Fashion Dynamics and the Economic Theory of Clubs

Bibliographic Data

ID9256057
AuthorsRoy D Adams (Iowa State University), Ken Mccormick (University of Northern Iowa)
Year1992
Volume50
Issue1
Pages24-39
Publication date1992-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueReview of Social Economy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0034-6764 • E-ISSN: 1470-1162
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/759368947
OpenAlexW2069348294
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited10

Casual observation of expenditure patterns makes it obvious that many people buy things order to be fashion. At same time, it is equally obvious that fashions are frequently changing. On surface, there appears to be a contradiction between these two phenomena. The desire to be is clearly emulative behavior. Fashion-conscious individuals select clothing (or cars, mustard, music, soap, etc.) on basis of what others are wearing (or driving, eating, etc.). This implies that individual tastes are shaped, at least to some extent, by a desire to be like others. To put it differently, satisfaction that individuals derive from purchasing fashionable items stems, at least part, from being able to be a part of group. However, fashion changes are self-evident not examples of emulative behavior. Creating a new fashion is an attempt to be different, to set one's self apart from other people. Thus, one is led to conclusion that fashions exist because people want to fit in and be like other people while fashions change because of a desire to be different from other people. The Theory of Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen resolved this apparent paradox and showed how these two phenomena can coexist. To state his position briefly, Veblen argued that usual basis of self-respect is respect accorded by one's neighbors (1899, p. 38). this context, invidious comparisons are commonplace, and purchases are made with an eye toward living up to standard of and reputability (Veblen, 1899, p. 119). Given that accredited standard of taste is what is acceptable to community, purchases are made with an eye toward emulation. However, there is more. Being able to up with is good, but, for some consumers, being ahead of Joneses is better. This is because the end sought by accumulation is to rank high comparison with rest of community point of pecuniary strength (Veblen, 1899, p. 39). Moreover, accumulation by itself is not enough: In order to gain and hold esteem of men it is not sufficient merely to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put evidence, for esteem is awarded only on evidence (Veblen, 1899, p. 42). As a consequence, practice of conspicuous consumption arises. Some of those who can afford it attempt to separate themselves from bulk of population by (conspicuously) consuming new and different commodities. Meanwhile, many of people left behind will strive to keep up with newly established standards of taste. However, this emulation by masses means that new fashions will no longer serve purpose for which they were created (i.e., separating trend-setters from rest of population). Thus, still newer fashions will emerge, and cycle will continue. This interpretation of Veblen's ideas is not new (see, for example, Rutherford, 1987). Unfortunately, orthodox economists have virtually ignored arguments of Veblen. The reasons for this are complex and include factors such as differences ideology. However, central reason has to do with differences methodology. Veblen's historical, narrative, common-sense approach was simply incompatible with axiomatic, mathematical style of modern mainstream economics. Indeed, there is still a wide methodological gap between social economists, who are concerned (as was Veblen) with role of social milieu value creation, and orthodox economists, who are content to take consumer tastes and preferences as givens. As Dugger has pointed out, questions such as, Where do values come from? are the meant and drink of social (1989, p. 135). Nevertheless, mainstream economists are still content to assume that individual utility functions are exogenous. It is no surprise, therefore, that mainstream economics has no theory of fashion changes. other words, an economic phenomenon which involves untold billions of dollars expenditures and countless hours of peoples' time annually is deliberately put beyond scope of mainstream economics because problem has not been tractable using accepted methodology

Aesthetics · Casual · Clothing · Conspicuous consumption · Context (archaeology) · Contradiction · Economics · Epistemology · Institutional economics · Neoclassical economics · Order (exchange) · Political science · Positive economics · Set (abstract data type) · Sociology · Taste · Veblen good · Art History and Market Analysis · Economic Theory and Institutions · Law · Philosophy · Political Economy and Marxism · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub