COMM.

(Sankt Augustin)
7, 249-268 (1981)

Gerardo Ragone

Fashion, "Craze", and Collective Behavior

1. Smelser's theory of collective behavior.

Smelser considers fashion as a craze, as one of the phenomenons
characterized by a mobilization of participants for action based on a positive
wish-fulfillment belief1. Differently from panic, defined by Smelser as a
headlong flight away from something, craze is an irrational rush toward
something. It arises from a generalized belief which "guarantees a positive
outcome in an uncertain situation by empowering some force with
generalized potency to overcome the possibly frustrating, harmful or
destructive possibilities"2.
Using Parsons' scheme of social action, Smelser analyzes four basic
types of crazes: a) the speculative boom in the economic sphere; b) the
bandwagon in the political sphere; c) fashions and fads in the expressive
sphere; d) the religious revival. Each of the basic components of social
action (values, norms, individual motives, facilities) is further defined into
seven levels of specificity. The result is a map where any single value can be
associated with ä given degree of strain. The fundamental rule is that strain
corresponding to any single value is a necessary but not a sufficient condition
for strain corresponding to values downward and to the right, while it is
neither necessary nor sufficient for strain corresponding to values upward
and to the left. From this Smelser draws two important consequences for
explaining collective behavior. First of all, strain is only one of the
components that are necessary for collective behavior to be formed.
Secondly, one and only one type of collective episode corresponds to each
strain. In other words, the specificity of a given collective episode depends
on the type of strain and generalized belief, but its concrete manifestation is
strictly related to a number of forces that Smelser defines as "added
determinants". Such forces, the organization of which is analogous to that of
the "value-added" process in the field of economics, are: 1) structural
conduciveness; 2) structural strain; 3) growth and spread of a generalized
belief; 4) precipitating factors; 5) mobilization of participants for action;
6) social control.
Brought to you by | University of Manchester
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29249 PM
 In examining the cycle of diffusion of fashion we shall analyse each of
them in a detailed way. Now we would like to point out the type of structural
reorganization upon which the episodes of collective behavior rest in
Smelser's model. For this purpose it may be useful to start directly from his
definition of collective behavior: a mobilization on the basis of a belief which
redefines social action3. An episode of collective behavior is thus characte-
rized by the existence of a "belief which in turn entails the reconstruction of
some components of social action. Collective behavior always involves a
collective redefinition of an unstructured component. Let us see concretely
what happens. A given strain within the system causes attention to move
toward the upper levels of the components in the attempt to find the means
to reduce or eliminate strain. Keeping in mind the map in which the various
components of action are articulated, the process can be defined by saying
that when individuals search for an answer as to the causes of strain, they
normally direct their attention toward the upper and/or left sector. In case of
no success at a first and more general level, ever more general levels are
sought in order to control the action which is under strain at the lower levels.
Once the appropriate level of generalization is attained, the process is
repeated in the opposite direction. First a generalization that is followed by a
respecification. The components of action are first Restructured (generaliza-
tion to high-level components) and subsequently restructured (specification
of the focus of strain). Here lies, according to Smelser, the crux of collective
behavior. In fact the "process backward", as it were, from the high-level
components toward the focus of strain does not take place step by step, but
directly from the general to the particular through a "short-circuiting"
mechanism. "Collective behavior is a compressed way of attacking problems
created by strain. It compresses several levels of the components of action
into a single belief, from which specific operative solutions are expected to
flow"4. In other words, once the genralization has taken place and the
meaning of the high-level component has been reconstituted, people rush
toward the lower levels in the attempt to utilize general beliefs for specific
situations. Such accelerated restructuring, however, neglects ethical and
legal restrictions of various kind and violates most of the times the interests
and integrity of individuals and groups. In this sense collective behavior is
defined by Smelser as the action of the "impatient".
We shall now analyse more closely the cycle of formation of fashions
according to the logic of the value-added process5.

2. The fashion cycle.

a) We shall begin with structural conduciveness. There exist—Smelser suggests
- four general conditions of conduciveness for any type of craze to appear6.

250 Brought to you by | University of Manchester

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
a) A structurally differentiated setting for social action (referring to
classical economy Smelser gives the example of the market structure of the
capitalist economies in the 19th century); b) a well-defined rationality which
governs social action (for example, the "economic rationality" of classical
economies); c) a possibility of committing, withdrawing and recommitting
resources with relative flexibility; d) a "medium" which can be stored,
exchanged and extended to future committments.

The first condition conducive to fashion cycles is, then, a highly

differentiated system of status-symbolization7. The stratification systems of
"advanced" societies seem to meet this condition fully because of the
presence of some dynamic factors inherent in the process of modernization.
For example, the ideology of the "open class" system which guarantees the
maintenance and development of both equalitarian tendencies and deep
status differences; the increased buying power of the less privileged strata;
the higher degree of upper mobility. Also the third condition - a rapidly
manoeuvrable symbolization of status - seems to be met by the social
structure of advanced economies, owing to the devaluation of traditional
status symbols; to the greater possibilities individuals have at their disposal
to fully understand status-seeking rules; to the new experiences related to a
wider geographical mobility which favors the overcoming of the traditional
differences of language, education, etc.; finally, to the spread, through mass
industry, of cheap imitations of privileged consumption items. "All of these
historical developments have augmented the structural conduciveness for
'crazes' in fashion. Status symbolization has become relatively free from the
restrictions of political control, ascribed status, inflexible barriers such as
language and cultivation, and so on"8. As to "status rationality", it is clear
that, once traditional moral, legal and religious controls have broken down,
the individual is in a position to govern his actions on the basis of more
homogeneous social sanctions (snobbishness, ridicule, etc.). Finally, the
"medium" in status symbolization is provided by social prestige. For all
these reasons advanced industrial societies appear to offer the most
favorable situations for the growth of fashion phenomena. In fact: a) a
highly differentiated system of status symbolization is ensured by flexible
stratification systems; b) a rapid manoeuvrability in symbolization is
ensured by the possibility to adopt patterns of behavior thought of as
"better"; c) status rationality is ensured by the change in control
mechanisms; d) a generalized medium in status symbolization is ensured
by prestige.
b) Let us now see structural strain. Smelser points out that, in the case
of fashion, strains are institutionalized and periodically create conditions of
ambiguity. This, however, is a common characteristic to all wish-fulfillment

251
Brought to you by | University of Manchester
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
 beliefs since their main function is precisely that of restructuring ambiguous
situations. In the case of fashion ambiguity is referred to as "the lessening
appropriateness of a given item of fashion to symbolize status"9. In other
words, the very passing of fashion and its characteristic "trickling" down the
status hierarchy, create institutional conditions of uncertainty "as to the
appropriate new item which will be adopted in the next cycle of fashion".
Smelser refers here to the fact that there are no "fashion makers" in an
absolute sense because the freedom of innovation is often limited by
objective conditions. A third element of strain concerns, finally, "the
availability of facilities for investment in new styles". Smelser refers here to
the conditions, analogous to those examined for structural conduciveness,
that make for a more flexible system of status-symbolization.
c) The third "added determinant" is constituted by the growth and
spread of a belief. The ambiguity that dominates the situation of strain is
followed by a diffuse anxiety together with a wish-fulfillment fantasy. It is
interesting to notice the affinity between the wish-fulfillment belief which
elicits manic reactions (crazes) and the hysterical one which leads to a panic
reaction. For both the general scheme is, in fact, of the type: ambiguous
situation-anxiety-redefinition of the situation. The difference between the
two phenomena lies in the fact that hysterical beliefs select the negative
possibilities of an ambiguous situation, wish-fulfillment beliefs the positive
only. Moreover the latter are, from an analytical point of view, more
complex than the former because they involve additional stages in the
value-added process.
With regard to fashion, anxiety stems - Smelser suggests - from the fear
of being passe, demode. It is related, we could say, to the desire to adopt
behaviors that are believed to be superior together with the fear of not
succeeding.
d) The anlysis of precipitating factors in the fashion cycle is perhaps
more complex. In the value-added logic, structural conduciveness, strain
and generalized beliefs as such do not produce any collective behavior. They
are necessary but not sufficient conditions. For a collective phenomenon to
appear it is furthermore necessary that precipitating factors be present.
Their function is precisely to concretize generalized beliefs on the level of
action. Smelser points out that one of the characteristics of crazes as against
other collective episodes is the extreme fusion of analytical determinants in
the precipitating factors. That makes it particularly difficult to single out the
various factors of mobilization. Such is the case in the speculative boom and,
to a lesser degree, in the bandwagon. In the case of fashion, though, it is
easier to single out some determinants owing to the institutionalization of
the fashion cycle that is linked to exigencies of seasonal change and to
economic motives related to the need periodically to renew the buying

252 Brought to you by | University of Manchester

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
motivations. That is why the role of fashion designers, advertisers, etc. is of
capital importance.
A generalized belief is thus replaced by a specific belief with the
function of attaching "a general wish-fulfillment fantasy to definite goals and
kinds of behavior: In so doing it prepares the way for a craze"10. It is hardly
worth noting that the role of advertisement is determinant in this phase,
especially if one considers the ties imposed by the cultural system in which
the mechanism of diffusion operate and the resistances put up by potential
consumers. Advertisement is thus forced to act simultaneously in two
directions. On the one hand, in fact, it must display the advantages of the
new item, stressing its "social" qualities and rousing the desire to own it. On
the other, in order to lessen the buyers' feeling of guilt and thus weaken their
resistances, it must act on the ethical level, ensuring the "neutrality" of the
new item in terms of the existing value system and even creating the belief in
its indispensability for the maintenance of the system of internalized
values11.
Smclser distinguishes two different stages of propagation: a) from
community to community through national and international mass media
(the latter case is similar to the "demonstration effect" in the international
sphere theorized by Nurkse12); b) within the community (or group) through
the opinion leaders' influence. Such distinction is extremely important. On
the one hand, in fact, as we shall see below, it allows for the conflictual
aspects of consumption action to be identified; on the other it makes
possible to define the boundaries between types of expenditures for
consumption items that are subjected to different influences and sugge-
stions.
e) Let us examine now mobilization for action. In the last phases of the
value-added process, the formation of a specific belief allows for the actual
mobilization for action of the interested groups with regard to the type of
belief that marks the beginning of panic, of the speculative boom, of fashion,
of hostile outbursts, of reform or revolutionary movements. In this phase
leaders play a fundamental role. The three basic aspects of the spread of
crazes described by Smelser begin with the functions of leadership followed
by the speculative phase and finally by the turning point.
As to leadership, Smelser points out some analytical differences
amongst the various types of craze. First of all, as most of the times the
sequence of events in the craze is rather rapid, the distinction between
leadership in the realm of ideas and leadership in the realm of action tends to
disappear. "The speculator or revivalist who formulates the belief is also the
leader who convinces people to commit their capital or their souls. In the
fashion cycle, on the other hand, there is often a differentiation between the
'style planner' (i.e. the designer) and the 'style leader' (i.e. the prestigious

253
Brought to you by | University of Manchester
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
 user and the merchandiser)"13. We should like to add that, in the case of
diffusion between external groups, institutionalization is obviously greater
than it happens in the in-group case. In the latter case the "official"
character is smaller and the two forms of leadership tend to become
undifferentiated.
Of greater interest is the speculative phase. That is a further point of
contact between panic and manic reaction, namely the fact that they are both
characterized by a "real" phase and a "derived" one (the latter represents
the speculative moment that speeds the process toward its natural outcome).
The difference lies in the speed with which the process takes place and thus
in the separation of the two phases. In panic, in fact, the "real" and the
"derived" phases are often mixed and undistinguishable. In craze, on the
contrary, because of the lower speed at which it takes place, the two phases
remain clearly distinct. We shall see below the implications of this
characteristic of crazes.
On the basis of Fans' observations14, Smelser distinguishes two
distinctive patterns of motivations in fashion-spending. On the one hand,
the motivation of the innovation leaders, linked to an exigency to uphold an
appropriate symbolic differentiation in one's own status. Such exigency, in
turn, gives way to a continuous selection of patterns on the basis of more or
less credited status symbols and on the other hand, the followers'
(imitators') aspiration not to be left behind in the race toward appearances
which is precisely the "derived" phase acting as a speeding factor for the
craze outcome. There is not much to say about the termination of the fashion
cycle. Once an item has lost its power of status connotation, the process is
automatically extinguished while the conditions for a new attempt to
symbolize status and thus for a new fashion cycle are initiated. In other
words, all crazes are endowed with the natural mechanisms for their own
disappearance, mechanisms of self-extinction that limit also the need for
external controls.
f) Social control, in the case of fashion, does not present particular
problems. Both the institutionalization of the cycle and other controls of
various nature (economic ones, for instance) exclude in fact the need for
extraordinary controls.

3. Critical remarks. Group phenomena and aggregate

phenomena.
Amongst the several perplexities raised by Smelser's model, one should be
pointed out at once. It concerns the fusion in one class only of "acting" and
"expressive" movements. It was Blumer who distinguished between the two

254 Brought to you by | University of Manchester

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
types of action as well as between "mass" and "public"15. The difference lies
in the fact that in the latter ones the group impulses, strains and feelings
exhaust themselves in purely expressive actions; in the "acting" movements
(a "crowd" that turns into a "mob", for example) there is a goal or objective
that conditions the behavior of the group. As to crazes, Smelser's attempt to
place into a single category such phenomena as fashion or the speculative
boom together for instance with religious revival, is in practice incompatible
with some structural differences that characterize these phenomena, aside
from the fact that all of them are formed on the basis of the same generalized
belief.
The distinction made by Alberoni between group phenomena and
aggregate phenomena seems to account better for the differences. Such a
distinction is based on the fact that in group phenomena, differently from the
aggregate, there exists an aspiration towards predefined goals which involve
an organizational and directive need for their attainment. Furthermore, it
takes into account the fact that in the former type of phenomena the
individual is aware of the change in process and of his role in it. Fashion,
boom or panic would thus be different from religious revival because in the
former cases the individual, though moving synchronically with the others, is
not able to direct his action in an orderly way or, better, to frame it in an
"economic" order of development. In Weberian terms we could say that
what is absent in these cases is the metanoia which instead characterizes
group phenomena. That which defines the aggregate is precisely its not
being a group in the sociological sense, its not having a shared goal, an
organization, a system of resources for its realization. The distinction can be
further clarified using Alberoni's words. "In panic, mob, fashion, boom,
collective behavior does not lead to the formation of a group, to a
collectivity. Everybody looks at the others, even at the totality of the others,
but does not feel any group solidarity with them, does not feel to be a part of
an 'us' bound by brotherhood and by a common destiny. Above all, he does
not feel that the collectivity thus formed is more important than his
individual being, that its destiny transcends his as a moral value"16. Such is
the case of panic and manic reactions; but there is room for doubting,
Alberoni maintains, that that holds true also for religious revival. Actually
Smelser states several times in his book that by religious revival he means
only "...an enthusiastic redefinition of religious methods, but not a challenge
to basic religious values..."17. Furthermore, Smelser reminds us that, in
order to consider revivalism as craze, one should disregard the fact that in
the past phenomena of religious revival have often coincided with other
types of religious movements, of theological reformulations, of sect
formations, as well as the fact that often revivals have spontaneously evolved
into secularization or routine. Such is then the perspective from which,

255
Brought to you by | University of Manchester
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
according to Smelser, all these phenomena can be considered as similar,
since none of them gives rise to collectivities that organize themselves.
Smelser's position seems clear. We can ask ourselves, however, what is
the meaning of assigning specificity to that which actually seems to be only
the beginning, the symptom may be, of a more general phenomenon such as,
for instance, a value-oriented movement. That is, whether the two
limitations pointed out by Smelser are in the end legitimate or whether,
instead, there is reason to doubt that the historically frequent sequence from
revival phenomena to structural religious phenomena is purely casual.
These are, then, the first questions about his model that, however, do not
appear to be the fundamental ones. It is inevitable in fact that, in the attempt
to systematize rigorously the whole field of collective phenomena, in the end
the model appears in some respects too clear-cut.
Rather, Smelser cannot account for another basic distinction within
crazes. Though in fact both boom and fashion give rise to aggregate
phenomena as defined above and though both, as crazes, are based upon a
wish-fulfillment belief, there is a substantive difference on the ethical level
which seems to have escaped Smelser's attention. In fashion, change or
better attempted change are shared by all participants in the movement;
change arises from a conviction that the transformation in process is
meaningful to the extent to which it is a collective one, to the extent to which
the action of each one reflects the others' without deceptions or ambiguities.
There is then, in these cases, a high degree of unconscious solidarity. The
individual feels reassured on the ethical level and in a sense becomes
objectively responsible with all the others in front of that which is dying out
and is being rejected by the group. Boom is a different case. Here the
speculative feeling that is at the bottom of the phenomenon is by no means
shared; that is, the "others" are not actually touched by it as it happens in
fashion. Nay, speculation becomes a value precisely in so far as it is neither
generalized nor can become so. "Here lies the social and ethical contradic-
tion of boom; here is the starting point of consequences at times disastrous
for society. Each one holds on to his accentuated and exasperated selfishness
and nobody yields to the needs emerging from the reality that stems out of
the generalized action. Thus society changes without creating a new
institutional structure and cannot do so because individuals' consciousness
does not find a new structure"18.
4. The structural characteristics of the fashion cycle.
Aside from any critical remarks about Smelser's model, we shall now try to
clarify the more interesting points with regard to the fashion cycle that can
be utilized to suggest some patterns of motivation for consumption.
Most important in Smelser's model is the role he attributes to the first of

256 Brought to you by | University of Manchester

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
the six determinants that control the actual outcome of any collective event,
namely "structural conduciveness". We should again remember that for him
the general conditions of conduciveness are a structurally differentiated
situation for social action, a "rationality" that governs the action, a high
manoeuvrability of resources and, finally, a medium - "prestige" in our case
- that can be stored and exchanged. It is clear that not only does the kind of
structural conduciveness characterized by the four components indicate
that, for example, in a rigidly structured society or in a system of ranks
phenomena of fashion logically cannot take place. It also points to the fact
that the ever more transparent boundaries between status groups makes for
an easier perception of one's own status; that, furthermore, status
"rationality" - for example, change in traditional control mechanisms - and
interchangeability of a medium symbolizing status, arouse in the individuals
aspirations and desires touching upon the political and economic spheres, be
they aspirations to power or demands of economic justice. In other words,
conditions of conduciveness such as those listed above produce both
differentiation in the structure and legitimacy of aspirations. Hence a
potentially conflictual situation which follows from the uncertainty created
by the interaction between different status groups. This conclusion which we
think can be drawn from Smelser's model is further supported by the fact
that any fashion cycle stems from a structural strain. Smelser has shown that
strains leading to the craze originate from a number of ambiguities
concerning the uncertainties about the capacity of certain items or behavior
patterns to symbolize definite status19 and about the presence of facilities
(for example, cheapening of products, fewer barriers to imitation, etc.) that
favor the manoeuvrability of status. That which Smelser does not say and
which seems to us essential for a craze to appear is that, for strain to take
place, ambiguity can but affect the economic structure and the process of
distribution of wealth. On this condition only, in fact, is it possible logically
to combine strain and structural conduciveness, that is to account for the fact
that the individual perceives stratification and at the same time seriously
starts to seek to modify his position. We can thus draw a first conclusion: the
fashion cycle, as spread of new patterns of "non-productive" consumption,
is strictly related to the individuals' perception of stratification and to their
awareness of the way in which resources are distributed within the
collectivity. The conflictual nature of the fashion cycle is also confirmed if we
consider fashion as an "exploratory" form of social action, as an attempt to
affect the existing structures. Such an attempt, though superficial, symbolic,
imprecise, is nevertheless real because a new course of action, about
consumption for example, succeeds in gathering a collective consensus to
the extent to which it is perceived as a real threat to status ties of the
innovating group.

257
Brought to you by | University of Manchester
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
 It is now necessary to clarify the type of aggregate that takes place in the
fashion cycle. We shall first distinguish between two different processes in
the spread of consumptions through generalized fashions: a process of
diffusion within the group that has introduced the new course of action (for
instance, an innovation in consumptions) and a process of diffusion between
external groups with different status. The two processes should be kept
separate because not always can we speak of imitative phenomena on the
individual level while these mechanisms can instead become meaningful on
the collective level. All theories about fashion phenomena agree in fact on
one point: that the distinction between those who innovate and those who
imitate should not be placed on the individual but on the group level. That
does not mean that imitative phenomena do not exist within the innovating
group; it only means that they are governed by mechanisms different from
those that operate in the relationships between external groups. Within the
innovating group, in fact, imitation has an integrative function; it is a
collective process that gathers the consensus of the members of the group in
so far as it serves to reconstitute or consolidate the group solidarity, to
defend its values that are threatened from without. The imitative mecha-
nisms at work among external groups, instead, do not rest upon solidarity
but, as we shall see below, upon hostility and conflict. Referring to the
former processes, Halbwachs showed how there imitation meant only
recognition of a rule of action that transcends the individual. Durkheim
explicitly maintained that any kind of uniformities and repetitions could not
simply be conceived as a reaction, that is in a psychological perspective.
They could only be considered in a social perspective, which means that if a
given behavior becomes general that happens because it is socially
prescribed and not vice versa. Recently, Alberoni too has maintained that it
is impossible to distinguish between fashion makers and followers within the
group. "He who creates (fashion) does so in so far as he expects others to
follow him; his act of creating has a meaning in the anticipation of a mode of
being and acting which is going to become a value within the group to which
his action is referred. He who follows, by imitating, participates in creation
because be too anticipates the value-oriented action with reference to
others. Those who create or participate ahead of times collaborate to a
constructive work precisely because they participate at such a time. That
which is affirmed is not the individual's primacy only; it is the unity of the
group. That which is dying is being destroyed because it has lost its function
as it is no longer able to cope with the destructive forces at work within the
group"20. From this quote the reference is clear to a process that takes place
within a homogeneous group and stems from the urgency to strengthen the
status ties that are being threatened. In other words, within the group
introducing the new course of action the distinction between makers and

258 Brought to you by | University of Manchester

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
imitators has a chronological meaning only; in practice the process is a
choral one as there is a shared goal, a collective need that is precisely
constituted by the urgency to save the values of the group and to recreate the
solidarity that is being threatened from without.
The second element we have referred to earlier would thus be
confirmed: that solidarity within the group in the cycle of diffusion of
fashion is opposed by a situation of conflict amongst the various groups
interested in the innovation. The innovating group, as far as the diffusion of
consumptions through extensive fashions is concerned, maintains the
in-group characteristic pointed out by Sumner, that is internal cohesion and
external hostility. Though in different ways many classic interpretations of
the fashion cycle agree on this point. For example, at the origin of Flugel's
"fashion paradox" there is the coexistence of two processes of imitation and
differentiation that respectively express solidarity and conflict. Simmeltoo
maintains that in the processes of fashion both needs of integration and
participation and needs of differentiation are met. Goblot used the
well-known terms of "barriere" and "niveau" to indicate the two different
mechanisms. Veblen suggested an alternation of forms of „conspicuous
consumption" and "conspicuous leisure"21.
In conclusion, all traditional as well as the more modern interpretations
of the fashion cycle are founded upon the coexistence of the two processes,
differentiation and imitation. All of them, however, fail to define the
collective meaning of these phenomena. Only in Alberoni's model, it seems
to us, does this meaning emerge clearly. He in fact analyzes the relationship
between fashion and values within the group of belongingness where
innovators and imitators try to consolidate the status components that are
threatened, through a common, joint action. The new solidarity that is thus
being constituted within the group owing to a new "collective", tends to
strengthen the status ties in front of a threat coming from without. This
interpretation, however, though explaining the mechanisms at work within
the innovating group, does not help us to understand the chronological
development of the process amongst external groups. That which the
various theories of fashion neglect is the interpretation, in terms of collective
behavior, of the diffusion of the fashion cycle amongst external groups. In
the second part of this paper we shall deal with this aspect more extensively.
Indirectly, this problem is touched upon also by Smelser's model. He
mentions a "derived reaction" in the phase of mobilization, that is he
considers the process of diffusion towards external groups as a phenomenon
of speculation. In this way, however, the process in the end acquires a
marginal character as against the main phenomenon22. We suggest instead
that this aspect is relevant in the cycle of diffusion of fashion and that it
should be seen as a phenomenon of social conflict. We think that the

259
Brought to you by | University of Manchester
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
diffusion of fashion within less privileged groups - which, on the economic
level, means an increase of status expenditures within the family budget and
the typical phenomena of "consumption distortion" - is the symbolic
manifestation on the collective level of conflicts inherent in the demand of
economic justice and, as a reflex, in the sharing of power.

5. Fashion and Custom.

If we analyze the process of change of fashions into customs, our hypothesis
that some patterns of spending action are conflictual can be confirmed.
Detached from its cultural focus - Alberoni writes - a fashion tends to
become fixed into a custom23. The first question here is why some fashions
become customs and others do not. We must then establish what is meant by
"custom". Weber defines it as "a rule which is not enforced from without, to
which the individual acting voluntarily conforms in practice either 'without
thinking' or out of 'convenience' or for any other motive, and which he can
expect for these motives to be complied with by other members of the
group"24. For Weber, then, custom is an institutionalized rule of conduct and
an orientation for social action. It is a normative pattern which rises
expectations in those conforming to it. He also points out that, in order for
any uniform disposition to social action (usage) to be defined as custom, it is
necessary that habit has been acquired for a long time. Like Weber, also
Tarde stresses the temporal element and on this basis distinguishes fashion
from custom. The latter is in his view an imitation in time, that is to say of the
past, while fashion is imitation in space. Both writers then, though in a
different way, maintain that in custom relives the past, or better that which a
specific past, a fact, an event came to represent for the collectivity,
something that was at the status nascendi and was subsequently crystallized
through collective recognition. Custom, we can add, is thus characterized by
a component of celebration and for this reason it pertains to the "sacred"
differently from fashion which concerns the "profane", as it tends to
desacrate and break the existing order posing new cultural goals. Custom
arises from a fashion which has lasted in time. We can thus posit again the
original question: why some fashions become fixed in custom and others do
not; or better, why in some cases certain collective mechanisms are at work
and in others are not. Two orders of explanations are possible.
First of all, keeping Smelser's model in mind, we can say that for any
type of generalized belief to lead to episodes of collective behavior the
sequence of the value-added process must be entirely completed. Such an
answer is however insufficient as at the most it can explain the motives for
which a craze appears in the field of fashion but cannot say why a fashion
turns into custom. Incidentally this is a further deficiency in Smelsefs

260 Brought to you by | University of Manchester

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
model. Custom, in fact, is an institution, but for Smelser collective behavior
is never institutionalized. That could be accepted if custom were considered
as a social fact in itself, on the anthropological level. The change of fashion
into custom, however, is a collective moment the determinants of which
cannot but be identified in the very mechanisms that regulate the fashion
cycle. In other words, if the fashion cycle (in itself already institutionalized)
is interrupted at a certain point, that can only happen because of a different
direction in the process of diffusion of belief or because of some other
interruptions in the value-added process. Smelser, however, does not deal
with that. A more adequate answer to the question can be found, we think, in
the following remarks by A/5eron/.,,Once the process has attained a choral
consensus, it must extinguish itself because, in order to continue, it should
affect the preexisting structures and conflicts. To become custom fashion
must transfer on the political and ethical level all that has been elaborated in
a neutral sector and almost in a joking way through the negation of conflict'i25.
The exploratory character of fashion phenomena is thus confirmed, that is
their tentative searching for new solutions, new cultural goals within the
social structure. Such searching is typically experimental and imprecise. If
we are allowed an analogy, we could say that this activity resembles the
general rehearsal of a show that everybody knows will never be represented.
In fashion, then, change is only symbolic and is never realized in action.
When that is going to happen fashion dies out. Hence the rather appropriate
saying that fashion allows adventure without risk.
We can thus draw a first conclusion. If a fashion has become a custom
that means that it has affected in some way the social structures and the
sphere of preexisting conflicts. In Smelser's model such change could be
explained by admitting that there has been no social control at the end of the
craze and that the process has changed direction touching upon the higher
sphere in the hierarchy of the action levels. That which emerges now,
however, is no longer at the status nascendi, it is an institution, a new rule
which individuals conform to and which replaces certain orientation
structures with others: That which before belonged to the expressive sphere
only, affects now the political or the religious or the economic sphere.

6. Hostility and conflict in the fashion cycle.

We should now inquire what is the nature of the conflict intervening in the
fashion cycle and in its subsequent transformation into custom. To this
purpose it is convenient to keep separate fashion from custom and conflict
from feeling of hostility.
Aside from the fact that unequal distributions of privileges and rights
may generate feelings of hostility that do not necessarily lead to conflicts,

261
Brought to you by | University of Manchester
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
 Coser has shown that conflict and feeling of hostility differ on a double level:
that of interaction and that of legitimation. "Conflict as distinct from
attitudes or feelings of hostility, always takes place when there is interaction
between two or more people. Attitudes of hostility are predispositions to
conflictual behavior; conflict instead is always interaction"26. That supports
the distinction made earlier between fashion and custom. The latter, as a
rule of conduct which individuals conform to and which produces a series of
expectations, can but rest upon the existence of interactive relationships.
That is so also because custom always presupposes the group and not the
aggregate, as it instead happens for fashion. Obviously that does not mean
that conforming to rules of conduct sanctioned by custom is in itself a
conflictual fact; rather, that strengthening of a new custom can only take
place on the basis of preexisting conflicts. The spread of fashion to external
groups expresses instead feelings of hostility, that is predispositions to
conflictual behavior. In this sense, any fashion, as an exploratory form of
social action, attempts to fix itself in custom (hostility) but only seldom does
it succeed (conflict).
On the theoretical level we can assume that the reason why not all
fashions are consolidated in custom is to be related to the reason which
accounts for not all feelings of hostility leading to conflicts. According to
Coser such change depends on the legitimation of inequality and of the
system of privileges. In his view, transition from hostility to conflict
presupposes both the perception of status and the refusal of the legitimacy of
the unequal distribution of privileges and rights. An objection is in order
here. Given, in fact, the objective and universal existence of systems of social
stratification, that is the existence of hierarchies of privileges together with
the institutional competitiveness and aggressiveness of the "open class"
social systems, it is still unclear why not all fashions become customs. It is
evident then that there are forces at work in the mechanisms of
transformation, of transition from one to the other social phenomenon, that
tend to reduce strain and thus to weaken the demands of economic justice.
In our opinion, this change in social pressure can be explained with the
Freudian concept of ambivalence. That is the meaning - we think - of
Coser's suggestion that feelings of hostility between classes, typical of the
open class systems, tend most of the time to turn into what he defines as
"ressentiment". "In societies in which upward social mobility is institutiona-
lized, in which achieved rather than ascribed status dominates, hostility
between various strata is mingled with a strong positive attraction to those
higher in the social hierarchy, who provide some models of behavior. If there
were no antagonisms, status groups would dissolve since boundaries
between them and the outside would disappear; but these boundaries are
kept fluid by the very fact that upward social mobility is the cultural ideal of

262 Brought to you by | University of Manchester

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
such societies"27. In other words, ambivalence towards groups occupying the
highest levels of the hierarchy seems to drive the less privileged groups
simultaneously to accept and reject the pattern of behavior offered to them.
We can thus suggest a hypothesis that we shall further analyze later: namely,
that the less privileged groups could always erase the boundaries towards the
outside by transforming all fashions into custom but do not do it. More
correctly, we should perhaps say that the less privileged groups experiment
the innovations coming from the groups higher in the status hierarchy and
crystallize in custom only those that have a clear evolutional character. That
would also mean that, if left to the elites' judgement, any innovation would
turn into custom but only within this group, which would lead the system to
the traditional stationary cycle.
An interpretation of the fashion cycle and of its transition into custom
can only rest upon the existence of conflictual mechanisms within the status
hierarchy. This point is included also in Smelser's model since craze as a
collective phenomenon is a more or less central aspect of social change. In
Smelsefs model, in fact, generalized beliefs lessen the ambiguity created by
conditions of structural strain, structure anew the ambiguous situation
through the "short-circuiting" process and thus prepare individuals for
action. It is therefore implied by his model that the fashion cycle rests upon
conflictual mechanisms. Only, by placing fashion in the category of crazes,
he is forced to give up the attempt to define the real conflictual nature of this
collective phenomenon.
7. Concluding remarks.
We shall now develop our argument and point out some major points. First
of all, the relationship between fashion and consumption patterns. It should
be clear from what we have been saying that fashions, as crazes stemming
out of a highly differentiated system of status symbolization, exclusively
concern the category of so-called status consumptions. The strain and
ambiguity that characterize the phenomenon immediately exclude from this
area the primary or necessary needs, those needs aptly defined by.Riesman
as belonging to the "standard package of goods". We should now deal, even
though briefly, with a problem that is particularly relevant to the
interpretation of spending actions. In the sociological literature on
consumptions there frequently appears the distinction between status and
"standard package" consumptions. In most cases, however, the distinction is
made for purely descriptive rather than explicatory purposes28.' For
example, the thesis according to which in advanced industrial societies
fashion has lost its natural characteristic of "trickling down" because of its
spreading through the mass media, is a mistake which, in our opinion,
originates precisely from failure to keep separate the mechanisms at work in

263
Brought to you by | University of Manchester
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
 the case of necessary goods and of goods that are not such29. One neglects
the fact that, in the case of primary consumptions, the motivational patterns
governing the spending activity reflect, in a more or less rigid manner, the
rationality of economic calculations. In the case of status consumptions, on
the contrary, the consumer's expenditures can be explained only in terms of
social relations and of one's own status. Hence the conflictual significance of
this type of expenditures that prevail in the open class social systems. There,
in fact, the less privileged groups entertain to an ever higher degree strong
aspirations towards the positions of the groups that are higher up in the
social hierarchy. Statistics have shown that conspicuous consumptions tend
to increase as the income of a collectivity is unequally distributed, which
further confirms the relationship between conspicuous consumptions and
perception of stratification. Here lies a particularly important focus of
structural strain which in Smelser's model corresponds to the fifth level of
the mobilization series: the one concerning the perception of a poor
allocation of rewards to the various sectors of society.
A further point should be clarified: the distinction in the fashion cycle
between those who innovate and those who imitate. As we have already
suggested, the sociological significance of these processes can only be found
at a group level. That is to say, the term "imitators" can only be referred to
individuals aspiring to a higher level of rewards. From the point of view of
sociological theory, therefore, they should be placed in a definite category,
different from the one to which belong both innovators and those who
imitate in order to affirm the unity of the group and to maintain its privileges.
Aside from the innovation leaders, those who imitate should be differentia-
ted according to whether or not they belong to the group in which the
innovation has arisen, because the two behaviors have different motivations.
We have seen earlier that for Alberoni it is impossible to distinguish, within
the innovating group, between fashion leaders and followers because both
aim at reconstituting the threatened status ties. In the innovating group
there exists then a kind of complicity for defending the group primacy and its
privileges. As against other groups, however, he who creates through
innovation does so hoping not to be imitated or, at least, not immediately.
Innovation is thus a choral process within the group and creators of a new
mode of action and followers should be differentiated in a chronological
sense only. Imitators strictly speaking are, instead, outside the group and the
motivation of their behavior is to be sought in their attempt to contest the
legitimacy of the hierarchy. Here lies the essence of hostility in the fashion
cycle. The subsequent transformation into custom represents the turning
point. It expresses in fact a situation of conflict and disintegration from
which a new synthesis will emerge, a new rule which redefines the
relationship among groups, restructuring their boundaries.

264 Brought to you by | University of Manchester

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
 On the basis of these remarks we suggest the hypothesis that fashions
originate from above even in advanced industrial societies that are generally
defined as "mass societies". That characteristic, however, and this is the
crucial point, is much less relevant on the political level than it may appear at
first. In substance, what is essential to social change is not so much the
process by which fashions are formed as their transformation into custom.
The focus of the process lies, then, in the selection of the innovations that are
produced. This process, at the level where fashion becomes fixated in
custom is certainly extraneous to the influence of the privileged groups. We
can also suggest that this process represents a type of inverted social control
in which the mass selects the cultural innovations and the new patterns of
behavior that the privileged groups produce in a chaotic and irrational way.
On the other hand, almost all fashions disappear and only some are
crystallyzed in custom: precisely those that have had a real impact on the
political and moral level.

8. Proposals for a macrosociology of the fashion cycle.

We shall now try to identify some specific patterns of relationships which
bring about different solutions of the fashion cycles. For simplicity sake we
shall consider two social units with different income, power and prestige
levels within the stratification system. We shall furthermore consider
fashions, in a general sense, as socio-cultural phenomena that cut across the
distance between the units that are being analyzed. We can think of the
socio-cultural elements as of "information" coming from the innovating
group and directed towards the lower unit. It is a cybernetic process
characterized by an input flow, an output and a feedback of information to
the secondary unit. This model, of which we can only give here a few
elements at the level of hypothesis, takes into consideration some aspects of
Sorokin's analysis about social and cultural dynamics, especially with
reference to the direction of the currents of cultural elements. It also refers
to the distinction between cultural system, including "finished" objects and
values coming from higher social units, and aggregates?0, including raw
material coming from lower units.
We can thus distinguish three fundamental situations respectively
leading to three different solutions of the fashion cycle.
a) The first case is the regular flow of "information" (patterns of
behavior, objects and cultural values) from the higher to the lower unit. All
fashions created by the former unit affect the latter, but only a few become
fixated in custom. The regularity characterizing this situation is not
institutional; rather, it stems from an equilibrium due to high rationalization
of the selective and control mechanisms of the lower unit that is parallelled

265
Brought to you by | University of Manchester
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
 by a strong cultural strain of the higher unit. This cycle could be defined as
"bureaucratic" in the Weberian meaning of the term. On the political level,
in terms of the elites' role, there would be a situation where both traditional
elites in power and at the opposition (belonging to the secondary unit)
succeed in interpreting the new collective processes.lt is the typical case of
reformist situations.
b) The second case is exemplified by a situation of high cultural strain in
the higher unit that is not accompanied by an adequate organizational
rationality in the lower unit about the selection of the patterns of behavior
and of the emerging needs. Interruption of the flow depends in this case on
an input disfunction of the lower unit. The distance between the two units
increases and the accumulated cultural gap of the lower unit causes the
boundaries to become rigid, thus closing up the input flow in a definitive
way. The consequence in the higher unit is an overaccumulation of
innovations and the subsequent crystallization of cultural strain. A "caste" is
formed and the cycle becomes stationary. In Weberian terms we speak in
this case of "traditional" societies. Change takes place only within the higher
unit (aristocracies) but in a particular way: it is only symbolized through
ceremonial and style forms. In Imperial China, for instance, the emperor
managed change in a purely symbolic form. The Uang's (the emperor's)
periodical movement within the imperial palace symbolized the destructura-
tion of the system (expulsion of the indigenous population outside the Great
Wall), followed by the reconstitution of order through the calendar reform.
c) The third case is the interruption of the output flow from the lower
unit. All fashions become fixated in custom. Values are thus crystallized
within the unit; there is dysfunction of the institution and a state of social
anomie. Charisma arises and, on the political level, movements of reaction
emerge that tend to invert the flow. Different is the case of an interruption of
the socio-cultural flow coming from the higher unit following a reduction of
strain. Here too charisma emerges, but this is the case of the classic
revolutionary situation.
A particular case, finally, is that of dysfunctional situations in the
selective process of the lower group. Some fashions crystallize within
particular sectors of it. That is the case dealt with by Levi-Strauss in "Sad
Tropics", in which certain fashions, detached from the original driving
centers, tend to become fixated in customs which consolidate a cycle that has
already been hopelessly affected.

266 Brought to you by | University of Manchester

Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
Notes

1
N. J. Smelser, Theory of Collective Behavior, London 1962.
2
Ibid, p. 94.
3
Ibid, p. 8.
4
Ibid, p. 71.
5
Ibid, pp. 175 ff.
6
Ibid., pp. 175-176.
7
Ibid., pp. 184-187.
8
Ibid., pp. 185-186.
9
Ibid, p. 196.
10
Ibid, p. 205.
11
See F. Alberoni, Consumi e Societa, Bologna 1967; particularly the chapter on resistance
to innovation in consumption.
12
R. Nurkse, Problems of Capital Formation in Underdeveloped Countries, Oxford 1953.
13
N.J.Snie7ser,op.cit.,p.211.
14
R.E.L. Fans, Social Disorganization, New York 1948.
15
H. Blumer, Collective Behavior, in: McClung Lee (ed.), Principles of Sociology, New
York 1951. See also R.E. Park and E.W. Burgess, Introduction to the Science of Sociology,
Chicago 1921.
16
F. Alberoni, "Sociologia del Comportamento Collettivo", in: Question! di Sociologia,
Brescia 1966, Vol. I, p. 762.
17
N.J. Smelser, op. cit., p. 173.
18
F. Alberoni, Sociologia del Comportamento Collettivo, op. cit., p. 766.
19
N.J. Sme/ser, op. cit., pp. 196-197.
20
F. Alberoni, Consumi e Societa, op. cit., pp. 284-285.
21
For Flugel's thesis see Psychology of Clothes, London 1930. See also Simmel's
well-known essay "Fashion", in: International Quarterly, X, 1904-1905, reprinted in:
American Journal of Sociology, LXII, 1957. Goblot's book La Barriere et le Niveau (originally
published in 1925) has been reprinted Paris 1967. For Veblen's distinction we refer to The
Theory of the Leisure Class, New York 1899.
22
N.J. Smelser, op. cit., p. 214. See on the subject also Fans, Social Disorganization, op. cit.,
p. 380; and S.H. Drift, Social Psychology of Modern Life, New York 1950, p. 306.
23
F. Alberoni, Consumi e Societa, op. cit., p. 285.
24
Max Weber, Economia e Societa, Milano 1961, pp. 26-27.
25
F. A75eroni,op.cit.,p.288.
26
L.A. Coser, Le Funzioni del Conflitto Sociale, Milano 1967, p. 40.
27
Ibid, p. 39.
28
See C. Y. Clock and P.M. Nicosia, The Consumer, in: Lazarsfeld, Sewell, Wilenski (eds.),
The Uses of Sociology, New York 1967, pp. 359-390.
29
This thesis is maintained by JR. König, Die Mode in der menschlichen Gesellschaft, Zürich
1958.
30
P.A. Sorokin, Social Control and Cultural Dynamics, New York 1937.

Zusammenfassung - Summary - Resume

Der Autor überprüft die hauptsächlichsten Aspekte der Theorie des kollektiven
Verhaltens von Smelser, und zwar im einzelnen in bezug auf „Schrullen" und
besonders auf modische Zyklen. Er gibt einen Bericht über neuere Kritiken an
Smelsers Theorie und stellt dann die Betrachtung der Beziehungen zwischen
widersprüchlichen und solidaristischen Aspekten des Mode-Zyklus vor. In diesem

267
Brought to you by | University of Manchester
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM
Zusammenhang betont er die dynamischen Beziehungen zwischen den allgemeinen
Phänomenen der Mode und denen des Brauches. Das Problem von Feindseligkeit
und Konflikt wird auf Grund einiger Konzepte durchgesprochen, die in Cosers
Theorie des sozialen Konflikts enthalten sind. Der Autor kommt zu dem Schluß, daß
die Prozesse der Mode ihr natürliches „Tröpfel-Verhalten" bewahren, auch in
fortschrittlichen industriellen Gesellschaften, die allgemein mit „Massengesellschaf-
ten" bezeichnet werden.

The author reviews the main aspects of Smelser's theory of collective behavior, and
points out in detail to the part concerning the «crazes» and especially the fashion
cycle. The writer gives an account of some recent criticisms raised against Smelser's
theory, then introduces the consideration of the relations between conflictual and
solidaristic aspects of the fashion cycle; in this connection he emphasizes the dynamic
relation between the general phenomena of fashion and those of custom. The
problem of hostility and conflict is discussed on the basis of some concepts contained
in Coser's theory of social conflict. He comes to the conclusion that the processes of
fashion maintain their natural «trickling down» behavior also in advanced industrial
societies, generally defined as «mass-societies».

L'auteur examine les aspects principaux de la theorie du comportement collectif de

S/ne/ser, et cela dans le detail ä propos des «caprices» et en particulier des cycles de la
mode. H fait un compte rendu des critiques recentes de la theorie de Smelser et
presente ensuite des considerations sur les rapports des aspects contradictoires et
solidaires du cycle de la mode. Dans ce contexte il souligne les relations dynamiques
entre le phenomene general de la mode et celui de usage. Le probleme de I'hostilite
et du conflit est discute sur la base de quelques concepts de la theorie du conflit social
de Coser. L'auteur conclut que les processus de la mode conservent leur allure
naturelle de «goutte a goutte» y compris dans les societes industrielles avancees,
dites generalement societes de masse.

Brought to you by | University of Manchester

268
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/19/15 4:29 PM