Unit 2b - Collective Selection

Introduction

The fashion mechanism appears not in response to a need of class differentiation and class emulation but in response to a wish to be in fashion, to be abreast of what has good standing, to express new tastes which are emerging in a changing world..
--Herbert Blumer, 1969

This section focuses on the collective selection perspective of fashion. Sociologist Herbert Blumer first wrote about this process from his observations of the fashion industry in the 1960s. This perspective is one of the first to examine fashion change as it relates to mass production and distribution of fashion objects. Before continuing with this section, you should complete Unit 1 and Unit 2a of the course.

Collective Behavior in Fashion Adoption

Sociologists Lang and Lang have described the fashion process as "an elementary form of collective behavior, whose compelling power lies in the implicit judgment of an anonymous multitude" (Lang & Lang, 1961, p. 323). Central to this proposition is the notion of anonymity in our society. In a complex and heterogeneous mass society, social contacts between individuals are typically limited and impersonal. Most people have direct associations with small groups, but the vast majority of the society is an anonymous multitude to the individual. Nevertheless, individuals frequently react to and adjust their behavior to this anonymous society surrounding them. This reaction is evident in mass fashion adoption when people perceive and judge the appropriateness of their behavior by what they see in the larger society. Individuals may perceive societal fashion norms on television, in magazines, in movies, and on the streets of cities; and subsequently evaluate their own fashion adoption in light of these perceptions. Under such circumstances, the style of fashion selected becomes a reflection of a collectively endorsed standard that the individual perceives. This theory implies that the fashion process involves a continuous mechanism of collective conformity to a newly emerging societal norm.

Herbert Blumer, one of the early theorists on collective behavior, has offered a similar but expanded view of the fashion process. He proposes that fashion should be analyzed as a process of collective selection of a few fashions from numerous competing alternatives. Innovative consumers may experiment with many possible alternatives, but the ultimate test in the fashion process is the competition between alternative styles for positions of fashionability. Exactly how this collective selection happens is not well defined, but Blumer points to three factors shaping this process:

the historical continuity of fashion change, in which new fashions evolve from those previously established by the society,
the influence of modernity, through which fashions constantly respond to and keep pace with change in the larger mass society, and
the gradual formation and refinement of collective tastes, which occur through social interaction among people with similar interests and social experience, with the result that many people develop tastes in common (Blumer, 1969).

The appropriateness of these perspectives is reinforced by the continued popularity of fashion magazines, the coverage of fashion trends by major newspapers and research that shows a substantial portion of consumers, well over 50 percent, watch what others are wearing and keep informed on trends (e.g., Horridge & Richards, 1986; Sproles, 1977). This widespread social monitoring of fashion may be the most pervasive of the massed, collective forces of the fashion process.

A principle derived from these theoretical ideas is that increasing social visibility of a new style is the key to collective behavior in fashion. At any given time many styles compete for attention and gain some limited visibility when adopted and worn by a few members of society. However, some styles become more socially noticeable than others due to the styles being seen worn by early adopters, being promoted in the media, or hanging on the racks in fashion forward stores. The increased visibility for a particular style further stimulates consumers' awareness of the style and motivation to accept it, propagating the style to even higher levels of mass acceptance.

But all styles receiving this high social visibility do not become collective fashions. Indeed, theorists argue that only those styles most consistent with the current sociocultural environment win in the test of collective selection. For example, despite widespread social visibility, the midi-skirt failed to obtain mass adoption by women in the early 1970s primarily due to style's inconsistency with the social values of the times. Similarly, although socially visible male rock stars wore colorful eye makeup in the early 1980s, this trend was not adopted by the masses of men.

Social Forces Favoring Collective Behavior

What are the conditions that cause society to behave collectively, to react in mass to fashion change? Mass fashion marketing and mass communication of information on new styles tend to homogenize consumer tastes, because the styles manufactured and promoted often resemble one another, even when many different manufacturers and retailers are involved in the fashion business. The fashion industry is notorious for "knock-off" copying -- manufacturers frequently copy the styles of one another -- thereby inducing "sameness" to many styles offered. The media and fashion advertising or editorials in particular also confer social status and prestige on new fashions, building their social desirability and encouraging consumers to accept them. Other social forces, such as the forces of urbanism, the social-class system, physical mobility, and increasingly active lifestyles, can also create social visibility for a style and thus propagate collective behavior.

Urbanism and the concentration of populations in general also favor collective fashions. Since the early 1900s, cities with large populations have grown substantially, and since the 1950s this growth has extended to suburbs. Social interactions in this concentrated environment are regular and diffuse, ranging from those daily contacts with friends and coworkers to casual contacts with strangers. Consumers receive repeated exposure to styles of dress, and the social visibility of certain styles is particularly high. These styles can spread through the urban environment and become collective norms of dress. Of course urban environments are socially diverse in values and lifestyles, favoring formation of different norms of dress within subsegments of the population. Rarely if ever would one find a single collective norm in an urban area.

The current class structure in the United States also favors collective behavior toward fashions. Though our social structure is not rigid, a majority of the population falls into the broad middle of the status hierarchy. This majority might therefore be expected to have similar orientations toward fashions, and to behave collectively in accepting new fashions.

Physical mobility also stimulates collective behavior toward fashions. Physical mobility takes many forms, such as occupational moves from one location to another, business travel, vacations, and local mobility--local travel by car or mass transit. Mobile people are exposed to accepted styles in areas they visit, encouraging their recognition of new ideals for dress. The collective diffusion of fashions will be influenced as mobile people communicate these ideals from one community to another.

Mass fashion trends are typically associated with dominate lifestyles within any society. For example, one key characteristic of the American lifestyle--our informality in living-- influences fashion trends within the United States. Our lifestyles differ in personal interests, roles, activities, and levels of social participation. But the underlying theme of casual and informal living is pervasive. Many people have adopted this norm of behavior, and the norm is reflected in our collective tastes for casual fashions.

Concluding Comments

Theories of collective behavior suggest that there must be a great deal of cooperative interaction among participants if a collective movement is to occur. In the behavior of mobs or crowds, this can be the case since large numbers of people will be brought together face-to- face and with common interests or goals in mind. Collective behavior can then occur spontaneously, assuming the group receives some form of leadership or other inspiration to act.

However, collective behavior toward fashions may be far more complex than collective behavior in a crowd or mob. For one thing, a collective fashion trend has to occur over a much longer time. The trend also has to occur over many different geographic regions, each having its own leaders or inspirational figures to initiate diffusion. Furthermore, a considerable degree of competition and social differentiation, rather than cooperative behavior, is possible as new styles are selectively adopted by fashion leaders or status-seekers. For these reasons, mass fashion trends are not uniform through all the population. Rather, there can be a number of subtrends within different social systems and geographic regions as the collective behavior progresses. The outcome may reflect a democratic, collective choice of the cooperating majority, but the opportunities for competition in collective behavior toward fashions must be taken into account.

Theories of collective behavior have traditionally suggested that collective movements are irrational, a judgment implicit in expressions like "the herd instinct," "mob psychology," "joining the bandwagon," or "social contagion." Mass movements in fashion in particular have been cited as examples of irrational behavior. However, Berk (1974) has made a case for collective behavior as rational and goal-directed. The individual might be swayed to some extent by social contagion and enthusiasm as more participants join the collective movement, but at the same time the individual may carefully assess the potential costs and benefits of participating. Thus, one should assess the element of rationality in collective movements, and question the credibility of social contagion as the sole explanation of collective behavior. This is particularly true in mass fashion changes, for the individual frequently has the time and private opportunity to decide before participating in the movement.

To conclude, the collective theory of fashion diffusion differs from the basic theory of diffusion. The theory of collective behavior suggests that fashions occur as sweeping mass movements stimulated by the immense social visibility a style can receive. Certain leaders can establish direction to this movement when they present alternative styles for selection, but the trend is formed only as collective tastes become adopted among an increasing number of people. In contrast, the theory of diffusion of innovations suggests that innovations are spread systematically from one social group to another through a communications process. Innovators and opinion leaders in each social group initiate and propagate acceptance of the fashion within their immediate social environments. The mass system of fashion marketing also stimulates and accelerates this diffusion, perhaps causing simultaneous diffusion into many social groups. Therefore, the theory of diffusion differs from that of collective behavior, though there are basic similarities between the theories in the roles of leadership and social visibility. Both of the theories offer plausible explanations of how mass fashion movements can occur.