by Bobbin.Threadbare » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:07 pm
Simmel has to be taken in context, like all academics. He may well have been correct in his social context, and I believe that he probably was. Looking back at not only fashion but furnishings and the ilk, trends were driven by royalty, the upper class, and luminaries. These bled down to the lower stratas of society, and even nowadays there's a good portion of people who have their fashion dictated by the upper class/celebs.
In the last century, certainly in the western world, cultural stigma has faded, and for a large proportion of the western world there is even an idolisation of working class culture. Blue collar workers used to wear blue collars because indigo was the cheapest dye that could cover more dirt than a white collar. Now, indigo dyes and heritage workwear is all the rage and you can't catch a sniff of a tough chambray workshirt on a workmans pay.
Similarly, this bottom-up bleeding happens within vacuums that then explode elsewhere. While taking a look at political leaders in the UK I learned that what we now consider the modern suit was in fact a workwear type of attire, far removed from the tail jackets politicians used to wear. After unions became powerful, politicians started dressing in the 'common man suit' to become more relatable, which then exploded in a big way.
Fashion is trends, and there is never just one occurring. Trends happen in the micro and macro scale, and I agree that they don't happen in the upper classes exclusively. However, I don't believe that they (generally) happen in one place and spread from there, because several points have to line up before a trend has the power to really carry its own weight.