Construction of An SI Theory of Fashion: Part 1. Ambivalence and Change

Abstract

Note: A Preliminary form of this and the following two papers were originally presented in a post-conference workshop at the ITAA meeting in San Francisco, CA, 1991. AbstractIn this first part of a three-part series explaining fashion as a social process, a symbolic interactionist (SI) theory is presented to explain why appearance styles continue to emerge, be adopted and change. Unlike existing theories that tend to explain how a particular style diffuses through a social system, this theory draws on SI and extracts underlying concepts that, we propose, instigate and perpetuate changes in appearance styles: ambivalence, symbolic ambiguity, and negotiation. Five principles and associated theoretical statements are developed to explain fashion in general, followed by a more specific look at transitional cultural contexts, using the contemporary, U.S. context for the purpose of illustration.

A critical assessment of the role of fashion in influencing the travel decision and destination choice

“…In the 1960's, fashions were seen to be influenced more by counter-cultural, sub-cultural and diverse ethnic groups rather than by the upper-class (Kaiser, Nagasawa and Hutton, 1995).…”

“…More recently, Kaiser, Nagasawa and Hutton (1995) noted that critical elements of fashion such as aesthetic codes and social meaning have received very little attention. Although conspicuous consumption has been considered in relation to tourism, despite the time which has elapsed, there remains a paucity of research linking fashion with consumer decision making in tourism.…”

“…This point should be kept in mind when the implications of this research to tourism marketers are discussed later in the conclusion section of this paper. Kaiser, Nagasawa and Hutton (1995) in an effort to explain why fashions continue to change, concluded that the novelty afforded by appearance-modifying commodities (or new fashion) contributed to looks that were both familiar, and confusing, and so were symbolically ambiguous. Because society needs to process this ambiguity, it leads to the development of rich constructions of meaning.…”

Casual dress is more than clothing in the workplace

“…At the same time, it is generally agreed "that a combination of environmental, psychological, and sociocultural factors are involved in the origin and evolution of clothing, and that motives for continued use of an item may be rather different from those which led to its adoption" (Schwarz 1979, p. 25). Juxtaposed is the research being conducted in the clothing and textiles area which continues to investigate the diversity and eclectic nature of fashion (e.g., Kaiser et al 1995), the co-existence of multiple systems of fashionability (e.g., Craik 1994;Pannabecker 1997), and the multidimensionality of the meanings associated with dress (e.g., Damhorst 1990). Such research also has been critical of existing methods of investigation, which suggests the need for developing new approaches to more fully understand such complexities (e.g., Damhorst 1990).…”

Meta-Analysis of U.S. Wartime Dress Research

“…Ambivalence was a concept explicitly discussed in one article and implied in five others; 3 the term refers to "being pulled in conflicting directions." 4 Ambivalence is an attribute associated with multiple socialpsychological and consumer behavior theories including Symbolic Interactionist Theory, Goffman's Stigma, 5 Rogers's Diffusion of Innovations, 6 and theories on approach-avoidance and cognitive dissonance. While most interpretive dress research lacks named theory, it is clear that U.S. WWII clothing and textile research, directly or indirectly, refer to selected theoretical concepts such as ambivalence.…”