Before the Industrial Revolution, Fashion was a telltale sign of class. The rich wore beautiful fabrics that flowed and were extremely expensive. Particularly when everything for the rich was technically couture and bespoke.
The poor wore less expensive fabrics that were more of a plain and simple look showing what their lives were like, which was certainly not rich. That's not to say that they were not happy. And that's not to say that the rich were happy. Everyone is human whether they are from one class or the other, but most dream and aspire to be something else.
Now, with economic changes making material goods cheaper, the lines are blurred. (Leonhardt, Scott) (Shadowy Lines That Still Divide, New York Times). Trendy stores like Forever 21 and H&M have either taken to copying what is seen on the runway or out and out hiring couture and high-end ready to wear designers to do collaboration lines for stores such as Target, H&M, TopShop, JC Penny, etc. and anyone can look like they are from a higher class than they really are.
In fact, lower-class stores have created a world of illusion for those who want to buy into what they are selling.
For instance, H&M has had the likes of Stella McCartney and Karl Lagerfeld design lines for them that have sold out in hours. The same kind of frenzy has happened at Target. In fact, I at one time worked at Target and during the Phillip Lim sale it was a like a feeding frenzy.
From the H&M site, here is the list of all the fashion icons/designers that have done store/design collaborations:
- 2005: Stella McCartney, Elio Fiorucci, Solange Azagury-Partridge
- 2006: Viktor & Rolf
- 2007: Roberto Cavalli
- 2008: Rei Kawakubo and Comme des Garçons
- 2009: Matthew Williamson, Jimmy Choo, Sonia Rykiel
- 2010: Sonia Rykiel, Lanvin
- 2011: Versace
- 2012: Versace, Marni, Maison Martin Margiela
- 2013: Isabel Marant
- 2014: Alexander Wang
Some of the more popular Target Design Collaborations:
- 2002-2008: Isaac Mizrahi. This was hugely successful for both and revived Mizrahi's career.
- 2005: Fiorucci
- 2006: Luella
- 2007: Proenza Schouler
- 2009: Rodarte
- 2011: Missoni
- 2012: Prabal Gurung
- 2012: Neiman Marcus (which was almost too expensive even for Target customers)
- 2013: Jason Wu
- 2013: Phillip Lim
These kinds of collaborations have allowed other classes to have the opportunity to own something they feel is valuable: Designer clothing which = status.
This has not only happened in fashion, however. One has only to look at what Martha Stewart has been up to lately.
She started selling at K-Mart which was originally good for the lower-class shoppers or just shoppers looking for a good deal but in 2009 she realized that she did not want to be associated with that kind establishment anymore. According to an article in Daily Finance, (Martha Stewart says K-mart is a bad thing, Daily Finance) "Stewart said she blamed the parent company of Kmart, Sears Holdings (SHLD), for letting her Martha Stewart Everyday line deteriorate in recent years. It has been kind of ripped off. I would say it has been diminished. The quality is not what I am proud of" she said. (Cardona). Stewart has now had her own case of social mobility in the consumer world and moved onto Macy's, various craft stores and Home Depot with her line of products.
With these kinds of collaborations, it is rather hard to discern whether or not people are actually expressing their social position, or portraying the position they aspire to. If one can sew and imitate or get up before the sun rises and get to one of the opening days of stores doing designer collaborations, they can look like whatever status they want to.
As more and more store/designer collaborations come about and people clamor for the items being sold to them, the lines will continue to blur between fashion and social status. The question is, will the illusion of riches continue to fool? Only time will tell.
Bibliography
Works Cited
Cardona, Mercedes. "Martha Stewart says Kmart is a bad thing" Daily Finance. 16, September 2009. Web
Leonhardt, David and Janny Scott. "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide." New York Times. 15, May 2005. Special Section: Class Matters. New York. Web
After talking at length in class and reading several articles on this subject, I would unequivocally categorize America's stratification system to be the "Class" system. For as long as I can remember there has always been talk about where a person's "class" lies in the Sociological spectrum (albeit I didn't realize then that what was being discussed was a sociological term).
Ours is the "Class" system because, while there is a separateness between the classes, i.e. upper-class, upper-middle class, middle-class, lower-middle class and lower-class, there is the belief that if one works hard enough, they can break the barriers of their class an move ahead to a higher class.
In an article from the New York Times, in 2005 entitled "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide" by Janny Scott and David Leonhardt (Shadowy Lines That Still Divide. New York Times), it is clear that "class is still a powerful force in American Life." (Leonhardt, Scott).
While this article (which was part of a three piece series) may have been written in 2005, the authors make points that from my perspective are still relevant nine years later. Discussions of mobility within the system can work and as a 65-year old real estate investor in Houston who was interviewed for the article claimed "the system is as fair as you can make it. I don't think life is necessarily fair, but if you persevere, you can overcome adversity. It has to do with a person's willingness to work hard, and I think its always been that way." (Leonhardt, Scott).
If you ask me, everyone has their own beliefs on this claim. I believe the real estate investor is dead on. There are those willing to work their butts off to get somewhere and those who expect it to fall from the sky. Sometimes a person can get lucky and move ahead, but sometimes it really does take that effort and determination to make whatever your dream is happen. And dreams are technically about social mobility no matter what that dream is. Admittedly, the hard work that a person sometimes has no choice but to do can break you... and keep you running in circles to get to that higher "status" or the dream. This would explain the low or slow mobility to cross between the classes.
The NY Times article does make mention, however, that many people feel their standard of living is better than their parents. But they also say, that most feel that there is not a level playing field with the rich having too much power. Today, we see this is still the case. For instance, the 99% versus the 1%. We know who the 1% are but how long will it take to create more equality between those lines.
That being said, according to statistics, many American have moved up the nation's class ladder with 45 percent of respondents to a research study from this article claiming they were in a higher class than when they grew up, while only 16 percent were in a lower one. Only 1 percent claimed to be upper class, with 15 percent as upper middle class, 42 percent as middle and 35 percent working and 7 percent lower." (Leonhardt, Scott)
What does this all mean....lets look at the numbers again. Okay...lets look at one number. Only 1 percent claims to be upper class. Egads....I say. That's so screwed up. Share the wealth a little. Funny and totally off topic, but the rich often get richer and stay in their "high status" because they are less generous, ironically, then those that have less. I've always wondered why why why this is.
Now, if this above mentioned research were conducted today, where would those numbers lie? My guess is, unfortunately about the same.
In fact, a recent study done by economists at Harvard University and the University of California (Berkeley) that appears in a February 2014 article of the Economist (Mobility Measured. The Economist), "crunched numbers from over 40 million tax returns of people born between 1971-93 focusing on mobility between generations. They measured this using correlation of parent's and children's income, and the odds that a child born into the bottom fifth of the income distribution will climb all the way to the top fifth." (The Economist).
They found through this study that American social mobility compared to many European countries is low. In fact, in a recent Gallup poll, "only 52% of Americans think there is plenty of opportunity to get ahead, down from 81% in 1998. Circumstantial situations seems to be the cause due to the widening gaps between rich and poor, which correlate to quality of schools, and parents' investment of time and money in their children." (The Economist) The economists also found five factors that correlated with differences in social mobility in different parts of America. Particularly segregation (by income or race); the quality of schooling; family structure (eg, how many children live with only one parent); social capital (taking part in community groups); and inequality in general. (The Economist).
Its maddening.
These types of numbers also correlate to the reasoning for which classes are more likely to marry and less likely to divorce. I was surprised to read in Andrew Cherlin December 6, 2014 piece in the New York Times entitled "The Real Reason Richer People Marry" (The Real Reason Richer People Marry. New York Times) that 56 percent of professional, managerial and technical workers were married (and less likely to divorce), compared with only 31 percent of service workers from a Census Bureau study. (Cherlin)
Cherlin reports that this is not the first era where there was a marriage gap like this between classes. It is the second and I find this fascinating. Here's what he found according to Census records:
The first one occurred between 1880-1910, during the Mark Twain coined "Gilded Age". This was because of the growing industrial economy which a) increased the number of managers and executives, b) the extension of schooling increased demand for teachers and c) the quadrupling of newspaper circulation increased the demand for editors and reporters. This white-collar professional class solidified its gains in the labor market and married in large numbers. (Cherlin)
There is a terrific graphic in the article (click the link above to see it) that shows the similarities between the eras.
He goes on to say, that at the same time, independent craftsmen and artisans declined as their small shops were replaced by large factories.
Isn't this happening today as well? In class on Friday we talked about how landlords are pushing the little mom and pop local businesses out for the bigger corporations like Starbucks, etc to move in. How are people supposed to survive when they can't even afford to fight against the rich, upper-class?
Will it ever change? I'd like to see it all flip around and see how the upper-class would survive in the lower-class place in an alternate-reality world. It would sure make things more interesting to see who would survive through the rough patches. My guess is in the end, the lower-class would come out ahead with or without riches.
Bibliography
Cited Sources:
Cherlin, Andrew J. "The Real Reason Richer People Marry." New York Times. 06, December 2014. Sunday Review: Opinion. New York. Web
The Economist.com. "Mobility Measured." The Economist. 01, February 2014. Class in America. Web from Print Edition.
Leonhardt, David and Janny Scott. "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide." New York Times. 15, May 2005. Special Section: Class Matters. New York. Web
