' rigid rules. Jeans evolved with the introduction of designer labels such as Calvin Klein as fashion items in the 1970s. (Michman, 2003, 118) Jeans are today worn by all sorts of people, and can be a high-fashion statement, some designer jeans costing up to thousands of dollars. This trend of picking up a style and making it the symbol of one's identity has extend to the end of the last century and into this one, and given credence to the "bubble-up", "trickle-up" or "status-float" theory in fashion and cultural studies. Increasingly, in today's households, teens are left to fend for themselves, and it is up to them to define the meaning of youth, and how this stage of life is to lived, leaving them to figure it out with the help of the media, and other social institutions. Today's youth try to shape their lives in a sort of vacuum of guidance, because parents mostly believe in giving their teens a lot of "space". The youth thus searches for its own identity any which way it can, and looks for a means to express itself. The youth on the street has become the inspiration for those who design for the biggest fashion brands, like Nike, where "Creators of youth fashion, such as Nike, go so far as to send scouts to the ghetto to take pictures of what young people are wearing on the streets and writing on the walls. Nike seeks to reflect the latest sensibilities, both in its products and it's advertising. The company feeds the imagery right back to those who created it, offering them something they cannot afford as a way of affirming themselves."(Keyes, 2000) The definition of fashion itself has thus changed to accommodate the upward swing of inspiration: instead of trickling down from the ramps, fashion ideas are increasingly being sublimated on to the ramps. We have seen the influence of youth culture on fashion, and how changes in culture have led to the creation of a whole range of unique and unforeseen fashion statements. Fashion then is a part of culture, embedded in it and defined by it, and the study of fashion cannot be in contextual vacuum, it has to take place against the background of cultural studies. A.Bailey, The Passion for Fashion, (Limpsfield, Surrey: Dragon's World, 1988). Alan J. Greco , Edward M. Mazze , Ronald D. Michman.Lifestyle Marketing: Reaching the New American Consumer. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. p.118. Breward, C. , The Culture of Fashion: A New History of Fashionable Dress, (Manchester: Manchester University Press,1995). Carla Jones, Ann Marie Leshkowich,Sandra Niessen (eds.)Re-Orienting Fashion: The Globalization of Asian Dress. (New York: Berg, 2003) C.Foley, 'Consumer fashion', in G. Wills and D. Midgley (eds), Fashion Marketing , London: Allen & Unwin,1973), p. 157-69. Ian Griffiths , Nicola White,The Fashion Business: Theory, Practice, Image. (Oxford :Berg, 2000), p. 26. Jennifer Lee, Min Zhou, Asian American Youth: Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity. (New York: Routledge, 2004)p. 3. Jennifer Craik. The Face of Fashion: Cultural Studies in Fashion. New York: Routledge. 1994. p.146, 194. Joanne B. Eicher , Kim K. P. Johnson , Susan J. Torntore.(eds) Fashion Foundations: Early Writings on Fashion and Dress. (Oxford :Berg, 2003).p. 137. Joanne Entwistle, Elizabeth Wilson .(ed.)Body Dressing. (New York: Berg, 2001). p.17. Mardi Keyes, 'Youth Culture and Growing Up'. Ransom Fellowship, 2000 accessed 03 December, 2006 Michael Brake. Comparative Youth Culture: The Sociology of Youth Cultures and Youth Subcultures in America, Britain, and Canada. London: Routledge: 1990.p.13. R.Barnes, J.B. Eicher, Dress and Gender: Making and Identity, (Oxford: Berg, 1993). R. Barthes, trans. M. Ward and R. Howard, The Fashion System, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1983). W.Gorden, D. Infante, A. Braun, 'Communicator style and fashion innovativeness', in M. Solomon (ed.), The Psychology of Fashion , (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books:1985) 161-76. 'Youth culture & fashion', Exploring 20th Century London, 2006, accessed 03 December, 2006 Yuniya Kawamura, The Japanese Revolution in Paris Fashion. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2004.p. 6. Read More