Designing Clothes

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
www.Transactionpub.com
Preface iii
Transaction Publishers
New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.)
iv Designing Clothes
Copyright 2008 by Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright
Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or
any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing
from the publisher. All inquiries should be addressed to Transaction Publishers,
RutgersThe State University of New Jersey, 35 Berrue Circle, Piscataway,
New Jersey 08854-8042. www.transactionpub.com
This book is printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National
Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials.
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2007020871
ISBN: 978-1-4128-0903-0
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Manlow, Veronica.
Designing clothes: culture and organization of the fashion industry /
Veronica Manlow.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4128-0903-0 (E-Book)
1. Clothing trade. 2. Fashion design. 3. Clothing trade Case studies.
4. Fashion designCase studies. I. Title.
HD9940.A2M36 2007
338.4'7687dc22 2007020871
Preface v
Contents
Preface vii
Part IThe Fashion Industry
1. Clothing, Fashion, and Society 3
2. The Emergence of the Fashion Industry 35
3. The Fashion Designer 93
4. Leadership in the Fashion Industry 129
5. Organizational Culture in the Fashion Industry 161
Part IITommy Hilger USA, Inc.: A Case Study
6. Charisma, Culture, and Representation 189
at Tommy Hilger
7. Epilogue 277
References 283
Index 301
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Preface vii
Preface
Ian Grifths (2000), a fashion designer at Max Mara and a professor
of fashion design at Kingston University, points out that the fashion
academythose who study fashion from one or another academic
perspectiveoften miss something essential about the industry. Were
fashion designers to write their own narratives (and not just those who
are household names), or were those writing about fashion design to
simply ask designers and others who work in fashion to explain what
they do and why, perhaps wed get a more accurate portrayal of the
fashion system. In this study I try to follow Grifths recommendation.
To begin with, however, I discuss theoretical approaches to understand-
ing fashionnone of them originating from those who have worked in
fashion. I discuss fashion as a global industry and the rise of the designer.
As the study progresses, I try to give the reader a view of the world of
fashion from the perspectives of those who know it best, and to let the
analysis ow from the empirical data. When I decided to study this
world, encompassing business, art, culture, and society, I felt the best
way to do so would be to gain access to a fashion rm. I wrote to about
one hundred rmsmany well-known and others less so. I heard from
two rms: Leslie Faye and Tommy Hilger. John Pomerantz, the then
CEO of Leslie Faye, invited me over for a day. He spoke to me about
the industry, his own rm, and arranged for me to speak to several de-
signers and others in various positions in the rm. It helped that I knew
someone in an executive position at Tommy Hilger who recommended
that I be allowed to do this study and agreed to help me in my activities
while at the rm. Nevertheless, it is quite surprising that a rm would
allow a sociologist full access without knowing exactly what I would
do with the knowledge I acquired. I was set up as an intern and given an
employee identication card and access pass, an email account, a desk,
and a computer. This arrangement allowed me to operate from inside
the rm rather than coming to the rm in a much more formal way to
conduct interviews, observe people at work, etc.
vii
viii Designing Clothes
My primary interest was to learn about the signicance that fashion
design had for the people who were a part of it; to nd out what the ex-
perience of fashion design was likehow it was organized, what kind
of organizational culture existed, and how Hilger and others managed
the rm. After completing my research I expanded my scope to include
other rms in the fashion industry both from interviews with designers
and others who worked in these rms and from secondary data from vari-
ous sources. I hopein someway at leastI have been able to provide
a window into the fascinating world of fashion design and that I have
shown how this world deeply affects society.
Fashion has become a major industry with complex economic, cul-
tural, and aesthetic dimensions. Fashions scope is ever-widening both
as a global force and in terms of its reach into different sectors of life.
Designers have become celebrities in their own right and many celebrities
endorse fashionand sometimes even start their own line. Shopping has
become a major leisure activity; though some seem to approach it in such
a strategic manner and with such determination that it hardly seems like a
diversion. People plan vacations around shopping, and some relationships
seem to revolve around shopping. There are pop-up temporary stores
ranging from Commes des Garons to J.C. Penney. In New York City
there is even a mobile fashion boutique called Shop Caravan that will
bring up-to-the-minute designs to your door. Ralph Laurens Madison
Avenue store once featured an interactive shopping window with a touch
computer screen embedded into the display window glass. Credit cards
could be swiped, at any hour, through a device afxed to the window.
Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Old Navy are now advertising trendy
clothes in Vogue magazine. There are cable TV stations, magazines,
Internet sites, and blogs devoted solely to reporting or discussing fash-
ion. Newspapers devote more prime coverage to fashion as a business
and cultural phenomena than ever before. There is fast fashion for those
who cant wait for the next seasons offerings; there are limited-runs and
designer exclusives sometimes sold only in one boutique; and of course,
there is couture for the truly advantaged. For those who cant afford a
status purse and dont want a knockoff theres Bag, Borrow, or Steala
Seattle-based company that rents designer bags to members online. There
are fashion museums and exhibitions on fashion at major museums,
galleries, and sometimes even in stores: e.g., the 2004 Vanessa Beecroft
installation at the Prada store in SoHo. Womens Wear Daily reports that
the Museum of Fine Arts Boston is getting ready to present Fashion
Show: Paris Collections 2006a departure from the more studied ap-
Preface ix
proach usually taken by museums (Bowers 2006: 14). Charles Bennett,
senior corporate vice president of the sports management corporation
IMG which now produces Fashion Week throughout the world, says of
his decision to expand into fashion, Fashion is followed by women the
way sports are followed by guys (Chozick 2006: B6). And, of course,
sports matches sometimes double as fashion showcases with sponsorship
deals in the millions of dollars. For example, Ralph Lauren became the
rst ofcial outtter for Wimbledon in 2006 (Conti 2006: 3) and Puma
sponsored 12 teams in the World Cup (Beckett 2006: 2). The United
Parcel Service signed on as a sponsor and even had a tent at New York
Fashion Week in September 2005 in which UPS fashions designed by ten
emerging designers were modeled (Chozick 2006: B6). For those who
wish to turn away from more blatant forms of consumerist fashion there
is the emerging category of eco-fashionrecycled and environmentally
sustainable clothingaccompanied by what Samantha Skey of Alloy
Media & Marketing refers to as socially conscious brand marketing
(Seckler 7/12/06: 12).
We see fashion all around us, we can buy it, read about it, and take
courses on it; yet unless we work in the industry, we may know little
about fashion as a business. In this book I will consider the broader
signicance of fashion in society. I will look at the creative process of
fashion design and its unfolding in an organizational context; this is,
after all, where designs are conceived and executed.
Fashion rms are not just in the business of selling clothing with
a variety of sidelines; the rm must also sell a larger concept around
which people can identify and distinguish themselves. The four main
tasks of a fashion rm are: creation of an image, translation of that im-
age into a product, presentation of the product, and selling the product.
These processes are interrelated and require the efforts of a variety of
specialists that are often in distant locations. The design and presenta-
tion of fashion is inuenced by changes in society: both cultural and
economic. Information about past sales, reception of items, as well as
projective research will inform design, manufacturing, sales, distribution,
and marketing decisions. Products are sold at a variety of price points
and must be positioned to appeal to a target customer. New ideas must
systematically be put forward by the rm, yet the identity of the brand
must maintain a coherent representation in the minds of consumers. In
addition to taking account of the contingencies of the market, fashion
rms must be attuned to what other rms are doing; the moves of any
one signicant rm will inuence other rms. It can be said that there
x Designing Clothes
is a ow and counterow, or feedback loop, which occurs between all
these sub-systems in the larger fashion industry.
There are certain imperatives that drive fashion design in a corporate
environment, and adjustments must be made so that it may remain a
creative endeavor. Leadership, organizational structure, and organi-
zational culture take on certain forms conducive to meeting what are
often thought of as contradictory objectivesbureaucratic formality and
creativity. The three basic tasks that must be accomplished within every
rmcreation, production and presentation of fashionwill then be
achieved under certain conditions of leadership, organizational structure,
and organizational culture.
I will look at the inuences under which creative decisions are made
leading up to the creation of actual styles. Various cultural and historical
factorsboth internal as they relate to the rm, and external as they relate
to the larger culturecontribute to the image that a rm has constructed
and continues to impart to its products. One can ask, relative to decisions
that are made, how is a brand identity created and sustained across mul-
tiple products? Put another way, what informs the core symbolic meaning
of products created within a rm, and how much exibility occurs around
this constant? Extending this somewhat, one can ask a related question;
what contribution do fashion rms make in upholding, challenging, or
redening the social order?
Ideas must be translated into products. Issues of leadership, manage-
rial practices, division of labor, interpersonal communication patterns,
and technology will all come into play in how negotiations are carried
out. There are certain policies and procedures, networks through which
information ows, and informal processes that inuence outcomes.
The question is, then, what are the organizational procedures by which
a brands style is dened and a product line manufactured? Marketing
research, daily analysis of sales gures across various product categories,
and various means of tapping into consumer responsiveness are taken into
account by the rm when deciding whether to go forward with particular
designs (as are many other factors).
In order to understand how a rm in the fashion industry is structured
and how it integrates its creative function with its business operations,
issues internal to the rm as well as outside of the rm must be addressed.
To begin with, a particular rm needs to be situated in a larger historical,
social, cultural, and organizational context. I set out to look at fashion as
it occurs in industry rather than looking at it primarily as social psycho-
Preface xi
logical phenomena or as a form of collective behavior. Fashion, as it is
experienced and enacted by people, is of course connected to the way it
is handled in the industry; but this will remain in the background while
the industrys role remains in the foreground.
In the world of fashion many contradictory forces must be balanced
all of which involve change versus stability; such as the drive for creative
expression with the need for rational strategies in the interest of prot-
ability, and the anchoring of the brands identity in the face of social,
cultural and market shifts. Within fashion rms, we nd adaptations and
conicts connected more broadly to the human condition: the need to
belong and identify with collective meanings and the desire to be dif-
ferent. The leadership and culture of the rm provide the blueprints for
ways of being within that environment and for managing the work that
needs to be done. As this unfolds, we see not only a workplace but a
dramatic production where some characters are playing heroic roles not
only in the rm, but on the global stage.
In Part II of this book, names of fashion designers, executives, and
others that I have interviewed, with the exception of Hilger himself,
have been changedas have division names. This is done in the interest
of protecting the privacy of those mentioned in the book.
The reader should note that the information in this book represents
the opinions and assessments of the author, and should not be construed
as representing the policies and practices of the company studied.
In addition, many of the executives and designers interviewed are no
longer with the company studied, and the company is no longer a public
company.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Part I
The Fashion Industry
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Clothing, Fashion, and Society 3
1
Clothing, Fashion, and Society
The invention of symbolism was a crucial moment in the history of
the human species. The ability to use symbols indicates an ability to
think abstractly; when such symbols are created with artistic intent, they
indicate the ability to appreciate beauty. Recently archeologists have
discovered two ochre ornaments, engraved with geometrical symbols,
at Blombos Cave in South Africa. These artifacts are more than 40,000
years older than the more advanced cave paintings found in Frances
Grotte Chauvet (McFarling 2002: A1). These symbolic expressions are
precursors to more complex representations found once social organiza-
tion reached a more advanced phase.
Different aspects of the structure of appearance are consciously
manipulated to assert and demarcate differences in status, identity and
commitmentfor example (support or protest) at the level of personal,
national and international relationships, observes Hilda Kuper. She
claims the rules of that structure are assimilated over time together
with other rules of thought and behavior, and though they may have
received less analytical scrutiny, they are as real as rules of kinship,
of land tenure, of spatial interaction, or any other rules of social commu-
nication (1973: 348-349). Similar claims of the importance of material
cultureparticularly clothingin understanding society have been made
in sociology by Georg Simmel, Herbert Blumer, Gregory Stone, Erving
Goffman, and Fred Davis among many others.
Kuper (1973: 349) maintains that the term clothing should be used in
an inclusive sense and differentiated further into dress, used on everyday
occasions; uniform, used for ceremonial occasions; and costume,
clothing with a mystical or sacred quality used for rituals/performances.
Fashion is the term that should be used to refer to the modern manifesta-
tion of clothing. Stefania Saviolo and Salvo Testa (2002: 6) argue that
the etymological connection between moda, the Italian word for fashion,
3
4 Designing Clothes
and modern, is not pure chance. They quote an Italian author who says
that fashion is a universal principle, one of the elements of civilization
and social custom (2002: 5). As Christopher Breward (1995: 5) puts it,
introducing commerce into his denition, fashion is clothing designed
primarily for its expressive qualities, related closely to the short-term
dictates of the market.
Clothing, then, is an important element of social life and consists of
taking natural or synthetic materials and converting them into wearable
items. The fabric and the cut of clothing enables or connes the bodys
movement and causes the wearer to be received in a certain way. Cloth-
ing is both a material and a symbolic item made by human intervention.
The question then is, who makes clothing and how does it receive its
symbolic signicance? Clothing, its management within the household,
and its tailoring has been an essential aspect of womens work. In
poorer households, women made clothing for the men and children of
the house as well as for themselves. In more afuent households, women
were able to hire other women to make clothing. These dressmakers fol-
lowed traditional patterns and did not introduce any radical innovations
of style and manner into their designs.
Eventually these domestic arrangements, organized by women, were
superseded by the emergence of clothing making as a cottage indus-
try. This industry was organized according to the guild system; though
individual tailors, seamstresses, and dressmakers too were to be found.
In the guild system, a master-tailor for example, worked with a few ap-
prentices and journeymen; the latter eventually emerging as masters in
their own right. Another system for the production of clothing was the
putting out or out work system in which a merchant-manufacturer
would send materials to rural producers who would work in their homes.
The nished garments were returned to the merchants, and the workers
were paid on a piecework basis. The demand for skilled custom work
existed alongside this cheaper, less skilled, and more exploitative form
of labor (Gamber 1997: 87). Wendy Gamber (1997: 4-5) points out that
many labor scholars assume that artisans and the apprentice system were
exclusively male, and that once clothing was no longer a home enterprise
women were excluded. Dressmakers, seamstresses, and milliners (more
often than not) learned and practiced their skills in the workshop. Well
into the twentieth century, women continued to provide custom services
as well as work in factories.
Producing dresses, uniforms, and costumes in this manner eventu-
ally gave way to factories; though vestiges of the putting-out system
remain in the sweatshops that some manufacturers use today. These
clothing makers did not employ designers and did not typically make
substantial changes in style to the clothing they produced. This form of
mass production was best suited to the making of identical products with
variations only in size.
These industries, owing to the emergence of more complex, class-
based societies, grew into the fashion industry whose task it now was
to produce not just clothing in the traditional sense but signs by which
different and newly emerging classes, status groups, and parties could
be distinguished. The latter word here describes organized structures of
people seeking to exercise social and political power or inuence, i.e.,
military systems, voluntary associations, religious orders, etc. The task
of the fashion system was to provide clothing that was to be used to make
distinctions between people on economic, cultural, aesthetic, and politi-
cal levels. Once these signs were made available to make distinctions,
they became accessible also to be used as signs of domination; people
who could wear more expensive clothes, visibly more sumptuous, or rare
items could dominate those who wore more ordinary clothes. Furs, silks,
well-tailored clothes, or clothes with elite markers of one kind or another
could trump cotton and ill-tailored clothes by anonymous makers.
To cater to the needs of the new elite who wanted signs of distinction
(instruments which would legitimate their domination that had not been
ofcially assigned to them) the fashion designer was born. It was his or
her task to produce clothes that made it possible for wearers to distin-
guish themselves and dominate otherssubtly or overtly. In creating
these specialized clothes, designers drew themes from current cultural
or historical sources and in effect became both creators of new cultural
elements as well as disseminators of these items.
As the middle class expanded and found itself with disposable income,
more people sought signs of distinction. Fashion designers took markers
of elite status and adapted them to a mass audience providing, again, a
means of domination through clothing; though this one was more sym-
bolic than real. New markers of status, such as the logo, emerge providing
a currency that can be easily read. Lou Taylor (2000: 137) refers to them
as talismanic symbols of glamour and desirability. There is an irony
here. As fashion becomes more democratic, by extending its reach to
groups that were formerly excluded, it does not necessarily become less
hierarchical. Fashion remains, despite its democratic embrace, a vehicle
which marks distinctions and displays group membership or individual-
ity. Many people are able to enter into the game of distinction, and the
6 Designing Clothes
fashion cycle accelerates. Signs are commodied. Individuals are able to
use these signs according to their own interests. As greater numbers of
people are drawn into the democracy of fashion, there is a greater need
for low wage laborers to work in this ever expanding system. These in-
herent contradictions, though, are not limited to fashion, but are also a
feature of all industries that separate production from consumption and
rely on just-in-time exible production (Ross 1997: 15).
Fashion and clothing are a means of linking the individual to collective
lifealthough in strictly differentiated ways. Giannino Malossi says of
fashion products that they are material goods with cultural content,
similar in many ways to lm, pop music, or software (1998: 156).
Clothing refers to established patterns of dress (Rubinstein 1995: 3).
The cultural content of clothing then refers back to tradition. Certain
types of clothing, such as the sari, are ethnically or religiously dened
and socially regulated in response to a relatively xed system of easily
recognizable codes. In extreme cases no innovation may be allowed.
Amongst the Amish, for instance, religious ideology demands an almost
total uniformity. The sari, in terms of how it is worn and what kind of
fabrics and designs are used, is often considered a garment that embodies
caste prohibitions. Emma Tarlo (1996: 141-143, 149), an anthropologist
who has studied Indian village women in Gujarat, seeks to extend estab-
lished ideas about the straightforward relationship between clothing and
caste. Instead, she points to the inuence of diffusion among regional
styles due primarily to marriage practices and trade; in the larger Indian
context, she draws attention to the incorporation of elements of European
dress (such as a blouse or jacket worn in addition to the sari) and the use
of foreign fabric (e.g., synthetic materials) and patterns. Economic status
and not caste, she argues, is more clearly expressed by the neness of
fabric, and sometimes by the amount of material used than by the style
of the sari worn. In any case, she concludes that when constrained by
both caste and veiling restrictions few village women have more than
one style of clothing from which to choose at any given time (1996:
326). The sari can be compared to the tunic dress of ancient Egypt,
the peplos in Greece, the Roman toga, and the Japanese kimonoall
of which remained essentially unchanged for centuries (Lipovetsky
1994: 19). Douglas Gorsline (1952: 3), in discussing the clothing of the
Egyptians, comments: The ancient world was one in which the rulers,
nobles, priestly castes, and warriors maintained themselves in absolute
power over the great masses of people. It was thus a society in which
one general style of clothing could survive for thousands of years. For
many Indian women today there will be a much freer range of choices
not only in the sari but also among other forms of dress. Some Indian
fashion designers have experimented with the sari in various ways, but
mainly for the consumption of women outside of India. We can see in this
example the incomplete transition between clothing and fashionone
moored in absolutes, the other variableas well as fashions connection
to modernity.
The Western suit and dress are prototypes of clothing that are much
more responsive to the current ideas of appearance and the desire for nov-
elty, and thus have fully become fashion. From these basic types emerge
different forms: skirts, jeans, shorts; in turn these types are amenable to
trends: miniskirts, hot pants, low-rise jeans, etc. In fashion, the end
result may bear little resemblance to the clothing form from which it is
derived. Fashion, unlike clothing, is amenable to reinterpretation. By
nature it is unstable and therefore elusive. Fashion does not change, as
clothing might, in response to diffusion or for practical reasons alone. It
can change just for the sake of change.
Many scholars of fashion (e.g. Breward 1995; Hollander 1993; Li-
povetsky 1994; Laver 2002) place its origin in the fourteenth century.
Valerie Steele (1988) argues that fashion, as a system of variations in
acceptable styles, can be traced to Italian cities in the early Renaissance.
Baldassare Castigliones The Book of the Courtier, written in 1516,
provides instruction on comportment for the Italian court. Castiglione
presents a conversation on the issue of how the courtier should dress. Vari-
ous fashions common to certain regions and dispositions are considered.
The courtier is presented as having a choice in what manner of man he
wishes to be taken for. Castiglione (1528/1959: 123) cites one Federico
as saying: a mans attire is no slight index of the wearers fancy, although
sometimes it can be misleading; and not only that, but ways and manners,
as well as deeds and words, are all an indication of the qualities of the
man in whom they are seen. This is a shift from a system of dress based
entirely on status to one in which the wearer begins to exert an inuence
on how he or she will be perceived. Saviolo and Testa (2002: 11) discuss
an important catalyst in the second acceleration in the development
of fashion in Europe: The diffusion of rich merchants around Europe
encouraged the creation of a new dressing code no longer conditioned
by ostentation (the nobility and clergy), poverty (farmers), or usefulness
(the army), but by the search for social legitimacy.
Fashionmodeexists fully only with the advent of modern cities
where a connection to traditional culture has, at least, been partially
8 Designing Clothes
severed. In the mid-fourteenth century, a decisive break with tradition
occurred, explains Gilles Lipovetsky. The long owing, generally uni-
sex robe was exchanged for a short and tted costume worn with tight
tting stockings for men, and a long and close to the body dress with a
low neckline for women. These innovations spread throughout Western
Europe between 1340 and 1350. Lipovetsky (1994: 20-21) states, From
this point on, one change followed another: variations in appearance were
more frequent, more extravagant, more arbitrary. He continues, Change
was no longer an accidental, rare, fortuitous phenomenon; it became a
xed law of the pleasures of high society. Ruth P. Rubinstein (1995:
137-138) explains the birth of fashion within this society. As monarchs
grew in power in the fourteenth century and commercial centers began
to emerge, the conditions necessary for fashion were put into place. To
demonstrate the power of the royal and princely courts under the rule
of one man, elaborate ceremonies and rituals were orchestrated. The
new social relations that arose called for new forms of dress different
from those in feudal times. Noblemen were no longer masters in their
own right, but servants of the king. Knighthood, which had to be earned
through loyalty and not simply conferred, was in decline. As competition
for patronage became necessary, it was particularly important to make an
excellent impression which would justify movement to a higher status
(1995: 143). The emergence of a town bourgeoisie in Burgundy, at the
crossroads of the trade route with the East, created status competition
with the nobility. One almost literally wore ones wealth on ones
back. Amongst the aristocratic class there was a desire to be able to
immediately distinguish between a prince and a merchant, while other
classes wished such symbolic boundaries to be collapsed. Sumptuary
laws would soon come into existence which forbade commoners from
displaying fabrics and styles that aristocracy sought to reserve for itself
(Davis 1992: 29, 58). Extravagance amongst the European aristocracy
in the sixteenth centurythe display and even the careless expenditure
of wealth in the form of clothing, food, and other resourceswas a
means of displaying power. Once bourgeois men and women began to
emulate the nobility it became necessary for the nobility to invent new
guilded costumes, or new distinctive signs. Fernand Braudel, quoting
a Sicilian passing through Paris in 1714, writes, Nothing makes noble
persons despise the gilded costume so much as to see it on the bodies of
the lowest men in the world (Braudel 1979: 324). Fashion in Europe in
1650 was restricted to a small group of elite men and women who had
the resources to invest in heavy, ornate garments made from costly silks
and gold and silver brocade, states Jennifer M. Jones. She continues,
pointing out that the rest of the population possessed an extremely lim-
ited wardrobe, comprising either coarse, homemade clothing or castoffs
of the upper classes (Jones 1994: 943). To be ignorant of fashion was
the lot of the poor the world over, says Braudel (1979: 313). By the
end of the eighteenth century, fashion extended further down the class
hierarchy allowing more people to participate at least to some degree
(Jones 1994: 943). This pressure from a growing pool of followers
and imitators obviously made the pace [of fashion] quicken (Braudel
1979: 324).
Fashion, were it just supercial, wouldnt have played so great a
role in inuencing human history and social organization; it would not
have received serious attention from social theorists, both classical and
modern. Fashion has been studied, if only incompletely, across many
disciplines. Today, with its force as an industry and a culturally signicant
phenomena greatly increasing, more attention is being directed to the
study of fashion. Within the social sciences, fashion has been approached
theoretically in ve main ways: fashion as an instrument for creating and
maintaining boundaries in society, fashion in the interactional process,
fashion as a semiotic system, fashion as a capitalist tool, and fashion as
a postmodern condition.
Gabriel Tarde, Thorstein Veblen, and Georg Simmel did not treat
fashion as a superciality; rather they believed it had a particular logic
that could be understood scientically (Ortoleva 1998: 61). Veblen and
Simmel focused on fashion as a means of supporting the social structure
of the elites (Rubinstein 2001: 3841). Up until the twentieth century,
Rubinstein (2001: 3844) explains, the attempt by the middle and lower
classes to enhance their status through fashionable attire was seen as a
violation of the social order. Neither fashion nor its imitation exists in caste
societies, says Jean Baudrillard (2000). Fashion is born with the Renais-
sance, with the destruction of the feudal order by the bourgeois order and
the emergence of overt competition at the level of signs of distinction.
In this previous social order Baudrillard argues, signs are protected by a
prohibition which ensures their total clarity and confers an unequivocal
status on each (2000: 50). Signs become arbitrary when sumptuary laws
and communal prohibitions no longer hold sway; once emancipated
they become accessible to any and every class (2000:51).
Simmel, considered by many to be the rst academic to seriously
analyze fashion (Lehmann 2000: 127), combines both societal and
individual factors in explaining fashion. Simmel (1904/1971: 301) sees
10 Designing Clothes
fashion principally as a product of the social demands of modern life.
Says Simmel, Segregation by means of differences in clothing, man-
ners, taste, etc. is expedient only where the danger of absorption and
obliteration exists.
Although fashion may be seen as a symptom of modern society, its
roots in the two antagonistic principles, as Simmel (1904/1971: 294-295)
describes them, reach back to a more fundamental source. If this tendency
were not part of the human condition, advancement would not be possible
Simmel argues. Simmel explains the essential mechanics of fashion:
Fashion is the imitation of a given example and satises the demand for social ad-
aptation; it leads the individual upon the road which all travel, it furnishes a general
condition, which resolves the conduct of every individual into a mere example. At
the same time it satises in no less degree the need of differentiation, the tendency
toward dissimilarity, the desire for change and contrast, on the one hand by a con-
stant change of contents, which gives to the fashion of today an individual stamp as
opposed to that of yesterday and of to-morrow, on the other hand because fashions
differ for different classesthe fashions of the upper stratum of society are never
identical with those of the lower; in fact they are abandoned by the former as soon
as the latter prepares to appropriate them (1904/1971: 296).
Indeed, sumptuary laws were an attempt to curtail the desire for social
advancement by those who did not inherit the station in life to which
they might aspire.
Simmel would argue that a dialectical relationship exists in fashion.
An individual feels the need to conform and in this way a certain mode of
self-presentation is imposed, yet he or she also wishes to be distinguished
from others as an individual. This essential tension between imitation
and differentiation constitutes fashion. Fashion allows for the expression
of these two oppositional tendencies. Modern society too is driven by
its logic of change. Lehmann (2000: 201) states: Most signicant for
fashion is its ephemeral, transient, and futile character, which changes
with every season. This insubstantiability with regard to linear progress,
as well as fashions marginal position in the cultural spectrum, appealed
especially to those who considered the fragment particularly expressive
for modern culture.
Simmels (1904/1971: 300) trickle-down theory posits that styles are
set by the elite in order that they may differentiate themselves as a class.
Emulation by the lower classes drives innovation in fashion in order
that social distinctions might be maintained. Simmel points out that the
mingling of classes and the leveling effect of democracy exert a coun-
ter-inuence. Indeed, since Simmel wrote we nd many instances of
fashion bubbling-up from the working-classes, the street, and from
various subculturesthe foremost among them being youth subcultures
(Hebdige 1979; Polhemus 1994). Some earlier examples can also be
found. James Laver (2002: 77-79) attributes the slashed look, the prac-
tice of cutting slits in a garment so that the lining would be exposed, to
the victory of the Swiss over Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, in
1476. The Swiss troops used lavish silk and other fabrics they had con-
scated to patch their tattered garments. The fashion spread to German
mercenaries and was eventually adopted by the French Court. Lavar says
that this fashion, predominantly for men, became almost universal in
the early 1500s reaching its most extravagant extreme in Germany.
In sixteenth-century Europe, sumptuary laws prohibited certain classes
of individuals from wearing gold thread. By slashing the outer material
which did not contain any gold thread one could reveal a gold lining.
This style was later copied by the elite.
Once emphasis shifted away from an older, established elite, trickling
up became more of a possibility. Designers began appropriating trends
from varied sources and in some instances, yet again, trends began to
trickle down. Hippies communicated a rejection of the establishment
by refusing to conform to fashions dictates. What began as a rejection of
the mainstream and capitalist enterprise was eventually taken up by the
mainstream via corporate entrepreneurs. Before the hippie look became
widely accepted, Yves Saint Laurent developed what was called the
rich hippie look. His haute couture adaptation is described by fashion
historian Colin McDowell (2000: 371) as a civilized variation of hippie
clothing. This look featured gypsy skirts and peasant blouses made from
the most costly fabrics. Those who could afford to buy these clothes en-
joyed the edge this association brought. Eventually, however, the original
subversive meaning shifted. In the case of blue jeans, for example, they
went from being countercultural to acceptable and all-American.
Fashion houses elevate elements of street culture to high fashion.
Louis Vuitton purses are made for women who can afford to spend sev-
eral hundred, or even thousands of dollars, on a fashion accessory. The
2004 alligator style lartisan purse sold for fourteen thousand dollars.
In 2001 Stephen Sprouse designed a purse with Louis Vuitton Paris
written across the purse in grafti style. These purses, only stocked in
exclusive stores, sold out immediately. It could be said that the company
is making a hegemonic claim through an appropriated form of expression.
A luxury fashion house, and by extension the upper classes, may select
any elements of the larger culture they choose, thereby conferring status.
Common street grafti, originally an expression of disenfranchisement,
becomes a sign of power when it is brandished by someone of high social
and economic status. Yet we nd knockoffs of the grafti inspired Vuitton
bag (or the newer Murakami bag) that is featured in the pages of Vogue,
sold on the streets and online. While it is true that not all fashion origi-
nates in the upper classes, it is ultimately this group (and the designers
and fashion editors who cater to their buying power) that controls and
validates the discourse of fashion. In the sense that Simmel speaks of,
these objects become fashion and therefore became desirable to everyone.
Should an item become too prevalent, the upper classes will no longer
see it as desirable, and it will fall out of favor. A fashion website notes,
the classic Louis Vuitton tote is too easily counterfeited, and now even
the soccer mom has one, so it must go (fashionazi.com). In an ironic
sense, counterfeiting keeps the fashion cycle moving by creating new
desires. It becomes time for a new Louis Vuitton purse, one that can be
enjoyed exclusively by the elite, at least for a time. While certain brands
risk becoming commonplace and perhaps even vulgar should they become
associated with a mass audience, well-managed, established, and high
prestige brands like Louis Vuitton seem immune to this fate.
Counterfeiting creates an awareness of the brand and an aspiration
for acquisition amongst people otherwise outside the scope of such
consideration. Unable to afford the genuine article, the unlikely con-
sumer nevertheless becomes socialized as to the value of the brand as a
means of distinction. The fact that so many people want it, and so few
can actually have it, contributes to what Vince Carducci (2003) calls the
aura of the brand. While some consumers seek out counterfeit items,
others pursue status through legitimate, more accessible channelsthe
moderately priced Nine West, Express, or XOXO purse that imitates the
style and logoed design of high-end products.
Carducci (2005) nds that women who buy counterfeit purses are
pragmatic and informed consumers, literate in the meaning of the
symbolic value of brands. Rarely do they try to hide the fact that these
items are not authentic, perhaps taking pride in subverting the system.
The new Tupperwear parties in Orange County, California are de-
scribed as not featuring household items but coveted designer handbag
knockoffs. Victoria Namking (2003: 66) observes that many of the stay
at home moms who come to the parties can afford the real bagsthe
ten thousand dollar plus Herms Birkin bag or the two thousand dollar
Louis Vuitton Murakamibut they like having many bags. Thus they will
buy fakes for some of the more trendy styles, or resort to a fake bag
when they can no longer bear the enormous waiting list in order to get
the real thing. In addition to a sense of accomplishment there is a social
aspect to such gatherings. They do not replace the traditional shopping
experience; they supplement shopping. Similarly, these purposes are met
by the shopping excursions taken by friends to places like Chinatowns
Canal Street in New York City, a Mecca for counterfeit purses, watches,
and other fashion items. There is a certain excitement to subverting the
system. A professional woman told me of her adventures in searching
for the perfect counterfeit Gucci bag. She got into an unmarked van at an
appointed time in a designated Chinatown location, was driven around
for a few minutes while looking at purses, and was dropped off a few
blocks away with her purchase in a black garbage bag. Artists play with
the idea of counterfeiting and appropriation. For example, Eric Do-
eringer, in his exhibition The Object of Design, features rough looking
hand-embroidered Ralph Lauren Polo logos; and Zo Sheehan Saldaa
painstakingly recreated a $9.87 Wal-Mart shirt and photographed it on
the racks next to the original shirt before placing the replica back.
Pierre Bourdieus (1984) work continues along the sociological tradi-
tion of Veblen and Simmel by focusing on the role of society and culture
to which signs of distinction are rmly anchored. Class privilege and
power are reproduced via ones habitus, a culturally informed con-
sciousness which sets preferences for certain types of material objects
and experiences, and promotes mastery of certain skills. One literally
inherits the tastes of his or her class; this knowledge, as well as class
privilege, is reproduced across generations. As David Gartman (1991)
puts it, Bourdieu argues that culture and economy are intricately related
in a web of mutual constitution. The class distinctions of the economy
inevitably generate the symbolic distinctions of culture, which in turn re-
generate and legitimate the class structure (1991: 421). Bourdieu speaks
of elds or worlds of preference which encompass such diverse
phenomena as drinks, automobiles, newspapers, resorts, art, etc. Individu-
als attach signicance to the contents of these elds and make certain
choices based on these judgments (Gartman 1991: 228). For example,
a Celebrity Line cruise versus an excursion on a Crystal cruise ship or
reading The New York Post as opposed to The New York Times. Each of
these consumer choices carries a particular connotation. Bourdieu uses
an empirical method to show that preferences amongst the French for
symbolic goods; certain types of clothing, music, art, food, literature,
etc., correspond to ones class position. Cultural capital is earned when
one acquires those symbolic goods that have had prestige conferred on
them by the dominant culture. A stylization of life, a desire for form
over function, or manner over matter is found in the upper classes
and is absent in the working classes (1984: 5). Specically with fashion,
Bourdieu (1984: 378) nds that the aesthetic versus practical/economical
interest in clothing increases as one moves up the social hierarchy.
Bourdieu gives us the theoretical framework to explain the process
by which items of clothing are deemed fashionable. An understanding
of class is key to understanding how this process works, i.e., how the
fashion cycle operates. Bourdieu explains that the sole function of
the working classes in the system of aesthetic positions is to serve as
a foil, a negative reference point (1984: 57). Choices, objective and
subjective stances, as he calls them, in relation to matters such as cos-
metics, clothing or home decoration are opportunities to express or
assert ones position in social space, as a rank to be upheld or a distance
to be kept. It is the very top bourgeoisie and artists who determine
the system of aesthetic principles or who confer status on particular
objects (1984: 251). In a class situation more or less static we would
nd extreme differences between the self-presentation and style of life
of the upper and lower classes, and these differences would perhaps only
gradually change in response to outside forces. However, with the middle
classes in a position to consume, a new mechanism is put into motion
which Simmel clearly outlined.
The middle classes too are desirous of name, renown, prestige,
honour, glory, authorityeverything which constitutes symbolic power
as recognized (Bourdieu 1984: 251). Bourdieu describes the middle
classes as committed to the symbolic, in other words, keenly aware of
appearances. We see, as he words it, a permanent disposition towards
the bluff or usurpation of social identity which consists in anticipating
being by seeming, appropriating the appearances so as to have the real,
in trying to modify the representation of the ranks in the classication of
the principles of classication. Unlike the working classes, free of such
concerns as Bourdieu would have it, the middle classes are haunted by
the judgments of others, and therefore an individual overshoots the
mark for fear of falling short (1984: 253). Bourdieu compares this to the
ostentatious discretion of those who have no such fears (1984: 249).
Given this state of affairs, the threat of popularization is always there.
The upper classes must therefore engage in an endless pursuit of new
properties through which to assert their rarity (1984: 252). Tastes, argues
Bourdieu, are asserted as refusal of other tastes (1984: 56). Distinction
and pretension, high culture and middle-brow culturelike elsewhere
high fashion and fashion, haute coiffure and coiffure, and so ononly
exist through each other, and it is the relation, or rather the objective col-
laboration of their respective production apparatuses and clients which
produces the value of culture and the need to possess it (1984: 250).
Fashion brands such as Moschino, in the cheap and chic line, make a
mockery of this desire for higher status. Comme des Garons, a cutting
edge fashion house, has come out with a series of conventionally repulsive
fragrances in packaging that resembles a black, plastic trash bag within
a plastic cylinder. One such fragrance, Garage, evokes the decidedly
downscale environment that the name suggests.
On the one hand we can see fashion designers playing with issues of
class, status, and individuality; and on the other hand, we see people,
groups, and whole societies struggling to achieve some balance in these
areas. The tension between eliminating class distinctions and the lure
of symbolic assertions of actual power can be seen in the former Soviet
Union. A rejection of bourgeois dress, as least at times, seems to give way
to embracing elite symbols in dress. Simon Sebag Monteore (2004), in
a book about the life of Joseph Stalin, describes the puritanical, dull, and
shapeless dress of the early days of Bolshevik rule in the Soviet Union
(2004: 3). During the height of Stalins power, Monteore describes
the fashions seen at a party as being reminiscent of pre-Revolutionary
Moscow: The dress was white tie and tails.... Henceforth, Stalins court
began to behave more like the rulers of an empire than dour Bolsheviks.
Molotov sported the new diplomatic uniform that, like the old braid,
marked the new imperial era: it was black, trimmed in gold, with a
small dagger at the belt ... much like Hitlers elite SS, thought the U.S.
diplomat Chip Bohlen (2004: 461).
Some alteration of Bourdieus theory is necessary in the contemporary
U.S. and global context. While the upper classes in generaland to this
we should add celebrities and others held in the public esteemcertainly
have the type of authority Bourdieu speaks of, in valuing and devaluing
objects, places and practices, there has always been an acceptable
middle ground in American society. And, given the Protestant and revo-
lutionary foundation of American society, there has been a rejection of
ostentation, luxury, and tradition. The practical and the new were always
sought after whether in a pragmatic approach to philosophy or in the
production of, for example, the Ford Model T automobile. A reverence
for the independent individual who could make his own way in the world
has long been a part of the American culture. This pioneering attitude
extended, to some degree, to women. American women enjoyed more
freedoms, at an earlier time, than their European counterparts. In the U.S.,
tastemakers (celebrities and the wealthy) were and still often are drawn
from the working and middle classes. With this heritage they are less apt
to display the contempt that possessors of an ascribed heritage of privilege
might. Furthermore, youth culture all over the world has become a force
in shaping tastes. This subculture crosses class boundaries, elevates those
of simple origins, dismisses the establishment, and breaks down national
boundaries. Within the elds from which the working classes make their
selections, there too is some hierarchy and means of asserting status. In
the realm of personal appearance, acquiring expensive goodsor goods
that are otherwise status grantingis an indicator of achievement. Inex-
pensive goods have become substitutes for more expensive counterparts.
Today one can shop at K-Marta store that largely caters to the working
classesand be fashionable whereas at one time such clothing would
have been practical, inexpensive, and decidedly unfashionable. Wal-Mart
is working at acquiring a more stylish image and was even mentioned as
a suitor for the Tommy Hilger Corporation when they announced the
companys possible sale in August 2005.
In an ethnographic study of homeless youth, Anne R. Roschelle and
Peter Kaufman discuss various means by which young people avoid
the stigma of being labeled homeless by classmates. Referring to
Goffmans work on passing they discuss how the children use dress and
demeanor to blend in with others. Below is a conversation the researcher
(Anne) has with a homeless child (Jamie) and her mother (Cynthia) in
a public place:
Jamie: Hey, do you think these people can tell we are
homeless?
Anne: No, how could they possibly know?
Jamie: I dont know. I always feel like people are looking at
me because they know I am poor and they think I am
a loser.
Cynthia: I feel like that a lot tooit makes me feel so badlike
Im a bad mother and somehow being homeless is my
fault. I feel so ashamed.
Jamie: Me too.
Anne: Jamie, what are some of the ways you keep people from
knowing you are homeless?
Jamie: I try to dress like the other kids in my school. When we
get clothes from Home Away, I always pick stuff that is
stylin and keep it clean so kids wont know Im poor.
Sometimes its hard though because all the kids try to
get the cool stuff and there isnt always enough for
everyone. I really like it when we get donations from
people who shop at the Gap and Old Navy. I got one of
those cool vests and it made me feel really great.
Anne: Is it important for you to keep your homelessness
a secret?
Jamie: Yeah, I would die if the kids at school knew.
(2004: 34)
This dialogue demonstrates how, far from opting out or being unaware
of the symbolic system through which statuses are conferred, even those
who are at the poorest level make an effort to participate. Status may be
provided via Gap and Old Navy, not Armani and Chanel, but a sense of
being cool and feeling good is nonetheless achieved. One can make the
argument that this is a false sense of optimism; certainly in the case of
homeless youth it is not based on real security. The widening gap between
the haves and the have nots is symbolically bridged, providing the
illusion that the disparities are fewer. For the individual an immediate
lessening of social stigma is a desired and reasonable end. The ability
to dress in an acceptable manner may also lead to greater participation
in mainstream societyinsofar as social mobility is a possibility. The
addition of different levels of distinctionwithin and across class bound-
ariesdoes not negate but complicates Bourdieus model. Bourdieus
model works though must be extended to include all social classes.
Both Roland Barthes and Baudrillard reject the sociological approach
in their own work. In The Fashion System Barthes states that he wishes
to avoid the very issues sociologists wish to apprehend: the origin of
the garment and its connection to social factors (1983: 9). Rather than
look at the worn garment which is necessarily connected to a motivated
agentor as Bourdieu might see it, a culturally determined member of
a classBarthes selects described clothing where action occurs on
the level of language (1983: 18). Written clothingthat is, clothing
as described in the pages of magazines or newspapers by one writer or
anotherhe says, is unencumbered by practical and aesthetic inu-
ences (1983: 8). It has been abstracted and takes on a new existence
dependent, in this case, on linguistic structures.
The emphasis of scholars who study fashion has now shifted to fashion
as a means of social criticism, Rubinstein (2001: 3841) tells us. This
orientation afrms the positing of a hegemonic social order (or orders)
which people react against in a more vigorous and open manner than
was ever possible. Baudrillard believes we have passed this stage where
a referent is tied to something real. Renaissance man, still bound by
a denite order, a code, nds in the counterfeit a means of grasping the
social status and prestige that are beyond his reach (2000: 51). With the
industrial era a new generation of signs and objects arises. In this period
there is detachment from reality. The counterfeit, which was dependant on
restriction, is no longer necessary now that caste tradition has evapo-
rated, Baudrillard argues. The relation is now between equivalence and
indifference (2000: 55). From this state, according to Baudrillard, we
progress to the last phase of history, namely, simulation. We pass from
this second to a third order relationship: the realm of fashion, the media,
advertising, information and communication networks. What we have is
a pseudo-foundation, based on concepts or models (2000: 56) in which
every order subsumes the previous order (2000: 57).
Baudrillard has his roots in a structuralist perspective oriented towards
the study of signs as coded values. Baudrillard says in Consumer Society,
consumption is an order of signication, like language, or like the kin-
ship system in primitive society (1998: 79). Its purpose is to establish
a structure of exchange and communication and to provide for group
integration (1998: 78). Furthering Karl Marxs work, he ties consumption
to support of the capitalist system. It has become a duty in the sense
of the Protestant work ethic. One is expected to participate in the market
and associate happiness with diverse experiences and intensive use
of signs and objects (1998: 80).
Baudrillard refers, in Symbolic Exchange and Death, to Marcel Mauss
The Gift. Departing from Marx, Baudrillard seems to nd in Mauss an
understanding of the importance of consumption and the role the sym-
bolic plays within this system. Mauss asserts that (symbolic) exchange
is the basis of social life, the means of social organization (1967: 2). In
preliterate societies, to give something is to give of oneself ones na-
ture and substance, and likewise it is this that one receives (1967: 10).
Objects become vehicles of prestige and distinction, and in the exchange
and expected reciprocity they create human ties (1967: 11). Mauss longs
for such authenticity in a world dominated by the cold reasoning of
the businessman, banker or capitalist (1967: 73). Following Mauss
logic, Baudrillard nds the end of a notion of value as was held by the
pre-literate societies (1967: 60). The end of this notion of value, from a
productivist system of the past to a third order permutated hyperreality
and liquidation of reason where simulation, best exemplied by fash-
ion, is given power and privilege in the present time (Baudrillard 2000:
87). A coherent system of signs, Baudrillard argues, has disappeared
and the ethics of production has been replaced by the aesthetics of
manipulation (2000: 93).
According to Baudrillard, people use fashion to create an identity that
is not based on a solid foundation although it may be experienced by
people as real. This is the era of geometrically variable individuals,
says Baudrillard (2000: 78). It is so, in sociological terms, because the
nonmaterial culture reected in the material culture has experienced a
fracturing of its norms, values, and ideals. The superstructure stands
alone and so individuals are free to manipulate it. This new type of ma-
terial culture is comprised of goal-less objects such as fashion (2000:
94). Baudrillard, in quite an absolute manner it might be noted, rejects
Marxism as no longer applicable:
The era of production and labour power merely amounts to the interdependence of
all social processes, including exploitation, and it was on this socialisation realised in
part by capital itself, that Marx based his revolutionary perspective. But this historic
solidarity (whether factory, local or class solidarity) has disappeared. From now on
they are separate and indifferent under the sign of television and the automobile, under
the sign of behavior models inscribed everywhere in the media or in the layout of
the city. Everyone falls into line in their delirious identication with leading models,
orchestrated models of simulation (2000: 78).
What exists today is a semiocracy where values are totally com-
mutable; this is a reality of the code (2000: 78). One might ask, who
controls this code and from where does this logic emanate? Baudrillard
seems to say that it is determined by a kind of pattern and even has a
reality principle (2000: 98). In Consumer Society he uses a Marxist-
structuralist argument stating, It is the need of the inegalitarian social
orderthe social structure of privilegeto maintain itself that produces
and reproduces growth as its strategic element (1998: 53). With this
order obliterated, only the codes themselves remain as if there were still
an economic or social structure behind them. Stephen Best and Douglas
Kellner (1991: 117) state, in Baudrillards theory all practices and signs
are controlled by and absorbed into the almighty codea typically vague
and under-theorized term. It is as if Baudrillard has created a god, albeit
one without reason.
Baudrillard not only strips away the social framework of the signier,
he does not allow for personal motivations or agency. When discussing
grafti, he states that it has no content and no message (2000: 80, 82);
neither connotation nor denotation (2000: 79). Meaning is at the level
of the signier. Baudrillard cites some instances of grafti in New York:
Duke, Spirit, and Snake I (2000: 76, 80). This particular type of
grafti, unlike earlier, politically motivated grafti, is devoid not only of
ideological but of personal signicance. Baudrillard refers to it as empty
signs that do not signify personal identity (2000: 82). It expresses the
collective or territorial orientation of its male Black and Hispanic writers;
Black youths themselves have no personality to defend (2000: 84). To
say otherwise, to interpret these signs as reclamation of identity and
personal freedom, [or] as nonconformist, is to indulge in bourgeois-ex-
istentialist romanticism, argues Baudrillard (2000: 83-84). Fashion, like
grafti, is an empty signier (2000: 79). Baudrillard quotes Barthes
work in The Fashion System, for instance, Without content, it [fashion]
then becomes the spectacle human beings grant themselves of their power
to make the insignicant signify (2000: 93; in Barthes 1983: 288). For
Barthes, fashion is not without content because society is without content.
It is without content because he has made the methodological choice to
isolate it as a semiotic system.
We must ask, has all connection to caste tradition disappeared? We
still have an elite comprised, as it were, of those able to secure capital
and power, and whose ability and continued desire to purchase luxury
items separates them in appearance and experience from those unable
to consume the same products. Counterfeiting achieves success for this
very reason. In an online article about counterfeit purses, Karen Little
(2003) states: Fake designer bags may be a bigger draw to New York
City than the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building combined.
Louis Vuitton, Kate Spade, and Coach should all be given inadvertent
credit for greatly improving the tourist situation here since 9/11 (Little
2003). Certainly priorities have shifted from the more substantial grounds
of tradition to less weighty terrainacquiring a fake Fendi bag is more
compelling than beholding the grandeur of the Statue of Liberty. How-
ever, we are not compelled to conclude that all human activity is trivial
or that the need to convey meaning and to be connected to others and
society has disappeared.
Referring back to the Louis Vuitton grafti purse we can make the
argument, as Bourdieu might, that such a purse has been desirable to the
mainstream and even the working classes because it is recognized by
those whose opinion carries some weight: fashion writers, celebrities,
society women. The purse cannot be dismissed as an empty signier
even if it depends, to some degree, on the mythology of the brand. It is
individuals who dene the meaning of objects. Possessing this particular
object, furthermore, links the wearer to the house of Louis Vuitton: a
family enterprise which began making expensive luggage, the ancestral
home of which can be visited in France. The company today is owned by
the luxury conglomerate LVMH, Louis Vuitton Met Hennessy. While it
can be argued that a political reality grounded in a productivist mode has
been eroded by a simulated reality where identication occurs around
leading models, we must question Baudrillards (2000: 78) dismissal
of personal motivations and identity, meaning, interpersonal communica-
tion, and social categories as relics from a bygone era. Fashion becomes
a vehicle through which these factors are expressed, just as they are
through systems as varied as Marxism, religion, or sports. Consider this
quote from an article on recent trends in mens fashion beginning on page
one of the New York Times (just under an article that quotes George W.
Bush as saying that there was no direct connection between Iran and
the attacks of September 11, but we will continue to look and see if
the Iranians were involved) (Shenon 2004: A1): There is something
about being untucked and more casual that guys nd rakish and appeal-
ing, says Michael Macko, mens fashion director at Saks Fifth Avenue.
He continues, Its bucking the system with a bit of rebellion but in a
very Polo, very John Varvatos way (Trebay 7/20/04: B10). Baudrillard
contributes a great deal to the understanding of fashion and its expanded
role in society. Indeed there has been a transmutation away from the one
to one correspondence between fashion choices and social class, and
between the meanings in which different styles are anchored. Yet people
do experience and sometimes challenge various systems.
Lipovetsky (1994) takes a middle road. Liberal democracy is support-
ed, perhaps even created, not obliterated or made irrelevant by fashion.
Precisely because it can only be sustained when a break with tradition has
occurred, it coexists easily with democracy. Since fashion has become
so pervasive, garnering more and more of societys attention, it provides
a scaffolding for democracy by creating a sense of indifference toward
established practices, and, therefore, a toleration and even defense of
difference and choice. This has an impact on the state. The state hav-
ing become an expression of society, has to resemble society more and
more; it has to give up the signs, rituals, and mechanisms of its archaic
dissimilarity (1994: 171). The state, in effect, gives in to fashion rather
than using it as an instrument for its own agenda. Lipovetsky says without
condemnation, The new democratic citizenship undeniably tends to be
passive, apathetic, and abstentionist (1994: 250). Such passivity and
apathy regarding social and political issues is balanced by an aggressive
attitude toward consumption. The consumption of various goods, includ-
ing clothing that is new, distinctive, trendy, or expensive, becomes an
element of an inauthentic commitment only if we approach democracy
from a certain outmoded point of view. False consciousness, if we must
call it that, may be our best bet. Lipovetsky might venture to compare
that to the authenticity and commitment of a militant Islam or fundamen-
talist Christianity since both pose a threat to democratic values. If this
entanglement with fashion were truly a false consciousness there would
have to be an alternative reality. As in Baudrillards scheme there is no
utopian solution. Lipovetsky sees all classes and society itself as subject
to fashions rule. It has become the general form of society reorganiz-
ing the everyday environment, news and information, and the political
scene (1994: 131). Lipovetsky speaks of fashion in the broadest sense,
equating it with adaptation and innovation; contrasting it with collective
tradition. There is an apocalyptic feel to Lipovetskys understanding of
fashionFashion replacing the trajectory of Historyyet the outcome is
more palatable than what Baudrillard envisions. Under fashion there is a
semblance of order, toleration, and progress; a subversion of absolutes.
Some years later Lipovetsky seems to have further cut this tenuous
cord. Today we have entered modernity raised to the n
th
powerhyper-
modernity (2005: 35). We are ruled by the logic of the market, techno-
cratic efciency, and the autonomous, hyperconsuming individual. There
is no strong organization or ideological resistance (2005: 31-32). He
says that we have entered into a hedonistic culture of excess accompanied
by unprecedented tensions that prevent enjoyment on the one hand,
but on the other have caused people to retreat to the comforts of relations
with family and friends (2005: 54-55). Unwilling to see the problem
reductively, he says that liberal democracy has the capacity to repair the
collapse of meaning that has occurred (2005: 69).
Barthes, (1972) in Mythologies, reveals the historical/situated reality
behind everyday activities which he takes to be discursive/literary in
character and calls myths. Myths can be enacted, written, or picto-
rial. Myth is taken to be a type of speecha system of signsgiven
signicance by history. It cannot possibly evolve from the nature of
things although it is taken as such, contends Barthes (1972: 110). Steak
and chips become signs of Frenchness; one knows he is French and
knows he is at home when he consumes this dish after returning from
the colonies, says Barthes (1972: 62-64). In another vignette, Barthes
observes a curious juxtaposition in a piece on women novelists in Elle:
the number of children is printed, followed by the number of novels shes
written. This serves as an admonishment. Career or freedom can only
come after a woman has fullled her feminine duties (1972: 50-52). In
this work Barthes is clearly concerned with cultural ideals that infuse
myths with meaning. These meanings reveal cultural values, associa-
tions, and changes, telling us how social categories, such as status and
gender, are conceived.
The Fashion System is a conservative and disciplined undertaking in
accordance with the structuralist project of describing social reality in
terms of linguistic rules and codes. Barthes semiological work on sign
systems is connected to the linguist Ferdinand de Saussures theory of
language based on relations between elements of the sign systems and
not the assigned/inherent qualities of the object. The central idea is that
a sign produces a particular meaning that is communicated through the
process of signicationin this case via the fashion system. Here, un-
like in Mythologies, Barthes does not engage in broad interpretations of
fashion, a subject matter that would seem to lend itself to this freedom,
rather he connes himself to an analysis of the written garment. Barthes
states, We must study either acts, or images, or words, but not all of
these substances at once (1983: 7-8). This has to do with the distinction
between language and speech. The garment system, Barthes explains, can
be divided into three separate systems: written, photographed, and worn.
The rst operates in the area of language and the last two in speech (1983:
26-27). Clothing, or any other object, takes on the status of systems
only in so far as they pass through the relay of language, which extracts
their signiers (in the form of nomenclature) and names their signieds
(in the forms of usages or reasons) (1983: 10). Barthes sees fashion as
existing in a separate realm, as a discursive system of signication. He
looks at fashion as it encounters language.
A fashion utterance involves at least two systems, Barthes notes, a
linguistic or a system of language and a vestimentary system. Within
the latter system, the garment signies something to do with the world
or fashion (1983: 27). Barthes gives an example, When we read:
Pleated skirts are a must in the afternoon, or Women will wear two-toned
pumps, it sufces to substitute: Pleated skirts are the sign of afternoon,
or Two-toned pumps signify fashion (1983: 44). Barthes concern is
with the process of signication. This approach brackets out a concern
with external factors such as the phase of history we are in or are no
longer in and the impact this has as well as an interest in subjective or
intersubjective phenomena.
Fashion on the whole is not writingthough what is accepted as fash-
ionable may be constituted in part by writing. It is, in fact, available in
more than just its textual form. It is something actual that is experienced
by people and is manifested to them and by them in various ways. Yet,
Barthes chose to analyze fashion in a formal semiological manner, as a
grammar, a description of levels of meaning, of units and their combi-
natory rules; in short as a kind of system of description (1985: 46). His
focus was limited to clothing presented in fashion magazines over one
year. He consulted Claude Lvi-Strauss and decided to focus only on
the written words, separating out the technical aspects of the garment
(design/manufacturing) and the image associated with the clothing (1985:
44). He felt this separation was justied as description has no relation
to seeing (1985: 46). Writing, he says, is a self sufcient system
(1985: 47). Although the content of fashion was not in the scope of his
semiological consideration, Barthes recognizes that clothing is used to
express information about social positions as well as our own objectives
(1985: 49). Barthes is not willing, however, to give too much concession
to the social aspect of fashion or to individuality. Psychology has shown
that individuals can be classied, and any form can be attributed with
any meaning, he explains. Fashion follows a rational order, and in it
he nds profound regularity (1985: 60-62).
In the case of the Louis Vuitton purse, the name must be dened as
desirable in order that any product bearing this name will be desirable.
The same grafti purse displaying the name of an unknown designer
or rm would have little appeal no matter how innovative the design.
Women who follow fashion accept the vestimentary code, taking the
signierLouis Vuittonto equal fashionableness. The point for Barthes
is that meaning is variable. Plaids are worn at the races; this idea could
have been randomly generated by a computer program. It need not be
rooted in any cultural value system, and fashion discourse often is not.
In studying fashion it is possible to overanalyze arbitrary connections, to
read meaning into things unnecessarily. The Louis Vuitton grafti purse
as a cultural artifact lends itself more to sociological analysis than does
its caption appearing in a magazine ad. We can imagine how Barthes
would treat it differently in Mythologies. The analysis of this purse will
always reect the system we use in our analysis, and Barthes wishes to
eliminate this variability.
For Baudrillard, fashion is immoral (2000: 98). It knows nothing
of value systems and is capable of devouring ideologies of all stripes.
Take, for example, Yves Saint Laurents rich hippie look. This pretense
seems the antithesis of an egalitarian, counterculture movement. It is a
resistance without an ideology, without objectives. Fashion itself, Bau-
drillard says, is insubvertible; it acts as the subversion of all order.
Since it has no system of reference it cannot be subversive. It is the hell
of the relativity of all signs. Refusal of fashion is not possible because
there is nothing to replace it. That which is refused, for example, blue
jeans and their working class connotation, will itself become fashion
(2000: 98). For Barthes, fashion is neither moral nor immoral: sub-
versive nor insubvertible. When asked about the meaning of the mini
skirt and other changes in womens fashions, Barthes says he does
not think these particular examples correspond to any sociological
phenomenon. The meaning of a sign system is not stable: mini skirt
does not equal an emphasis on youth over social position, nor does it
have any erotic quality apart from the rationalizations people assign
to them (Barthes 1985: 60-61).
For Barthes, fashion is one of many signifying systemsthere is a
food system, a car system, etc.that can be studied from the point of
view of semiology. We can look at any part of the garment system from
the semiological methodology at the level of language. Conversely, Bau-
drillard sees fashion as the central system driving society and extending
into science, politics, and intellectual life (2000: 90-91). Fashion itself is
the deep structure, minus any rational, internal mechanism. For Baudril-
lard, Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a
substance (Poster 1988: 166).
Throughout history societies have regulated the clothing an individual
could wear so that attributes such as status, class, caste, profession, and
gender could be readily identied, thereby giving a certain order to
interactions. It is through the control of appearance that these systems
are reproduced, and it is at this point that the individual and social meet.
Individuals are compelled to present themselves in certain ways depend-
ing on status, position, and role (Goffman 1951: 294). The divisions
and hierarchies of social structure are depicted microecologically,
says Goffman (1979: 1). Individuals in so far as they have some degree
of autonomyand particularly in modern democratic societiesuse
clothing to create a particular impression or self-representation that is
personally and interpersonally desirable. Clothing, in this sense, becomes
a performative tool. The idea that one is actively involved in playing a
role ascribed by society or achieved within society, and that one has the
ability to work around this role or to recast it entirely, requires that we
shift to a social psychological emphasis that has (so far) not been touched
upon adequately. Fantasy becomes an important aspect of fashion. Why
else, says McDowell (2000), would the extremes of Victorian fashion,
from crinoline to bustle; the hugely overscaled Edwardian millinery;
and Diors heavy and cumbersome evening dresses, with trains drag-
ging to the ground have come about? (2000: 364). Imagination and
fantasy require the reading of cultural cues through the creative capacity
of the individual. On the larger scale, this is carried out by the designer
whose vision inuences the way others dress. On a personal level, each
individual undertakes actions, however small, to manage his or her own
appearance in interaction with others.
In order to accomplish these socially and individually motivated pre-
sentations of self, status symbols are employed. Status symbols des-
ignate the occupants position. People in a similar social position tend
to use some of the same status symbols. Class symbols are a particular
kind of status symbol and include matters of etiquette, dress, deport-
ment, gesture, intonation, dialect, vocabulary, small body movements
and automatically expressed evaluations concerning both the substance
and the details of life, Goffman contends (1951: 300). Knowledge of a
particular kind, membership, or attending certain events qualify as class
symbols. Family name may also be such an indicator (1951: 299-300).
While occupational symbols, such as a license or credential, are insti-
tutionally controlled, class symbols are less regulated (1951: 296). In
fact, preferences given to job applicants may be based on class symbols
but not be representative of ofcial policy (1951: 297). Restrictions of
various types are put into place so that class symbols cannot be easily
misappropriated (1951: 297-301).
All the factual information that one would need to assess a situation
is rarely available. Rather, one must rely on setting, appearance, and
manner (Goffman 1959: 23-24). Goffman (1959: 30) states, For if the
individuals activity is to become signicant to others, he must mobilize
his activity so that it will express during the interaction what he wishes
to convey. Stone (1960: 107) takes issue with Goffmans use of the term
front. It implies an appearance calculated to misrepresent or conceal,
which Stone contends is not always the case.
In novels we nd many instances of the asserting of ones social
position through clothing or the attempt to achieve a desired position
by seeming to already occupy it. In Daniel Defoes Moll Flanders the
results are tragic when two main characters, each trying to appear to
have more than they actually do, see the other as a means of moving up
the social hierarchy. Guy de Maupassants novel, Bel-Ami, provides a
good example of how important clothing is to impression management,
and how one may creatively use clothing to achieve personal satisfaction
and to attain social goals. We also see the emotional price one pays for
failing at this endeavor.
After having declined Forestiers dinner invitation due to a lack of
proper attire this old friend, whose circumstance has vastly improved
through a marriage alliance, queries Duroy:
You really mean to say youve no evening clothes? But thats something you simply
cant do without. In Paris, you realize its better to be without a bed than not to have
evening clothes (Maupassant 1885/1975: 35).
Given forty francs by Forestier to hire clothes, Duroy is unable to
resist an invitation from a young lady. He is condent that with the remain-
ing twenty francs he could secure suitable evening attire. This assurance
quickly turns to despair as Duroy realizes he has achievedwith the
exception of a more or less correct tail coata crumpled look of bor-
rowed clothes on a body they were never intended to cover (1885/1975:
43). Maupassant sets forth the self-transformation that these less than
ideal clothes, nevertheless, begin to achieve, given that they are a vast
improvement over Duroys usual attire:
Slowly and uneasily he went upstairs, his heart pounding. Above all, he was worried
at the thought of appearing ridiculous; and then suddenly he found himself face to
face with a man in full evening dress, watching him. They were so close that Duroy
recoiled with a start and then stood dumbfounded: it was his own reection in a tall
wall-mirror on the rst oor landing which produced the effect of a long gallery.
He was overjoyed as he realized how much better he looked than he could possible
have believed.
As he possessed only a shaving mirror he had been unable to see himself full-length.
And as it was very difcult for him to see the various parts of his makeshift outt,
he had been exaggerating its failings and was in a panic at the thought of seeming a
gure of fun. But now that he had suddenly caught a glimpse of himself in the mirror,
he had not even been able to recognize himself; he had taken himself for someone
else, a man about town whom at rst glance he had thought extremely smart and
distinguished-looking.
And, as he peered more closely, he realized that the general effect was, in fact,
satisfactory.
So he started examining himself like an actor studying his part. He smiled, held out
his hand towards himself, gesticulated, expressed feelings of surprise, pleasure, ap-
proval; and he tried out different kinds of smile and expressions in his eyes for irting
with the ladies and showing admiration and desire.
Somewhere on the staircase a door opened and, startled, he began to go quickly
on upstairs, fearing that one of his friends guests might have seen him smirking at
himself.
When he reached the second oor, he caught sight of another mirror and slowed down
to watch himself as he went by. It seemed to him that he looked really elegant. He
was moving well. And he was lled with an inordinate self-condence. Looking as
he did, he would surely succeed (1885/1975: 43-44).
This self-condence was all but shattered when Duroy encountered
the footman whose evening dress was superior to his own. Upon meeting
Mrs. Forestier, Maupassant describes Duroys emotional state:
He blushed to the roots of his hair, not knowing what to say, feeling himself being
examined and inspected from head to foot, weighed up and judged.
He wanted to apologize, to invent some reason to explain the shortcomings of his
dress; but he could nd nothing to say and felt afraid of broaching such a dangerous
topic (1885/1975: 45).
Identity is a point of intersection between personal/psychological and
cultural/social expression and, indeed, between the individual and eco-
nomic, historical, and linguistic systems. Clothing and bodily ornamenta-
tion have always been important to human beings because appearance is
a crucial aspect (or semiotic) of communication. In all cultures we nd
expressions of status being conferred and displayed on the body whether
it is totems, tattoos, ceremonial dress or modern clothing.
Stone (1970: 394-395) extends George Herbert Meads perspective on
meaning, stemming from interaction, to specically include appearance.
He believes appearance is at least as important a variable as linguistic
and gestural discourse. Appearance and discourse, he says may be
seen as dialectic processes going on in every human transaction, the
former setting the stage for the latter (Stone 1960: 89). Identication
with the other rst requires identication of the other, and this initial
assessment will inuence the interpretation of verbal and other symbols
(1970: 396). Clothing is a symbolic means of anchoring identity (1970:
399).
Stone (1960: 5) says of the social signicance of clothing that it
may be initially traced to its character as a mediating element in so-
cial relations. It is through ones use of clothing that social identity,
value, [and] attitudes are established. Clothing then is a signicant
symbol with which one enters ongoing relations with others (1960:
3). Stone denes one of the chief functions of clothing: to facilitate
and organize the encounters of strangers and casual acquaintances by
making it possible for them to cast one another in social roles (1960:
4). Stone explains how pervasive clothing is in terms of conveying social
information: all major changes in social positionmoving through the
different stages of formal education, getting a job, marriage, parenthood,
illness, or deathare marked by changes of wardrobe. Or, if we look at
the stratication aspects of social relations, we nd overwhelming evi-
dence that differences in social honor, wealth, and authority are reected
in apparel (1960: 3-4).
In Stones interviews with inhabitants of a certain community, he found
that the reection of ones appearance was found in the eyes of those
whose opinion they valued (1960: 106). This can be extended to explain
collective sentiments. Rubinstein referring to mile Durkheim discusses
how the signicant images a group refers to become codied, entering
its collective memory. Certain styles whether they are in clothing or in
art become a language for social communication. Rubinstein (2001)
elaborates on J. C. Flugels contention that the most basic information
that clothing can communicate has to do with power, authority, gender
distinction, and seductiveness. Within the semiotics of dress there are
clothing signs and clothing symbols (2001: 3842). Clothing which follows
a formal code and conveys a denite meaning, such as a nuns habit, is
a clothing sign. Guy Trebay (2002) of the New York Times explains that
Hamid Karzai, then Interim President of Afghanistan, may appear to the
West as a swashbuckling gentleman in upper-class Pashtun clothing, but
to Afghanis his costume is a carefully assembled collection of regional
political symbols that can be easily read. His chapan (or cape) belongs
to the Northern tribesmen, his sheared lamb cap is worn by men in Kabul,
his jacket is Western, etc. Such a combination of clothing, never before
worn together in this way, bespeaks a unied Afghanistan favorable
toward the West (2002: A14). Clothing symbols reect broader cultural
values rather than denoting a particular status. Qualities or states of be-
ing such as spirituality, wealth, youth, and beauty are conveyed through
certain styles of dress which come to be associated with these categories
(Rubinstein 2001: 3843).
While Blumer (1968) speaks of fashion as standards arising out of
shared experience, Davis sees fashion as a consequence of instabilities
of collective identity (1992: 17). So long as individuals were content
with conforming to the established codes, or had no choice but to do so,
there was no need for any substantial differentiation in appearance from
their membership group. He questions whether identity ambivalence is
a byproduct of modernity, along with Simmel, or if it is inherent to the
human condition as Freud and Nietzsche have both observed (1992: 23).
In seeking to understand what drives the fashion cycle, Davis does not
want to reduce fashion to what could be considered psychic drives but
he does speak of an erotic-chaste dialectic which he attributes to cultural
and historic sources (1992: 92). Tension over identity ambivalence of
gender, age, class, social status, and sexuality are reected in fashion.
Davis sees gender identity as one of the most important forces direct-
ing fashion. So too is status. Class and status have been considered the
prime force by scholars who study fashion, Davis points out (1992: 58).
Davis warns against an exclusively class based theory of fashion by
pointing to Simmel, Veblen, and Bourdieu. Rather, he suggests looking
at class as one of many ambivalences (1992: 59-60). Sexual allure or
appeal is another of these ambivalences. Flugel, from a psychoanalytic
perspective, saw the clash between modesty and display as the main force
behind fashion (Davis, 1992: 82). While Davis tends to remains within
the realm of symbolic meaning as it relates to everyday interactions,
Susan B. Kaiser, Richard H. Nagasawa, and Sandra S. Hutton (1991) tie
the issue of ambivalence in constructing personal identities to a larger
context. Within a postmodern system where identities are more uid and
must be continually negotiated in interaction, a global capitalist system
motivated to move the fashion cycle forward secures itself.
Davis asks the same question as Baudrillard and Lipovetsky: Is
everything subject to fashion? Davis says that he hears from endocri-
nologists, computer specialists, legal scholars, and theologians that their
eld is subject to the same dynamic as clothing in fashion. He concludes
that although paradigm shifts and theoretical/methodological modica-
tions have fashionlike manifestations, they are not the same in their
scope, objectives, and results (1992: 194). Davis (1992: 197) adds that
the mass culture critics greatly exaggerate the extent to which people
are seduced by fashions incursions.
Rather than viewing fashion consumption and display as a form of
expression carried out by a conscious and rational actor, the fashion
system can be seen as part of a consumerist ideology that has been
constructed with various institutions of consumer capitalism. The shop-
ping experience has been converted into a highly meaningful act, and its
commodities are fetishised. The fashion system is the means by which
a commodication of self is achieved.
Antonio Gramscis (1973: 12) claim, that sociopolitical control is
exercised not by military domination and class conict but rather by
the hegemony of the institutions which support the system vis--vis
the dominant group, can be applied to the fashion industry. The desire to
buy marks of distinction makes people think that they are also part of the
elect, thereby creating a false sense of power and control. The fashion
system, wittingly and unwittingly, is part of the ideology of a capitalist
society that has become more systematic in a consumer-driven environ-
ment. It provides satisfaction to the masses by making them believe
that they have achieved distinction through the clothes they are able to
wear. This can be seen as a form of mystication. Firms cater to a mass-
market and, rather than wearing something exclusive, a person may be
wearing a garment bearing a designers name that was made through a
licensing agreement. Through advertising and immersion in a consumer
culture, people are persuaded to believe in the validity of these signs.
Ordinary people may wear logosperhaps the new supersized Polo
Ralph Lauren polo player logoand come to believe they have achieved
or will achieve distinction, social mobility, etc. The reality of worker
exploitation and degradation is hidden from consumers who, lacking a
critical perspective, absorb in full the messages they are fed.
Joan Finkelstein (1991) speaks of fashion and the industry that pro-
duces it as a negative consequence of a larger problem: capitalist soci-
ety. Unlike postmodernists (many of them former Marxists) those who
critique fashion from perspectives derived from Marxism see fashion as
a perversion of culturea superstructure that will disappear once a new
order is installed. The consumer may be dazzled as William Leach (1993)
describes in his history of the rise of consumerism as a principal value in
American society, but real freedom does not come from purchased goods.
It comes from the type of civic engagement that refuses to obscure the
realities that uphold such a world.
McRobbie discusses two distinctive, interdisciplinary, feminist ap-
proaches: materialist and cultural studies. McRobbie points out that
the left has divided; there are those who have abandoned the critique of
capitalist culture in favor of celebrating popular culture and the values
of commerce and retail and those who have maintained a traditional
position (1999: 22). McRobbie accuses those who claim to be closer to the
Marxist tradition with maintaining an outmoded notionthat it is the
Oxbridge elites or the new right that are inuencing cultural produc-
tion (1999: 26). Those who have gone into cultural studies wholeheartedly
have discovered that many of those involved in producing cultureart-
ists, fashion designers, DJs, stylists, makeup artistsare drawn from the
working classes (1999: 27). There may be some confusion between the
two camps, however, on just what constitutes culture.
Materialist feminists who have looked at the fashion industry, such
as Sheila Rowbotham and Annie Phizacklea, have no concern with the
symbolic role played by consumer goods says McRobbie. They are solely
concerned with the production of goods. Material feminists point to the
exploitation of a mostly female, and sometimes child, labor force in the
developing world. They have also written about sweatshops and home
work by women in the First World (1999: 32). The idea that the con-
sumption of fashion and other nonessential items is enjoyable to women,
even to working class and poor women in all parts of the world, is not
addressed or is dismissed as false consciousness (1999: 33). McRob-
bie points to feminist work of this type and its total condemnation of
womens magazines. The images are thought to be designed to make
women attractive for male consumption. The fashion and cosmetic items
sold in these magazines are deemed paraphernalia of oppression. The
hope was that ordinary women, like feminists, would break free of these
bonds (1999: 48). The commonality of womens experience and oppres-
sion was emphasized. This Western, white, middle-class orientation has
somewhat dissipated as women and men from various backgrounds have
joined the feminist dialogue.
In the mid-1980s feminist scholarship was inuenced by poststruc-
turalism and psychoanalysis, says McRobbie. The poststructural posi-
tion opposed the earlier idea of a true form of womanhood. Womens
magazines, and consumer culture in general, presented yet another form
of femininity that could be subject to analysis (1999: 48-49). Feminist
psychoanalysis pointed to the involvement of unconscious female desire
in having the perfect body, relationship, and a glamorous lifestyle.
A call for repudiation of this would lead to guilt and associated tensions
(1999: 49). Linda M. Scott (2005: 224-225) points to Simone de Beau-
voirs unwillingness to accept male vanity in dress, which she attributes
to his ability to project a sense of autonomy on his penis, while females
resort to pathologizing self-decoration. Some feminists in the 1990s
shifted toward questions of identity and experience. Ann Gray (1999)
speaks of multiple constructions of identity and self, and of the boundaries
between the self and national, local, and global being permeable (1999:
31). Today feminists involved in cultural studies, by and large, argue
for recognition of a separate womens culture worthy of academic study
(1999: 50). Discussions of the political have more recently moved toward
womens activities, in which consumption plays an important role. Ali
Guy, Eileen Green, and Maura Banim (2001: 7) have edited a book en-
titled Through the Wardrobe: Womens Relationships with Their Clothes.
The editors say that while the fashion industry is restrictive and sometimes
oppressive to womenwomen themselves reappropriate, subvert, and
thus are able to create new meanings for themselves in relation to fashion.
In 2002 the Feminist Review devoted an issue to fashion and beauty that
considered both production and consumption. Here the focus on lived
experience is stressed in the pursuit of beauty while fashion articles tend
to consider issues of production from a critical perspective. There was,
however, the exception of one article entitled Classy Lingerie where
the process of choosing lingerie at home shopping parties is highlighted
from the perspective of participants.
Scott (2005) compares feminists critical of popular culture to Victo-
rians or puritans. Feminist criticism today consistently interprets an ad
(or a lm or a fashion) until it can be shown to be a temptation aimed at
the male gaze.... The implication is that if a dress, a picture, or a hairstyle
is sexy, it is ipso facto oppressive (2005: 187). Scotts rst sentences
sum up her analysis of 150 years of feminist thought concerning fashion:
American feminism takes a dim view of beauty. Across the spectrum
of academic and popular literature, feminist writers have consistently
argued that a womans attempt to cultivate her appearance makes her
a dupe of fashion, the plaything of men, and thus a collaborator in her
own oppression (2005: 1). That being said, one would be remiss not
to point out that there are images of women generated by the fashion
industry that are seen by a large segment of the American population as
offensive to women.
The fashion system, to some extent, reects the theories used in its
examination. The theorists we have considered nd different explana-
tions for what fashion is, what drives fashion, its mode of expression,
and what it communicates. Lipovetsky (2005) warns against falling
victim to condemnation or praise. It is vain to seek to judge something
that is constitutive of the social and human domain (2005: 78). Fashion
we see stretches from textual to visual; from experiential to epic, even
apocalyptic, manifestations. It can accommodate both individual agency
and social agendas; it can act, it might be argued, if not independently
at least in ways that are not intended.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
35
2
The Emergence of the Fashion Industry
French haute couture designers, and before them dressmakers and
tailors, made clothing for the wealthy upper classes. The scope of fashion
did not reach much beyond this level. The working classes, and those un-
able to afford dressmakers who could copy or adapt couture styles, wore
industrial off the peg clothing or second hand clothing (Baudot 1999:
11-12). Mila Contini states that clothes ltered down, passing from
hand to hand until they eventually reached the rag merchants (1965: 310).
Well into the seventeenth century the tailoring of clothing for both men
and women was considered a male enterprise. By the eighteenth century
this would shift. Millinery and dressmaking became a female pursuit,
while tailoring remained in male hands. This development opened up
many career opportunities for women (Gamber 1997: 10).
Ready-to-wear clothing began in Europe but its manufacture was per-
fected in the U.S. The U.S. becomes the world leader by the beginning of
the twentieth century (Milbank 1989: 18). In the middle of the eighteenth
century, textile production was the rst sector to undergo industrialization
which began in England. France would follow; then in the early part of
the nineteenth century, the U.S. would adopt British textile technology
and begin to invent its own (Dickerson 1995: 23, 26, 28).
In the eighteenth century, special orders from Europe could be made by
American merchants or individuals of means. However, European fash-
ions were mostly inappropriate for the more relaxed American lifestyle.
Alice Morse Earle (1903/1970) describes the American context: masked
balls and fancy dress parties, which were the chief and most constant of
London pleasures, were not an American resource; they were frowned
upon (1903/1970: 396). Though some sought out European fashion, she
goes on to say that American amusements were simple affairs requiring
comparatively simple clothing: spinning matches, at singing schools, and
various gatherings of women alone in country townsand of men alone;
and in the capitals, the royal birth-night balls and assemblies, a regatta,
a horse-race, formal dinners and high teas, and a consort (1903/1970:
397-398). At the opposite end of the fashion spectrum were the New
England Puritans who rejected decoration altogether.
The invention of the steam-powered ship in the 1820s brought prod-
ucts of all types into New York making it the fashion center of the U.S.
(Milbank 1989: 10). Milbank explains that fashion became the province
of city shops, burgeoning department stores, small or grand dressmaking
houses, and even manufacturers, and it was addressed to the increas-
ingly wealthier middle classes who lived in and/or shopped in New York
(1989: 16, 18). Sharon Zukin (2004: 18) discusses the extraordinary
wealth from the trade concentrated in New York at this time, owing to
the building projects and the expansion of the port. Merchants competed
with each other, and many small shops sprang up to cater to the needs
of different ethnic groups.
Sailors and soldiers were the rst recipients of ready-to-wear clothing
(Green 1997: 25). In the early 1800s a small group of New England
merchants conceived the idea of having ready-made trousers and shirts
available for the sailors who had only a few days in port (Horn and
Gurel 1981: 401). Slop shops, as they were called, could be found in
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore (Cobrin 1970: 19). In the
1840s such rough and ready-made garments were also provided for those
searching for gold out west, laborers, slaves, and, one supposes, clothes
of a slightly better grade for the many bachelors who had no wives to
sew for them. These clothes were still hand-sewn (Horn and Gurel 1981:
401). The earliest ready-made clothes were made in the home, and pay
was by the piece (1981: 403-404). Once it was possible for clothing to be
made on a large scale to t a variety of sizes, the same logic was applied
to a civilian population (Green 1997: 29-33). In New York, Boston, Paris
and London cutting, sewing, and pressing were divided among various
workers allowing (for example, in the Boston system) fty to two
hundred garments to be produced in one day (1997: 32). The assembly-
line production of clothing no longer required skilled tailors, rather it
called for garment workers and sewing machine operators (1997: 33).
By 1840, Green (1997: 32) states, the price of a ready-made coat was
about one-half that of a custom-made one in New York.
The general store began to be replaced in the 1870s and 1880s by
mass retailers: department stores, mail-order houses, and chain stores.
This was facilitated within America by improvements and expansion
The Emergence of the Fashion Industry 37
of the railroad system, telegraph, and postal services (Abernathy et. al.
1995: 178). Urban centers (and access to them) were increasing rapidly,
allowing retailers to have a large volume of inventory, a high rate of
turnover, and lower prices (1995: 179). The rst U.S. department store
built in 1846, the A.T. Stewart Store, was located near City Hall in lower
Manhattan. Lord & Taylor opened its doors on Broadway in 1869. By
the 1870s the better stores moved to Ladies Mile on Broadway between
Fourteenth and Twenty-third Street. After 1900, stores moved further
uptown and Fifth Avenue became the most exclusive shopping area
(Zukin 2004: 21-22).
The proliferation of department stores encouraged the development of
a ready-to-wear industry (Dolkart 1998: 39). Department stores created a
demand for clothing that could be bought right away and encouraged the
consumer, through the luxurious decor and ambiance they provided, to
return again. The new shopping places says Rachel Bowlby (1985: 6, in
Finkelstein 1998: 98), were places of culture, fantasy, divertissement,
which the customer visits more for pleasure than for necessity. Indeed,
department stores pregured modern consumption practices.
German Jews, among them such names as Strauss, Straus, Altman,
Gimbel, Bloomingdale, Saks, Filene, and Lazarus, became the dominant
group in retailing, manufacturing, and tailoring. Julius Rosenwald, son
of a former peddler who through marriage began working in the cloth-
ing business, established Sears Roebuck (Cobrin 1970: 49). As Henry L.
Feingold (2002: 58) puts it, the ready-made clothing business and allied
trades became virtually a Jewish monopoly.
In the mid-nineteenth century, many men

were purchasing ready-to-
wear suits while women continued to purchase custom-made clothing.
By the end of the century, however, women would become the motivat-
ing force in the garment industrys growth (Green 1997: 26). Earlier
on, a transition to mass-produced garments was inconceivable. Women
demanded unique items and dresses were made to enhance the particular
wearers gure, reect her taste, and set her apart from other women.
The close-tted, elaborate structure and ornamentation of female apparel
required the skilled, individual attention of dressmakers or home sewers
(Gamber 1997: 98, Milbank 1989: 18). For the lady who could afford
such services, garments were made to t her form like wall paper
(1997: 129). For the poorer woman there was no other choice, apart from
homemade clothing, than poorly tted industrial clothing (Baudot 1999:
30). And, there was no impetus yet to extend the reach of fashion.
Obstacles to producing ready-to-wear clothing for women were gradu-
ally overcome. In the 1850s loosely tting wraps and outerwear were
produced. Gradually, shirtwaists and tailored skirts and jackets were
ready-made just as similar items had been for men (Milbank 1989: 18).
In 1859 census gures show 5,739 workers engaged in making cloaks,
mantillas, and hoop skirts (Horn and Gurel 1981: 403). One hundred and
eighteen rms produced womens clothing. The number of rms rose to
562 by 1880 (Dolkart 1998: 39). Immigrant workers, mostly Jewish and
Italian women, worked long hours in sweatshops located in New York
on the Lower East Side (Municipal Art Society 2000: 5).
New York became the capital of ready-to-wear fashion by the late
nineteenth century (Green 1997: 48). New York was to become the Gar-
ment Center, with manufacture concentrated in Midtown Manhattan. The
area is bounded approximately by Thirty-fourth and Fortieth Street, and
by Sixth and Ninth Avenue (Dolkart 1998: 37). In 1900 the International
Ladies Garment Workers Union was founded in response to the dan-
gerous and exploitative conditions which many manufacturers exposed
employees to (Horn and Gurel 1981: 404). By the 1920s, states Andrew
S. Dolkart, the mens clothing industry was rapidly disappearing from
New York and the Garment Center was dominated by the womens
clothing industry (1998: 37).
Manufacturing in New York, until World War I, was carried out largely
by immigrant women in factory-type loft buildings called inside shops.
These industrial buildings were located outside of what was to become
the Garment Center, from West Twenty-third Street to Thirty-fourth
Street. Factory owners red workers during off-peak times but they still
had to pay rent on their buildings. In 1906 Tiffany & Company and B.
Altman moved to Fifth Avenue, followed by Lord and Taylor and other
merchants who catered to the wealthy. Many wealthy families resided
on Fifth Avenue. Quite a few garment factories were located near Fifth
Avenue and Thirty-fourth Street, causing a steady stream of laborers to
pass by wealthy shoppers and residents. The headline for a January 16,
1916 New York Times article on the subject read Menace to Trade on
Fifth Avenue. The Save New York Committee was established. All
major department stores, many hotels, banks, and industries joined and
threatened to boycott all garment rms that continued to manufacture in
a zone bounded by 33rd Street, 59th Street, Third Avenue, and Seventh
Avenue after February 1, 1917. Banks refused loans and real estate
brokers refused to show space to garment factories. According to the
Municipal Art Society, So distressed were the merchants by the sight
of immigrant workers on the lunch hour loitering among the shoppers
that the Fifth Avenue Association asked the mayor to help keep them out.
Eventually the ire of department stores proting from the sale of the gar-
ment districts products, and the distaste of customers shopping for that
very clothing, forced the district to the west, where it is today (2000:
2). After the war, garment manufacturers moved to the area that would
be called the Garment Center. The most signicant buildings at 494 and
500 Seventh Avenue at Thirty-seventh Street were erected in 1919-21.
They were called the Garment Center Capital. Mark Kanner, a Russian
Jew who worked his way up in the industry conceived of and carried
through the project with the cooperation of fty-eight garment rms.
Throughout the 1920s development continued (Dolkart 1998: 41).
The manufacturer became largely a jobber. Jobbers bought the materi-
als for the clothing and had them designed. Labor was arranged through
a contractor, to be done in an outside shop. This allowed the jobber
to avoid equipment expenses, labor issues, and to maintain only an ofce
and a showroom for the nished product. Contractors competed with
each other to offer lower prices to jobbers resulting in workers receiving
the lowest possible wages (1989: 41). The practice of factories hiring a
traveling salesman to sell goods was replaced with buyers who would
come to Garment Center showrooms (many via Penn Station which was
completed in 1910). Hotels sprung up to house the out of town buyers.
The particular industry we have today emerged from humble begin-
nings. The American approach to fashion, from the beginning itself, has
focused as much on business as it has on artistry. While the French fashion
system began as an institutionalized system that moved from aristocratic
to government regulation, the American system started with manufac-
turers. Ellen Curtis Demorest, the inventor of the paper pattern in the
1850s, not only sold her patterns worldwide but also sold custom-made
clothing in New York. She, along with her husband, promoted fashion
through a monthly magazine and made numerous fashion innovations.
Before any other couturier or courturire, she began using her name on
beauty products and fragrances. Caroline Rennolds Milbank describes the
Demorests as perhaps nineteenth-century versions of todays couture-
calibre designers whose top of the line work is aimed at a chosen few
but whose licensed products are mass distributed (1989: 28). American
designers are credited with introducing the notion of democracy in
ready-to-wear clothing, placing fashion within the reach of the average
woman (Baudot 1999: 16). For this to happen, business and fashion de-
sign had to unite. This unity of business and the designing of clothes as
a commercial process was aided by the changes that Don Slater (1997)
describes. One way of looking at economic history up to the twentieth
century is as a process of saving, investment and accumulation at a
social scale, underpinned by a Puritan work ethic. Enforced social sav-
ing and investmentand deferred consumer gratication were the
norm. Another approach is to see the consumer revolution as beginning
before the industrial revolution: as early as the sixteenth century, in
which we can discern, rstly, a new world of goods (a wide penetra-
tion of consumer goods into the everyday lives of more social classes);
secondly, the development of the spread of consumer culture in the
sense of fashion and taste as key elements of consumption; thirdly, the
development of infrastructures, organizations and practices that target
these new kinds of markets (the rise of shopping, advertising, marketing)
(1997: 17). Certainly, consumerism clearly becomes a cultural value in
America with the prosperity of the 1950s and a corresponding increase
in the middle class.
Womens Ready-to-Wear Fashion
When considering fashion for men and for women it is important to
take into account not only the historical moment, but the ways in which
masculinity and femininity are culturally dened. Only by understand-
ing this can we grasp more fully why certain styles were promoted and
adopted and why they may have changed. Finkelstein explains that
femininity in the nineteenth century became associated with shopping in
the newly emerging department stores. Referring to the work of Bowlby
(1985), she states that the connotation such activity took on was that of
frivolity and the wasting of time and resources. This can be compared to
the serious forms of consumption males partook in: stock market shares,
real estate, cars, and machinery (1998: 97-98). Mrs. Armytage, in an ar-
ticle that appears in the New York Times in 1883 compares the parisienne,
whose soul is concentrated upon the effectiveness of her dress, to the
savage in nose pieces and body paint. She praises the sensibility of
male attire, which has shaken free from the dominion of dress. The use
of frills and jabots of rare Valenciennes has gone with full-bottomed wigs
and small clothes of gold brocade. Men no longer x priceless jewels in
their shoe laces, or carry muffs or rare furs on their hands. The present
fashions are a distinct improvement, accordingly to Armytage. They are
practical and are oriented toward the lifestyle men lead.
The nineteenth century began for women with the high-waisted Empire
dress with a drawstring for tting. This plain neoclassical style was
borrowed from post-Revolutionary France (Jones 1994: 946). As the
century progressed clothing became more elaborate. In the 1830s bodices
were tted, skirts and sleeves full. By the 1850s skirts had ballooned.
In 1868 the bustle became fashionable (Milbank 1989: 45). The popular
silhouette of 1870s and 1880s is described by Sarah A. Gordon:
Floor length skirts worn over petticoats or hoops, often drawn tightly across the front
and gathered in the back in a bustle that emphasized a womans curves. Collars were
high and sleeves were long and tight. Women wore boned corsets that emphasized
their breasts and hips (2001: 26).
From the 1860s to the 1890s the tailored suitmade of heavy material
and consisting of a jacket with a collar, skirt, and vestcame to be seen
as an appropriate day costume for all classes of women (Milbank 1989:
18, Crane 2000: 105). Under this was worn a shirtwaist, an adaptation
of the mens shirt, with a small black tie or bow tie (Crane 2000: 105).
This costume could be worn all day by the working woman as well as by
the lady of leisure. An all-day costume was a revolutionary concept.
One writer notes:
For morning, a lady of leisure could wear a tailored suit if she expected to go out,
or, if staying home, a morning dress, which was relatively simple. Since she was not
involved in housework, she might wear, in her room or to breakfast, various kinds
of ever more elaborate peignoirs, combing jackets or others kinds of wrapper. For
afternoon, if paying a call or attending a reception, she was required to wear a formal
afternoon costume called a reception gown, which was as ornate as an evening dress,
possibly featuring a sweeping skirt and a train, though not dcollet. For receiving
visitors at home during the afternoon a tea gown, if respectably made, was an alter-
native to the reception dress. Dinners at home required dinner clothes, slightly more
formal or dcollet than afternoon ones, and going to the opera, a ball, or a private
dinner party called for the most formal of clothes, as well as the most fashionable.
These delineations were further qualied by whether one was yet to be married, newly
married, long married, or never married; the weather; the season; ones location--in
town, in the country, or at a resort; and, of course, whether one was in mourning or
half-mourning (Milbank 1989: 48).
Simplication of design is an example of the newly emerging ap-
parel industrys inuence on fashion (Green 1997: 29). Nancy L. Green
asks whether the ready-to-wear revolution came about in response to
demand or if it created the demand. Modern methods of production and
transportation were required for ready-to-wear to be produced, as well
as a corresponding transformation in modes of manners, Green argues
(1997: 21). Technological capability seems to have coincided with the
appropriate cultural moment, which was urged on by industry. Milbank
explains that by the Civil War, American women of a certain class had
begun to be interested in getting an education, in trying their hands at jobs
previously held almost exclusively by men, and in engaging in athletic
endeavors (1989: 12). Simplicity in style was a response to the needs
of American women and could, indeed, be more easily manufactured. A
large pool of Eastern European immigrants were available to work for
low wages, and 96,000 workers were employed by womens clothing
manufacturers by 1900 (Horn and Gurel 1981: 403).
A public debate began in the 1870s about what women should wear
when participating in the newly popular leisure and sports activities.
Unlike the dress reform movement of the 1840s and 1850s, which was
rejected by mainstream men and women alike, the idea that clothes
were only for play made them less of a threat to anyone who perceived
them as challenging traditional womens styles, argues Gordon (2001:
25). Participating in sports like bicycling, swimming, walking, and tennis
became associated with ideas of modernity and participation in a new
social movement (2001: 30, 32-33). A commercial industry able to furnish
items on a larger scale was necessary for the inuence of sportswear to
grow beyond just a small circle of women. In the beginning, information
on sewing such clothing was disseminated through womens magazines
and patterns; eventually ready-made sporting costumes were available
by mail order and in retail stores.
In America, photographs, diaries, and letters indicate that even in
remote areas Americans were concerned with meeting middle-class stan-
dards. In the second half of the nineteenth century, fashionable women of
considerable means wore decorated and extravagant clothes copied from
the latest European styles which were made by skilled dressmakers in a
few major East Coast cities. A second level of fashion was based on
styles reproduced from womens magazines. Dressmakers in most cities
and towns were able to do this type of work. The majority of American
women, however, did not have access to such services and made clothing
at home (Crane 2000: 72). Most women remade their outdated clothing
(2000: 73). Beginning in the 1890s ready-made clothing and mass-pro-
duced hats were available in the rst American department stores (Gamber
1997: 191). At the turn of the twentieth century custom dressmakers
struggled against department stores and their ready-to-wear fashions.
Gamber states that by 1920 department stores had won the decisive vic-
tory (1997: 193). A male fashion industryencompassing factories,
the wholesale trade, and department storeshad virtually put an end to
the skilled female economy of dressmaking and millinery. Lower prices,
convenience, a wide selection of merchandise, plus the allure of often
palatial retail environments appealed to female consumers and, indeed,
captivated many (1997: 194-195). The largely immigrant population who
labored in the new garment industry had few of the amenities that native
born women had enjoyed in custom dressmaking shops (1997: 217).
Before ready-to-wear clothes would achieve prominence, the French
tradition of haute couture was born. Haute couture (the art of custom
clothing design) was founded by Charles Frederick Worth, an English-
man who in 1858 set up his house in Paris. While couturiers and cou-
turires maintained a certain anonymity to guard their reputation and
their names (Lehmann states) were still traded as well-kept secrets,
Worth wanted to be known and was to soon become the rst couturier
whose name became known in households all over the world (Lehmann
2000: 67). Accessible to only the wealthiest women, couture fashion set
the tone for all who desired to be fashionable. Dressmakers and tailors,
whose task it was to clothe the body, had much lower social status than
painters or architects. They were always regarded as servants says Peter
Wollen (1999: 8). In contrast to dressmaking where the client held the
upper hand, the couturier or couturire presented his or her designs to
the client from which they would make a selection. Worth established
this approach by showing his collections semiannually (Martin and
Koda 1995: 47). Worth, by establishing the category of the couturier, is
described by Wollen as redening the relationship with the client. Now
the client came to his house, rather than the other way round, just as a
patron might visit an artists studio (1999: 8).
The sewing machine became available earlier to women in America
than in Europe. In the 1860s sewing machines were mass-produced
and could be bought on an installment plan. Patterns were sold all over
America. In the 1870s, six million were sold per year (2000: 76). Before
this women could copy a schematic pattern from a womens magazine,
such as Godeys Ladys Book, and stitch it by hand (Gordon 2001: 33).
In France sewing machines were being bought by working-class women
who did piecework at home; patterns were used by seamstresses and not
by women at home (Crane 2000: 76).
Francois Baudot and others have argued that until the 1950s Paris was
the undisputed center for womens fashion (1999: 30). Designers and
manufacturers all over the world looked toward and emulated the styles
of Paris. Famous fashion houses held the power to dictate what was fash-
ionable, and the press dutifully passed along this message (Wark 1997:
231). During the time of Worth, New York was the center of American
fashion. Contrary to much of what has been written, Paris dresses were
rarely copied faithfully line for line, Milbank states. Instead, New York
designers used Paris as a model but altered fashions in accordance
with American consumers tastes (1989: 10). Fashion plates featured
in early eighteenth-century magazines began as illustrated descriptions
of aristocratic styles (Breward 2003: 116). Mid-nineteenth century
fashion plates with illustrations of clothing from Paris rarely provided
generallet alone technicaldesign information on how to make the
garment. Furthermore, Milbank points out, life in the upper reaches of
U.S. society bore little resemblance to the European courts; this made
Paris fashions largely inappropriate. Godeys Ladys Book, which began
in 1837, offered advice on modifying Paris fashions as well as admoni-
tions to those who may not have preferred to do so (1989: 19).
American designers made ready-to-wear clothing that departed from
the Paris norms and could be worn by the average American woman
(Baudot 1999: 16). France provided direction and exerted a strong inu-
ence but at the same time it provided a contrast from which Americans
diverged. Milbank contends that even before there was an American
fashion, there was a particularly American style arising from patriotic
determination. She states, Simplicity in dress celebrated both self suf-
ciency and the freedoms inherent in a democracy (1989: 8).
It is French designer Gabrielle (Coco) Chanel who is credited with
ushering women into the modern world of fashion. She rejected the
fabulously embellished fashion of her male counterparts who sought to
exaggerate the female form. Instead, she opted for a graceful, radical
simplicity, sometimes referred to as a povertizing of luxury. Chanel
was very much a part of the Parisian art scene of the 1920s, and in her
mansion she entertained close friends such as Cocteau, Picasso, and
Stravinsky (Prah-Perochon 2001: 21). The 1920s were a time where a fu-
sion between art and fashion could be clearly seen. For avant-garde artist
Sonia Delaunay, for example, fashion was an extension of art. Maramotti
describes Chanel as able to intuit the predominant social tensions of
the moment and translate them into garments to which a wealthy clien-
tele could relate (2000: 95). Although her designs remained elite, their
inuence was widely felt. Mundane materials were transformed by
couture handwork; their surface simplicity caused women who wouldnt
ordinarily think about couture to take notice (Martin and Koda 1995: 45).
While her clothing was certainly more comfortable and appeared simple,
the construction was quite complex: hand tucking, pleating, detailing.
An American clientele found her look less complicated, indeed less
French, and her designs more appealing and meaningful. Referring
to Chanel, Jean Patou, Madeleine Vionnet, and other French designers
of this period Milbank explains: Because they were designing simpler
clothes that reected a more democratic general attitude, and because
these simpler clothes were by their very nature much more copiable,
French designers became, for the rst time, household names in this
country (1989: 72).
The 1920s were a period in American history characterized by a shift
in mores. Three important factors converged which would have an impact
on American fashion: the ending of World War I, the feminist movement,
and improved production methods. During World War I women wore
trousers to work in the factories. After World War I womens fashions
reected a new more carefree attitude. The feminist movement also had
an impact on the fashions of the period. Women, for the rst time, began
breaking with tradition and wearing bobbed hair and less tted clothing.
The growth of the garment industry in the 1920s was connected to the
ability to mass-produce simpler styles of womens clothing at affordable
prices. Skirts became shorter and dresses featured natural waistlines; in
1925, the shift dress had no waistline at all. In addition to cotton, wool
and silk, and silk gauze, garments could be made out of a new articial
fabric, rayon. Three fashion magazines, Vogue, Harpers Bazaar, and The
Queen were widely circulated and became inuential. Pants, although
only worn in secluded places such as vacation ranches or resorts, became
more popular amongst middle- and upper-class women between the
two wars. However, they had been worn extensively by women on the
frontier or farm, under skirts, and by women who worked in factories
(Crane 2000: 120, 123). The burgeoning fashion industry of the 1920s
presented women with a variety of choices: the carefree apper look, the
romantic owing dress, the practical walking suittailored clothing by
day and lavish dresses for evening.
By the 1930s designer American sportswear stood on its own (Martin
1998: 9). While designer sportswear can be attributed to Jean Patou and
Gabrielle Chanel in the 1920s and 1930s (1998: 14), Richard Martin sees
its true birth in America and credits American women designers such
as Bonnie Cashen, Tina Lesser, Vera Maxwell, Claire McCardell, Clare
Potter, and Emily Wilkins with creating the sportswear tradition. It was
these woman who liberated American fashion from the thralldom of
Parisian design (1998: 12). This new standard of dress was designed to
suit the modern American womans lifestyle. These designers re-thought
fashion from its very roots, not simply paring away some of the accretions
of traditional prettiness, says Martin (1998: 9). French sportswear, it
must be stressed, was intended for the upper-class woman.
Fashions of this period, however, took on a more glamorous look
when compared to the carefree looks of the 1920s. Once again, dresses
and clothing in general became more tted to the body (1989: 109).
Corsets came back and the new, less restrictive girdle was developed
(Seeling 1999: 135). Hollywood became an important inuence on
fashion bringing a new sophistication, elegance, and maturity to Ameri-
can fashion. With the world in the midst of an economic depression
the desire for wealth took on a new signicance. Hollywood displayed
this through clothing lavish with the textures of furs and thousands of
hand-sewn sequins and bugle beads ... glittery jewels ... striking acces-
sories (Milbank 1989: 109). The many lms made by Fred Astaire and
Ginger Rogers during this decade showcased dancing to Big Band
music; this was the main entertainment of the 1930s, says Charlotte
Seeling (1999: 131). Joan Crawford, with her broad shoulders ac-
centuated by costume designer Adrian, was the first to wear what
could be termed the power suit. From her 1932 film Letty Lynton,
Crawfords white organza dress was copied and Macys sold 500,000
at $20 each (1999: 182).
In the same decade Milbank notes that casual clothes, clothes which
had in the 1920s been shaped the same as formal styles, developed
their own look as sport and leisure clothes. Lounging pajamas and
all manner of pants, shorts, playsuits, and culottes became popular with
women (1989: 109). Gordon (2001: 42) describes patterns for womens
sports costumes from the 1870s to about 1915. In addition to maintaining
a feminine sense of modesty, the garments were concerned with pretti-
ness and with being in step with the current fashions. Gym suits were
trimmed with silk bows, bathing costumes, with nautical insignia. One
skating sweater has the high neck and enormous leg-of-mutton shoulders
stylish in the 1890s, complete with stufng to hold the shape.
In 1939 with the start of World War II, womens clothes began to take
on a uniform, military quality: angular shoulders, braided fastenings, tight
skirts, and at shoes (Seeling 1999: 140). In 1939, a woman appears for
the rst time wearing pants in Vogue. Stores promoted American fash-
ion alongside European designs (Martin 1998: 112). Better department
stores, such as Bergdorf Goodman, held private fashion shows daily.
Martin states that fashion in the 1940s was logical and answerable to
the will of the woman who wore it. Implicitly or explicitly, American
fashion addressed a democracy, whereas traditional Paris-based fashion
was authoritarian and imposed on women, willing or not (1998: 13). In
the 1940s wartime manufacturing took precedence. Women once again
worked in the factories. Shorter, more tted skirts and suit jackets were
made in such a way to comply with restrictions. Mens suits were adapted
for women, changing the silhouette to one with broader shoulders and
a narrower waist.
In the 1940s, fashion editors and buyers were unable to get to Paris.
The major American fashion magazines, along with womens magazines
and newspapers that covered fashion, focused on the shows held in New
York department stores, custom houses, and manufacturers. American
designers were highlighted and became overnight sensations. Claire
McCardell, trained in couture fashion, brought an American sense of
styleusing easy care fabrics and designs that were comfortableto
moderately priced sportswear.
In 1947, French couturier Christian Dior introduced his New Look,
which represented a return to femininity that had been repressed during
the war years. Many yards of fabric were used to create full skirts with
tightly tted waistlines which accentuated the female gure. The New
Look could be described as a look back toward a time, place (Europe),
and class (upper) when the ideal woman was living a domestic life of
leisure. This was the polar opposite of womens casual sportswear. Diors
New Look began on February 12, 1947 at 10:30, says McDowell. The
clock was turned back seven years to the prewar fashion. Not only did
the worlds couturiers follow his lead, so did many other designers
(1997: 10, 12). As inuential as Diors look was (and it was adapted by
American designers) America had become a fashion center in its own
rightthe sportswear capitaland would not abandon its direction.
Marilyn J. Horn and Lois M. Gurel point out that casual sportswear was
not an area the French cared to enter into (1981: 410).
World trade increased after World War II with the U.S. playing an
increasingly important role. The U.S. experienced growth in its own
economy and exerted a large inuence over the worlds economy. It was
on its way to being the worlds economic leader (Dickerson 1995: 36).
By 1947 the U.S. textile and apparel industries could boast an impres-
sive trade surplus, one which they took for granted as they helped Japan
rebuild her industry (1995: 127).
The 1950s woman is described as demure and family-oriented,
quite unlike her apper mother, says Milbank. The newly prosperous
U.S. had entered a time focused on marriage and family life, and clothing
became more casual. This was at a time when the French woman was
laced into dresses with tted torsos, shtail trains, and trumpet skirts;
the French magazines featured couture fashion (1989: 170, 172).
By the 1950s ready-to-wear had attained a level of couture-calibre
in part due to standardized measurements in graduated styles (1989:
175). American, unlike Parisian, designers offered multiple silhouettes
to t the many different types of American women. Alongside ideals of
domesticity were lm icons Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell, convey-
ing an image of voluptuous sexuality.
It was in the 1950s, Laver (2002: 260-261) points out, that a separate
market catering to youth came into existence. American youth had their
own music, rock and roll, and they wore clothing different from the older
generations. American teenage girls wore tight sweaters and cardigans
with full circular skirts. Underneath they wore pointed braissires and
layered petticoats. For casual wear girls wore tight trousers or jeans.
Jacqueline Kennedy had an enormous inuence on American fashion.
At a time when upper-class women were dressed in furs and fussy hats
with netted veils, the rst lady would appear in an impeccably tailored,
simple, wool coat with matching pillbox hat. Her style was an under-
stated renement. Before Mrs. Kennedy, presidential wives dressed in
a matronly way. The media coverage of the attractive and youthful Mrs.
Kennedy captivated American women, providing them with a coherent
role model of the ideal American woman. Audrey Hepburn, too, was a
fashion icon representing a dignied combination of assertiveness and
irtation. Like Jacqueline Kennedy she was always impeccably dressed
and groomed.
Compared to the 1950s, where entertaining for many Americans was
centered in the home, in the 1960s entertainment for the middle and
upper classes was more often outside the home and formal. Evening
clothing featured beads, glitter, deep dcollets, feathers and sumptuous
materials. Fantasy and outrageousness became associated with fashion.
Tommy Hilger says that the tradition bound adult world came to an
end in the 1960s. Designers stopped looking exclusively to Europe and
began to enlarge their scope, including more exotic parts of the world
like China, India, Thailand, Bangladesh, or Morocco, for ideas about
fabric and color. Hilger attributes this reorientation, at least in part, to
the excitement and inuence of the rock-and-roll culture ushered in by
the Beatles and followed up with by the arrival of the Rolling Stones,
Cream, and Led Zeppelin (1999: 12). At this time, Milbank states, the
relationship among fashion, status and celebrity grew so close they began
to merge (1989: 202). The emphasis in fashion magazines was no longer
on propriety but experimentation and being up-to-date. Once rock & roll
destroyed the fashion rulebook, it would never again be reassembled,
says Hilger (1999: 12). It was during this time after all that rock stars
replaced society matrons as fashion icons, argues Zukin (2004: 127).
Zukin explains that by the 1960s department stores became boring to
women who sought newer styles and a different kind of shopping experi-
ence. Referring to the culture at B. Altmans and other such stores Zukin
states, moderation and gentility became hopelessly old fashioned (2004:
120). Small boutiques, in New York on streets in the fties and sixties,
and in Greenwich Village, featured new styles before the next collections
were shown. Department stores such as Bergdorfs, in order to appeal to
the younger client, began to follow the boutique concept within its own
store (Milbank 1989: 206). A new emphasis on youth and freedom of
choice was in place (1989: 211). This can be seen in the lms and popular
music of the period, both of which inuenced fashion in its move away
from traditional propriety. Slimness is in fashion; curvaceous femininity
is out. Unstructured and brief bras and panties became the undergarments
of choice (Laver 2002: 261). Or, as Hilger puts it, Women took off
their bras and slips (1999:12).
The later part of the 1960s was a period in which the work ethic, gender
roles, and the overall value system began to be once again called into
question. It was at this time that casual sportswear became acceptable
all around attire for men and women. Before this time the boundaries
between formal clothing, work clothing, domestic clothing, and sporting
clothing were clear. Laver says that despite the much publicized sexual
revolution women often looked like children in baby-doll dresses with
puffed sleeves, schoolgirl pinafores and gymslips, knickerbockers and
the ubiquitous miniskirt (2002: 261). Some might see this as the fashion
establishments reaction against those on the outside who challenged
norms of gender or rejected fashion altogether.
The 1970s, the decade of the womens movement, introduced a differ-
ent set of factors to be contended with by the fashion industry. As more
women entered the work force they could not meet men on an equal foot-
ing, at least not apparently, were they to dress in typically feminine attire
associated with the private and not the public sphere. Career dressing for
women in the 1970s sought to minimize the maternal, nurturing, and
sexual dimensions of their appearance, argues Rubinstein (1995: 95).
The tailored blazer, adapted from menswear, is described by Milbank as
the single most important article of clothing in the decade. Calvin Klein
and Ralph Lauren, new stars on the ready-to-wear horizon, interpreted
menswear for women in different ways. Narrowness became the
ideal body type (Milbank 1989: 242). Ralph Lauren was the rst designer
to create a line for women consisting of items such as oxford button-
down shirts, gray annel skirts, and navy blue blazers. High-end mens
specialty stores such as Brooks Brothers and Paul Stuart followed suit
(Trachtenberg 1988: 6). Rubinstein notes various periods in history from
the fteenth century on when women adopted elements of male dress
in the wardrobe. She connects this to seduction. Sexual allure is created
by incorporation of the unexpected or forbidden (1995: 106-109). In the
career arena such dressing appears an attempt to co-opt male symbols
of power, authority, and prestige; it replaces female symbols and their
connotations with attributes suitable for the workplace. Chanels copying
of the simpler styles more appropriate to the domestic staff than the lady
of the house, for whom her fashions were intended, is another example
of creating an impression through a reversal of symbols.
The 1970 lm The Stepford Wives uses fashion to express the social
tension that challenges to gender norms had created. The women who
question the status quo are seen wearing more masculine tailored or
sometimes even boyish attire while the ideal women, transformed by
the men of Stepford into robots, don frilly pastel colored somewhat Victo-
rian inspired frocks which complement their enhanced sexy physique.
In the lms nale all the women of Stepford (many of whom had been
feminists and professionals) are seen in exaggeratedly feminine attire
contentedly parading through the supermarket lling their carts with
branded household products.
Outside of the ofce, more casual ready-to-wear and sportswear
dominated the womens market. Some women continued to wear mini
skirts, others adopted the midi, or maxi as it was sometimes called,
although more women rejected than accepted this style. Pants became
popular. Dress codes were considerably relaxed (Milbank 1989: 240). In
1969 Gap retail stores were founded in San Francisco. The Gap furnished
Americans and those around the world (female and male) with a casual
sportswear wardrobe: hooded sweatshirts, jeans, and cargo pants (Laver
2002: 285). As clothing became more casual and responsive to womens
needs versus the designers vision, Seventh Avenue began to concentrate
on image rather than the actual designs, says Milbank (1989: 242). This
is an important transition which allowed fashion, in effect, to remain in
control of its product, and the fashion designer to be a cultural arbiter.
In the 1970s and early 1980s the disco culture was to have an inuence
on fashion. Dancing at nightclubs under ashing strobe lights required
a new kind of apparel. Rubinstein explains that prior to this era retailers
only carried dressy clothes during their holiday season. With disco the
need for shiny, glittering, and beaded items became year around. A new
category of nightlife clothes emerged. The disco era introduced the
mainstream audience to the element of fantasy and the ability to adopt
a temporary identity (1995: 244). Designer jeans became the fashion
item of the late 1970s. Others sought authenticity and turned to ethnic
styles: Indian silk scarves, peasant skirts, caftans. We see during this
period a development that will continueniche markets.
Ready-to-wear fashion in the 1980s went in a new direction as com-
pared to the 1970sconspicuous consumption. Clothing tended to be
overdone and elaborate. However, another important inuence appeared
on the fashion scenethe new emphasis on physical tness. In the 1980s,
the decade of the tness craze, youthfulness and health became ideals
for the American woman. Exercise and dance attire found their way into
fashion in unitards, skintight leggings, and other body-conscious styles
(Rubinstein 1995: 101). Where Dior squeezed and padded women
into shape, this active sportswear required one to mould the body into
a desirable shape (Steele 2000: 19-20). Giorgio Armanis suits were
popular among professional women. They conveyed a powerful image,
as they had in menswear, although they were understated and not overly
structured or severe in their tailoring (White and Grifths 2000: 16).
Liz Claibornes career clothing reached a broader audience.
Couture fashion remained one of the many options, in this case, for
the decidedly few. Even though it had to compete with up-and-coming
ready-to-wear designers and continues to face challenges, Martin and
Harold Koda do not forecast haute coutures demise. Many have done
this at other points in time only to be proven wrong, they say. However,
they speak of couture as a torch in dim times and a representation of
our culture at its best; thus, signifying that todays focus goes in a dif-
ferent (and inferior) direction. But the coutures offering of distinction in
design and technique remains a compelling force, one even more potent
when much other quality has atrophied (1995: 13). Designer Emanuel
Ungaro states: Couture will always have allure and therefore interest
will not diminish. Out client list is growing constantly (Socha 1/20/04:
32). Couture is custom design, considered aesthetically to be of a higher
level. In the end, the appeal of haute couture is that it is only accessible
to the privileged few. This exclusivity has been embraced by ready-to-
wear designers who, perhaps one could say, along with the couturiers
have found a way to bottle this allure. While many designers aspire to
sell to a larger audience, they often present their clothing as select and
intended only for a special clientele. One technique, used at the retail
level, is to put only a few garments on the selling oor and to keep the
rest in a stockroom. Keeping up an exclusive line that is prominently
promoted while selling more moderately priced clothing is another way
of achieving exclusivity on a larger scale.
Designers Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren became more inuential in
the 1980s by contributing to a new American style in sportswear. While
Calvin Klein followed a modern, minimalist aesthetic by presenting
simple, pared-down clothing, Ralph Lauren favored a preppy-look based
on styles worn by the English aristocracy but with more air so as
to appeal to a modern mainstream consumer (Trachtenberg 1988: 28-
29). The two had in common an ability to market more generic product
lines to a mass audienceCalvin Klein jeans and underwear and Ralph
Lauren polo shirts and jeanswhile at the same time maintaining higher
priced, more fashionable lines. The early 1980s began the designer jeans
craze, Klein leading the way. Jordache jeans also reached out to a mass
audience seeking recognition via the white stitched horse head logo on
the back pocket.
The 1990s are difcult to characterize as there were many, often over-
lapping, trends. The 1990s are associated with muted colors and a casual
turn, with comfortable clothing becoming the norm. Casualization was
enhanced by Casual Fridays at work, a trend that carried over into other
days as well. The power suit would have been too stiff and formal, and
was often replaced with a softer jacket or a sweater set. This is connected
to a new emphasis on femininity, womanhood, andindeedmother-
hood which had been suppressed as women sought entry and acceptance
in areas that had been the preserve of males. The very unfeminine grun-
ge style, characterized by dark colors and a disheveled look, became
popular with some segments of the population in the early 1990sas
did retro, hippie-inspired fashions. Mod fashion came back into style in
the mid-1990s, and hip-hop was popular in the mainstream. From 1996
to the end of the nineties a bohemian look became the overriding trend
within womenswear at all market levels. It was based on mixing and
layering and combining garments such as shrunken cardigans and
dresses worn over trousers, clashing colours such as cerise and orange
and multitudinous forms of decoration including velvet trims, embroi-
dered motifs, mirror appliqus and minuscule oral or paisley prints
(Laver 2002: 289). In the later 1990s the preppy style was popular. In
the last few years of the 1990s up to present we can see a dramatic shift
in maternity clothing; a style Rubinstein calls the pregnant look. For
much of history pregnancy was hidden. Traditional clothing such as the
sari or caftan accommodated pregnancy, and was no doubt intended to
be responsive to such an eventuality. Rubinstein notes that after World
War II clothing emphasized womens procreative role by calling attention
to the abdomen and emphasizing the hips and breasts (Rubinstein 1995:
93). Maternity wear itself was discreet, the pregnancy de-emphasized or
hidden with specially tailored clothing. Women during pregnancy were
largely outside of fashion. Recently weve seen an emphasis in womens
clothing on the hips and abdomenlow rise pants, halter tops, and even
rings and jewels for the navel. Maternity clothing, for the rst time,
emphasizes the pregnancy with fashion that calls attention to or even
reveals the abdomen. Gwyneth Paltrow, for instance, was pictured on W
magazine in the last weeks of her pregnancy wearing a rolled up T-shirt
and a skirt worn below her belly to reveal the pregnancy entirely. In the
picture accompanying the article Paltrow is shown wearing low-rise, tight
jeans and pulling her shirt up just below her breast. Heidi Klum, host
of the reality show Project Runway, can be seen wearing tight tting,
provocative clothing and high heels well into her pregnancy.
Perhaps we can expect the trends in the 2000s to have less coherence
than the previous decade. The boho or boho-chic look, which was
popular from 2003 to about 2005, drew from bohemian and hippie inu-
ences often combining new and vintage pieces. Skirts were longer and
owingtiered and peasant skirtsand clothing was embellished with
beads, sequins, and trimmings. A web-posting for teens under Fall and
Winter 2004-2005 fashions reads: The fashion mood is mix-and-match
with girly looks such as rufes, embroidery, fringe, sparkles, creative
colors, playful patterns. This is a departure from hard-core sex appeal
from seasons past. Satin is not just for evenings anymore bring it into
the light during the day by pairing a satin camisole with a tted jacket or
wear a satin skirt with a knitted cardigan (contentmart.com 2005). Cloth-
ing began to take more inspiration from the 1950s than from the 1970s.
Womens Wear Daily reports in Spring 2004 that retail sales have been
very strong thanks to the interest that the new colorful feminine styles
have generated. Consumer demand is being fueled by fashions that are
some of the most ladylike and colorful in years, retailers said. Pinks, in
particular, but also yellows, greens and oranges, are popular across the
country, and short tweed jackets, irty shirts and pretty cocktail dresses
are being scooped up by consumers from Boston to L.A. The senior vice
president of merchandising at Lord and Taylor concurs: Grosgrain trim
or frayed edges have been strong, and all skirts, especially irty skirts
with tiers, rufes and pleats, are doing well, she said, as have sweaters
with bows. Pink is the strongest color, in all shades from pale to fuchsia,
and green is second (Womens Wear Daily 3/22/04: 1). Stores report
increased interest in designer fashions. Designer sales at Bloomingdales
are strong with Chanels sales doubling, for instance. The fashion trend
website fashion-era.com sums up the latest trends very well:
For Autumn Winter 2006, the key fashion trends hinge on designers moving away
from the ultra feminine looks of recent seasons. Their Autumn 2006 range incorpo-
rates the C21st layered look, where different textures and a more somber palette play
against each other. This is combined with interesting manipulation of shapes. The
new volume is dramatic, often shocking in its surprise (Thomas).
Editor-in-chief of Allure magazine, Linda Wells, says that for the past
ve years, Fashion was aimed at making women look more glamorous
and sultry, with curvy suits, high-heel shoes, and sophisticated accesso-
ries. Designers talked about celebrating feminine power and sexiness.
As she sees it, we are in the midst of a counter-wave at the beginning
of 2007. She speaks of styles designed for little girls with big budgets
or big sugar daddies. Everywhere I look she says, otherwise grown
women are acting and dressing like adolescents. They are stuck in cutesy,
wearing baby-doll dresses, Peter Pan collars, Mary Janes and makeup
in jelly bean colors. Perhaps this is our cultures obsession with youth
run amok, she concludes (2007: 26). Some pages later we see lucite
shoes with an assurance that they are no longer just for strippers. A
recent Neiman Marcus catalogue featured Hello Kitty jewelry with real
diamonds and sapphires. Jon Stewart joked on The Daily Show that men
who buy such jewelry must wish the recipient really were a Japanese
teenager. Michel Houellebecq in a novel about cloning connects an ob-
session with youth in Western society with the end of human civilization
(2006: 29). Women begin to commit suicide at forty and almost none
wish to live beyond fty. Lolita magazine has a target readership start-
ing at ten, the main character in the novel is told, but it is expected that
women in their later twenties and beyond will nd it appealing. Obvi-
ously theres something ridiculous about a thirty-year-old woman buying
a magazine called Lolita; but no more so than her buying a clinging
top, or hot pants. His bet was that the feeling of ridiculousness, which
had been so strong with women, and Frenchwomen in particular, was
going to gradually disappear and be replaced by pure fascination with
limitless youth.
Fashion, it must be said, provides a wealth of choices to women. Re-
tailers such as Talbots or Ann Taylor provide conservative styles, and
most designers feature a variety of styles for women knowing that buyers
will cull their offerings for clothing that can be worn by average women.
Fashionable clothing can be found at every price point and certain kinds
of clothing do not go out of fashion and can be updated. Trends can be
ignored and are by many stylish women. Teri Agins in an interview on
NPR explains the premise of her book; By the end of fashion, I meant
that all the old rules, that clothes were supposed to go out of style, the
planned obsolescence, that people were supposed to buy, the middle-
class people would have to wait for the trends to trickle down, I mean,
all thats over now. You can go to H&M and stores like Target and, you
know, fashion is now affordable and available to everybody, all at the
same time (2006).
Mens Ready-to-Wear Fashion
Mens fashion has its own history. Many books on fashion leave out
mens fashion altogether, seeing fashion as synonymous with womens-
wear. Often when fashion is mentioned, womens fashion is implied. Tim
Edwards states, changes and developments in mens costume and dress
are traditionally and historically slower and fewer than those related to
women (1997: 15). However, he points out that they are historically,
socially, and psychologically of no less importance. Masculinity has been
variously dened, and we see this reected in amboyant, aristocratic
costumes in seventeenth-century France and the somber, Puritan inu-
enced suit intended for commerce (1997: 16). There is, perhaps, some
truth to mens clothing being less linked to fashion and more bound
by traditionmore so in the realm of clothing than fashion. However,
when we see (recently on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art)
the banyan (an eighteenth-century garment worn by men in the home)
in rose colored, luminescent, faille material with multicolored silk oral
brocade, we most certainly see fashion. If we look toward Hollywood
today or at its dawn, at performers, in the streets at men in oversized
jeans or golf wear, or amongst powerful men in politics and industry we
nd fashion.
Throughout history clothes have marked a distinction between the
sexes. Barbara A. Schreier points out that the early nineteenth-century
dandy and its antithesis, the 1950s beatnik, are both representations of
a masculine ideal connected to a particular cultural period (1989: 2).
Although women have at times adopted what has come to be known as
masculine clothing features and stylesstrong square shoulders, nar-
rower hips, t-shirts, and trousersmen have never done so in respect to
their own attire (1989: 9). Of course, denitions of masculinity change
so that the eighteenth-century Frenchman lounging in a pink robe with
oral designs and a black bow in his long hair would not be thought of
today as wearing masculine attire.
Due to the different requirements posed by mens and womens cloth-
ing, two separate sectors have emerged: one that caters to womenswear
and one that caters to menswear.
This basic dichotomy permeates the very organization of the manufacturing processes;
it affects the strategies of individual companies and corporations; it marks the language
and imagery of advertising; it is intrinsic to many professional denitions, both new
and old. And it constitutes a foundation of the way in which the nal products are
presented in the marketplace (Balestri and Ricchetti 2000: 52).
Differences are considered so great that menswear and womenswear
are not only sold separately and shown separatelyin Italy, for instance,
menswear is presented in Florence and womenswear is presented in Mi-
lanbut they are manufactured separately. The wools, fabrics, prints, and
the manufacturing techniques are different just as are the appearances of
the nal products (2000: 55). Fashion designers today must elect to study
different curriculums depending on whether they choose to design mens
or womens fashion. Joseph Abboud, comparing the two industries says:
Womens wear drives the industry. Menswear isnt even a close second.
Menswear, he says, is less competitive and less interesting, largely
because men are less interested in it (2004: 176-177). Abboud further
states the distinctions, When you design both mens and womens youre
dealing with two thought processes, two messages, different channels of
distribution, different buyers, and different management; each collection
should stand on its own (2004: 178).
The main divisions in menswear are formal attire or tailored clothing,
which is the foundation of the mens ready-to-wear garment industry,
and sportswear. The manufacturing process for menswear is long and
complex according to Andrea Balestri and Marco Ricchetti. The Mens
sizing system is far more complex than the womens, including height,
conguration, and drop. The sewing process follows, to some extent, the
custom-sewn model; this slows the manufacturing process considerably.
This translates into a higher sales volume in womens clothes (2000: 56-
57). The labor intense nature of the work tends to make manufacturing
more concentrated and less amendable to exible production schemes
(2000: 58). Abboud describes that there are more than two hundred
steps in making a suit. A cheaper factory might do it in eighty steps
(2004: 4). A growing demand for less tailored clothes, the acceptability
of sportswear, and the casualization of the workplace in the mid-1990s
made inroads into bringing the mens and womenswear market closer
together (Balestri and Ricchetti 2000: 61).
In the interplanetary travels of Antoine de Saint-Exuprys Petit
Prince, the boy encounters a king whose magnicent, royal purple, ermine
robe covers the entire small planet he rules (1971: 41). Prior to and for
the larger portion of the eighteenth century, Harry A. Cobrin says mens
clothing was not worn merely for utilitarian purposes, but also for the
purpose of parading wealth or social status (1970: 14). From the eigh-
teenth century onwards tailoring, not brilliance of color and ornamenta-
tion, became the means of distinction. Highly skilled tailors were required
to properly cut and shape the lavishly embroidered, embellished, and
highly ornamental coats, vests, and knee breeches that men wore in
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Cobrin notes that only men
with substantial incomes could possibly afford such clothes (1970: 13-
14). Eventually more and more emphasis was placed on workmanship.
In formal wear today Edwards speaks of a minutiae of details that
separate men of higher status and style. Although contemporary mens
clothing tends to be associated with utility opposed to decoration, when
one looks closely this is not entirely the case (1997: 16). Take, for ex-
ample, the necktie. George W. Bush and John Kerry both buy their ties
from Vineyard Vinesa once small, exclusive New England tie maker
that has expanded into other lines and locals. Ties produced by this es-
tablishment often feature vibrant colors and patterns; if one looks closely,
they are often whimsical. Kerry, who sometimes shops at the Nantucket
store, had a custom made tie which at rst glance looks like many other
ties but on closer inspection one can see small donkeys. For the 2004
campaigns, Bush had a custom tie made with a letter W design and
Kerry wore a JK04 tie with ags, according to company representative.
Not only do these ties convey a hidden symbolic meaning to those who
venture to look more deeply, but they can convey an overall message of
cultural capitalof participating in an upper-class lifestyle.
England became a trendsetter for male attire. In the early nineteenth
century, Crane points out, the style of the English dandy Beau Brum-
mell (George Ryan Brummel) was followed by the British aristocracy;
shortly thereafter it would be copied by men all over Europe (2000: 28).
Brummel and the Prince of Wales became inseparable companions and
through this association his inuence extended to London society. The
rigours that he imposed upon the English gentlemans dressing habits
set the seal of supremacy of English tailoring and the method whereby
styles evolved depending on individual habits and taste and is a tribute
to the rapport between the Englishman and his tailor, which still holds
good today (Waddell 2004: 65). Men in the U.S. and other parts of the
world also adopted this sensibility which was perfected by Savile Row
tailors. A dark colored coat and trousers cut from the same fabric became
the norm (Lehmann 2000: 25). Crane describes this transition in middle-
and upper-class male attire as a switch from luxury and ostentation to
deliberate asceticism (Crane 2000: 28). Women have always remained,
to some extent, objects of display (mirroring their social roles) while
males have undergone what Flugel (1930/1976) terms the great male
renunciation. Perusing the offerings at Abercrombie and Fitch today we
might nd that while mens sportswear is generally serious, purposeful,
and modeled on actual athletic wear, womens sportswear is often cute,
whimsical, and sexyhardly suited for real physical activity.
Valerie Steele asks, Why did men abandon their splendid costumes
in favor of a plain dark uniform? (1989: 16). The long, owing robe had
been the upper-class male costume in Classical Greece, Rome, Medieval
Europe, and in China (1989: 13). And, she notes, As late as the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries, men often wore silk stockings, cosmet-
ics, long curled and perfumed hair, virtually everything except perhaps
luxurious underwear (1989: 15). The seventeenth century suit was a
highly ornate outt often decorated amply with ribbon and worn with
a powdered wig. Rich colors, such as purple, were preferred. In contrast,
it should be noted, the working-class man wore a coarse, worsted suit or
cotton outt often without decoration (Edwards 1997: 18). But it was
only the well-to-do who participated in fashion at this point.
Flugel (1930/1976) explains that the shift away from decoration that
occurred at the end of the eighteenth century, and alongside the French
Revolution and industrialization, had to do with exchanging beauty for
purpose. Ted Polhemus adds another cause to the explanation: the Age
of Imperialism. European men wished to display their presumed supe-
riority in a rational and civilized appearance, quite unlike that of
the non-European male (2000: 46).
Steele says that costume historians now believe the dark suit began
to be favored before the French and American Revolutions, and before
high capitalism. In the eighteenth century, she argues, English men and
American men began to reject French mens clothing as effeminate
and corrupt in that it was based on the aristocratic style. The idea
that one was a gentlemen by birth was rejected; the new idea was that
one could achieve distinction by adopting proper behavior and attire
(1989: 16).
Iris Brooke and James Laver present a different argument in their his-
tory of English costume. They seem to attribute the more casual nature
of the Englishmans clothes to his lifestyle. They state, The English
gentleman with his country habits, wore by preference, clothes much
less gaudy than those of his French counterpart (2000: 162). In 1760,
they note, costume becoming simpler due to the accession of George III
whose court did not practice extravagance in dress. The English were
also inuenced by the pseudo-pastoral turn that incorporated country
elements into fashion which took place under the inuence of Marie
Antoinette. This trend, occurring in about 1780, was described as a wave
of simplicity and not the real simplicity of the time of the Revolution
(2000: 154). Ulrich Lehmann also attributes the shift in mens fashion
to the French Revolution (2000: 309).
Cobrin says that as early as 1640, with the Puritan Revolution in
England, The sober broadcloth suits worn by the Puritans became the
insignia of an active and serious minded business man. He goes on to
say quite persuasively, Obviously, an enterprising executive intent upon
his work, could scarcely enter his place of business, be it a retail store,
counting house, or professional ofce, arrayed with a plume in his hat,
wearing a jacket made of a fragile silk, sleeves edged with lace cuffs, and
an ornamental sword at his side (1970: 15). Quite unlike the develop-
ment of womens clothes, we can see that mens clothing is connected
to the work place and to his role as provider.
In both France and the U.S., ready-to-wear garments fullled a civiliz-
ing or assimilation agenda, argues Green (1997: 25). Once a variety of
clothing could be made for all people, thoughts of those in positions of
authority turned to the appropriate uses of attire. In the late nineteenth
century, ready-to-wear mens clothes were spoken of in moral termsto
civilize or reform the masses who did not possess the gentlemans
qualities (1997: 77). Richard Wrigley in a book on dress after the French
Revolution looks at how clothing as a social indicator also became a
political one. Items of dress such as the cockade, liberty cap, or sans-
culotte costume were a form of public assertion of varieties of adherence
to revolutionary beliefs and patriotic ideals (2002: 7). The French citizen
could not be indifferent to attire as mode of dress was a declaration of
support or opposition to the political regime and consequences were
attached to this choice. Around the time of the French Revolution, em-
broidery on mens coats that could take months or even years of work
had been abandoned. Embroidery was now limited to the edges, the
pockets, and the buttonholes of the garment (Crane 2000: 154). Costume
historian Norah Waugh and costume designer David Walker say that real
tailoring did not start until the end of the eighteenth century, before this
mens clothes had a distinctly dressmaker quality (Waddell 2004: 61).
Brooke and Laver contend that masculine attire in the beginning of the
1790s marked the victory of English modes over French ones, and the
beginning of a domination which they have maintained ever since. The
double-breasted riding coat was adapted with its two rows of buttons,
and tailors began to cut the front of the jacket leaving the back longer
(2000: 160). By the 1800s, mens coats resembled what today would be
considered formal wear. The cravat, which had been made of lace and
was twisted around the neck and knotted up front resembling what was
to become the tie, had shrunk to the proportions of the modern bow
tie (2000: 174). By 1820, trousers became universal (2000: 190). In
1840, mens clothes had not yet abandoned all color in deference to the
growing fashion for black (2000: 206). Between 1860 and 1865, male
attire became more sombre, however, trousers continued to be worn
in a variety of patterns (2000: 224). The year 1870 is described as a year
in which a new informality appeared in mens dress. The sack coat was
widely worn although trousers were still made of decorative material
(2000: 230). It was in 1880 that mens dress, according to Brook and
Laver, assumed its modern hue and cut (2000: 238). Cobrin quotes a
monthly magazine in 1860, the Mirror of Fashion, as saying that it is
now regarded as being in good taste to wear a vest and pantaloons of
the same material (1970: 28). At the turn of the nineteenth century, the
short, wide shouldered sack coat was worn but the frock coat maintained
its special niche as a symbol of afuence and social status. Photographs
of the day showed that men of prominence, and most public ofcials,
wore, as a rule, the regular frock coat with striped trousers plus a fancy
silk vest, or a white vest, or at least a vest edged with white piping. The
sack coat was more practical for business wear and soon even the afu-
ent man abandoned the frock coat ensemble for the more sensible suit
consisting of matching coat, vest, and pants. Of these suits, 70 percent
were made in blue serge (1970: 158-159). The clothing of individual men
became more alike in its overall appearance than different, even across
class lines. For women being different, or a dissimilarity in attire within
a general fashion, remained a dening factor of womens apparel.
Mens fashion in clothing has a unique history in the U.S. After the
American Revolution many of the wealthy merchants returned to Britain
or left for Canada or other British colonies. As the revolution was not
only political but also social, argues Cobrin, fashions in mens apparel
were profoundly effected. Those men who formerly had followed Eu-
ropean fashions were compelled to adopt a simple look: Foreign cos-
tume ornaments on clothes were now omitted, and articles of domestic
manufacture were favored. Cloth woven in the U.S. was preferred, and
imported fabrics were out of favor (1970: 16).
In the U.S., Green explains that the Civil War gave the real push
to ready-to-wear mens clothing. There was a tremendous demand for
uniforms and industry showed itself that it could rise to the occasion.
The settlement and expansion of the West further supported this type of
clothing (1997: 45). An inux of single men, without family to provide
for them, needed to purchase clothing. There was also a growing need
for clothing of a better quality and for clothing that would provide a
fashionable aspect to mens attire in the U.S. Cobrin says that with the
development of cities and the growing importance of the business class,
numerically and socially it was the business and professional classes
that became social arbiters of proper dress (Cobrin 1970: 16-17).
During the last decades of the eighteenth century, as industry grew
there was a need to clothe the men who held the newly created occupa-
tions. Tailors who catered to wealthy men could not readily produce
garments styled for this large urban population (1970: 17). At the end
of the eighteenth century, custom tailors in the Eastern Seaboard cities
began to alter their practices and make ready-made clothing, as well as
taking custom orders. Garments were cut in the store and then contracted
out to tailors who now sewed at home (1970: 19). Those who dealt in
ready-made clothes became known as clothiers while the term tai-
lor was reserved for those who sewed clothes for men (1970: 18-19).
Clothing stores, formerly slop shops, that provided city clothing to
sailors now produced higher quality and higher priced clothing for the
white collar class. These stores could be found in New York, Boston,
Philadelphia, and Baltimore in the beginning of the nineteenth century
(1970: 19-20).
The slop shop retailers, used to aggressive selling methods, forged
ahead quickly as the leading retail clothing merchants in their respective
localities (1970: 20). Cobrin describes the majority of ready-made cloth-
ing retailers as small, poorly lit, shacklike stores; they were dismal
and unsightly. In 1825 Thomas Whitmarsh in Boston, however, boasted
of a stock of 5,000 to 10,000 fashionable ready made garments (1970:
20). Selling methods and display were to rapidly improve. Slop shop
owner John Simmons became the most prominent clothing retailer of his
time. His nephew, George W. Simmons, continued to run the business
and modernized the store to include the window display of suits. The
store, called Oak Hall, become the mark of a high class store. He
was followed by others such as John Wanamaker, who opened a store
in Philadelphia in 1861 and also called it Oak Hall, and Colonel Joseph
Bennet, who established Tower Hall in Philadelphia in 1854. Simmons
used newspaper advertising and other innovative means, such as balloons,
to announce sales (Cobrin 1970: 22-23).
Menswear was much more amenable to standardization than womens
and this inuenced its rapid development. Gavin Waddell states, The
principle of the pre-formed, interlining body shapes as practised by the
bespoke tailor has been copied and reinvented by the ready-to-wear and
mass production manufacturers (2004: 68). Green mentions another
factor that favors mass production and therefore uniformity in mens
wear: it is less seasonally inuenced than womens clothing (1997: 140).
Mens involvement in industry and worldly pursuits and mens identica-
tion with rational, bureaucratic principles made it acceptable for him to
wear the suit. The acceptance of this as an appropriate masculine iden-
tity trickled down to all classes of men and became an ideal. However,
Edwards demonstrates that mens renunciation of decoration was not
complete: Whatever apparent uniformity existed in the development of
the modern suit was soon undermined and essentially conned to City
commerce, though even this was livened up with the use of pinstripes.
During nonworking hours there were double-breasted suits, navel jackets,
sports jackets, velvet smoking jackets often in deep crimson or emerald
green, tweed walking suits, Norfolk hunting jackets, and seaside stripes,
says Edwards (1997: 19).
Brooks Brothers, founded in 1818 by Henry Brooks, is the oldest re-
tailer in the U.S. Once a manufacturer of clothing for seamen in New Bed-
ford, Massachusetts, it has been described as setting the fashion agenda
on Wall Street for decades with button down dress shirts and boxy suits
(Agins and Galloni 2003: B1). Jeannette Jarnow and Miriam Guerreiro
explain that men have been conditioned to gravitate to established brands
that are consistent in quality, t, and durability rather than style alone.
Some of the brand names established at the beginning of the twentieth
century, or earlier, are still prominent today (Brooks Brothers, Hickey
Freeman, Arrow, Hartmarx) (1991: 221). Like many other prestige
stores, Brooks Brothers relocated several times from lower-downtown
to midtown. In 1915 they moved to their present location on Madison
Avenue and Forty-fourth Street (Cobrin 1970: 24). Brooks Brothers also
has a store on Fifth Avenue which caters to a more youthful clientele
and women, and has also opened a large store on Rodeo Drive in Bev-
erly Hills, California (the former Tommy Hilger space). By 1840, says
Cobrin, the rst steps in establishing the clothing industry as we know
it today, already had been taken. Ready-made garments were accepted
by the consumer. Stylish clothing was offered in the attractive retail
stores that were opening in many cities.... New rms were entering the
industry, and the channels of distinction were steadily extending to all
of the rapidly settled areas of the country (1970: 24).
Between 1825-1830, the use of the sewing machine and the domes-
tic availability of worsted and wool fabrics allowed the mens clothing
industry to grow rapidly. By 1835, New York was the nations leader in
ready-made clothing. It was not until the Civil War though that a stan-
dardized system of sizing would be established (1970: 25-26).
The traditional craft of tailoring involved the making of an entire gar-
ment by one individual (Costantino 1997: 22). Cobrin explains that tailor-
ing was highly skilled work requiring a long apprenticeship. Cutting and
designing were the most complex aspects while sewing vests and pants
could be done by less skilled workers; often these were women and new,
unskilled immigrants (1970: 60-61). With a subdivision of operations,
experienced craftspersons were no longer needed and wages declined
(1970: 73). Labor conditions in the factories in the late 1880s seemed to
be uniformly poor. An inspection in New York revealed the following:
The workshops occupied by these contracting manufacturers of clothing, or sweat-
ers as they are commonly called, are foul in the extreme. Noxious gases emanate
from all corners. The buildings are ill smelling from cellar to garret. The water-closets
are used alike by males and female, and usually stand in the room where the work is
done. The people are huddled together too close for comfort, even if all other condi-
tions were excellent. And when this state of affairs is taken into consideration, with
the painfully long hours of toil which the poverty-stricken victims of the contractors
must endure, it seems wonderful that there exists a human being that could stand it
for a month and live. We are not describing one or two places, for there is hardly an
exception in this class of manufactories in all New York (1970: 67).
Hours worked were no less than ten, and sometimes as much as eigh-
teen hours per day (1970: 69). Tenement shops were places several
families lived and worked in using their own sewing machines. The work
table served as dining table, and people slept on the oors on straw beds
(1970: 68). In some places seats were rented for those who wanted
to work but had no place of their own (1970: 68-69). At the end of the
nineteenth century, the manufacture of mens clothing had moved out of
the Garment Center and was dispersed in other areas of New York City,
Chicago, Rochester, and elsewhere, says Dolkart (1998: 39).
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the short jacket and straight
cut waistless sack suit featured small lapels and four buttons. By 1910
it became more tapered at the waist and was worn with narrow cuffed
trousers. The ideal body type had become slim and athletic (Costantino
1997: 24). In the 1920s, neckties with geometric patterns or stripes were
worn with tie pins. The black bowler hat replaced the more elaborate
top hat. Kidwell points out that in 1923 Mens Wear reports English
tailors were cutting suits broad at the shoulder, dened at the waist, and
straight at the bottom. By 1926, they note, the ideal masculine form was
represented by the upside-down triangle (1989: 132).
The 1920s were characterized by a softer, more relaxed look and by
colorful cheeks and stripes. Knickerbockers or knickers, short pants cut
several inches below the knee, were worn for casual occasions such as
playing golf. In 1925, wide legged Oxford bags became stylish. This
style originated amongst Oxford students who wore the pants over their
knickers while in school. Like dress reformers who for sociopolitical or
health reasons tried to alter menswear, Oxford and Cambridge students
challenged the practice of changing clothes several times during the
course of the day (Costantino 1997: 36). Tweed and annel were popular
fabrics. Gray was the most popular color in mens clothes at this time
(Costantino 1997: 44).
Jazz had an inuence on some men in the 1920s. Suits were tightly
tted, jackets long and tight waisted with long black vents. Trousers were
tight and skinny (Nolan). The 1930s jazz scene would produce another
type of suit, the zoot suit. After the great Wall Street crash of October
24, 1929, many men were out of work and wardrobe was not a priority.
Carol Nolan states that, The Edwardian tradition of successive clothing
changes nally ended. This 1930s style was to exert a lasting inuence
on mens fashion. Styles continued to emanate from England. The Prince
of Wales was a major innovator, introducing the double-breasted dinner
jacket, the larger knotted necktie accompanied by a wider-set atter collar,
vests, and the use of plaids (Milbank 1989: 115). Broad shoulders were
the norm in mens suits (Kidwell 1989: 135). By 1938, explains Kidwell,
This athletic ideal, personied by movie stars such as Errol Flynn,
Clark Gable, and Cary Grant, was accepted by even the conservative
individual as the way a man should look whether he was naturally built
that way or not (1989: 136). Wide, square shoulders and a narrowing at
the waist created the broad shouldered, large torso look. The Hollywood
lm industry proved to be a great inuence on mens fashion, as it was
with womens. The gangster suit with its wider stripes, pronounced
shoulders, narrower waists, bolder plaids, and wider trouser bottoms was
favored by some men. This style became known as the broadway suit.
A summer suit, the Palm Beach, was a single- or double-breasted suit
made of cotton seersucker, silk shantung, or linen. It became a popular
suit in the summer on Wall Street and elsewhere (Nolan).
The Mens Dress Reform was founded in 1929 in response to a per-
ceived dullness in male attire. The suit and tie were considered stiff, overly
formal, and uncomfortable. Although the men questioned the normality
of mens dress they were unable to offer alternatives that enough men
found acceptable. Edwards points out that Hollywood glamorized the
suit. It was not until the youth culture of the1960s that suits were seen
as stuffy and conservative and for older men (1997: 20).
Malossi proposes that cracks in the shell of masculinity began
to appear in the 1940s shortly after the Second War. The virile and
independent mans man was virtually unchallenged through the
Fifties and Sixties. He continues: The decade of the Seventies prom-
ised the promise for a redenition of genders; it was rejected. The return
to normalcy in the Eighties concealed in the shadows the wrinkles and
other signs of decline long evident on the hard boiled physiognomy of
masculinity (2000: 27).
Fashion was curtailed in the 1940s due to directives of the U.S. Gov-
ernment War Production Board. Shortages of material necessitated that
mens clothing be made with a minimum of fabric. Vests, pocket aps,
and pleated and cuffed trousers were not produced. A reaction against
this was the zoot suit which began in the 1930s Harlem jazz culture
(Nolan). Its drape shape made it look a few sizes larger than its wearer.
The boldly patterned jacket hung low, almost to the knee, and the pants
were high-waisted and baggy (Rubinstein 1995: 200). This suit was
considered contraband during the war, but some men wore it to make
a statement. After the war, full cut, long clothing was favored by men
just as it was by women. In the late 1940s, some men wore casual shirts
with Hawaiian or other colorful prints. First appearing on the California
and Florida beaches in 1946 and 1947, soon men on the streets of New
York could be seen in such shirts without jackets (Nolan).
Even though a certain relaxation had begun, Steele contends that up
until the 1950s mens clothes remained relatively staid with little room
for individuality (Steele 2000: 10). Not only businessmen but students
and avant-garde artists wore suits in the 1950s (Crane 2000: 175). Mens
clothes remained more connected to the occupational sphere (2000: 175).
Thomas Frank says that Through the fties, the menswear industry
experienced a very real lack of movement. Business men were almost
universally expected to wear the traditional American sack three-button
suit with a white shirt and tie. There was, however, experimentation
in sportswear (1997: 188). Laver points to fashion in suits at a time in
which many would argue that it was nonexistent. Tailored Italian clothing
became popular from the mid-1950s on. Suits were imported and Ameri-
can tailors advertised their versions of these short-cut, single-breasted
suits with tapered trousers made in the Italian style. These suits were
worn with thin ties and pointed shoes, says Laver (2002: 260). Holly-
wood lms ushered in a casualization of young mens clothing. Before
this, young men wore the same clothes as older men. James Dean and
Marlon Brando popularized jeans and the motor bike jacket and also
transformed the T-shirt into a fashionable item of clothing. There was a
vogue for sideburns and greased hairstyles (Laver 2002: 260).
London youth cultures style for men in the early 1960s was color-
ful, modish, and body conscious (Steele 2000: 10). Laver explains that
American men were much more conservative and could be found wearing
a combination of Ivy-League style tapered trousers and three-button
single-breasted jacket. By the mid-1960s, says Laver, some conces-
sions to the new trends were made (2002: 264). This new, bolder way
of dressing was adopted by some American men on certain occasions
who were particularly interested in fashion.
Michael Gross argues there were two kinds of menswear in the early
1960s in New York: Broadway and Traditional. Broadway was the style
of strivers and immigrants, salesmen, pimps, [and] sports stars. It was
shiny suits and sharkskin. Traditional fashion was sold on Madison
Avenue for those who had long ago arrived. It was Ivy League, White
Anglo-Saxon Protestant preppy (2003: 83). From this description we
get an indication of how men who were fashion conscious were divided
along class lines.
Hilger sums up mens fashion in the 1960s by saying men grew
their hair long and began to wear more expensive clothing (1999: 12).
The mod look with its wild colors and bold patterns was an English
look that didnt sell well to American youth, says Trachtenberg. Ralph
Lauren, working as a tie salesman in the 1960s, took some aspects of
this look and inspiration from the wide European ties he saw in the tailor
Roland Meledandris establishment and made it his own (1988: 37). After
meeting a series of people who rejected his revisionary ideas for ties, he
was hired by Ned Brower, president of a conservative neckwear company
called Beau Brummel. Brower recognized that the industry was changing
and that customers would want fresh, more exuberant clothes (1988:
44). Using expensive fabrics not before used for this purpose, Lauren
designed his four-and-a-half-inch ties; they were full bodied from the
neck rather than aring out gradually (1988: 46, 53). Robert L. Green,
the fashion editor at Playboy magazine, featured Laurens ties; by 1968
business exploded for Lauren and for major stores like Bloomingdales
that sold the $15 ties (Trachtenberg 1988: 54). That year Ralph Lauren,
tie maker, became Ralph Lauren, mens wear designer incorporating
Polo Fashions in New York (1988: 59). It was in February of 1968, Frank
says, that square middle America became hip almost overnight. Johnny
Carson wore a Nehru jacket designed by Oleg Cassini on the The Tonight
Show, and many American men followed his lead (1998: 191).
This was during a time when the necktie and, indeed, the suit became
associated with conservatism. Elvis Presley, for example, replaced the tie
with laces. Outside of the workplace and other areas that required a suit
and tie many men abandoned this outt. It would never disappear entirely,
and for many men it continued to be required and/or preferred attire.
By the later part of the 1960s more men, especially young men, were
wearing brightly colored clothing, hence the term the peacock revolu-
tion. Hilger attributes this new look to the bell-bottoms, exaggerated
shirts, jackets, and footwear rst worn by the Rolling Stones and other
British bands, later followed by American bands (1999: 12). Bell-bot-
tomed pants became fashionable in materials from denim to velvet.
Some men began wearing jewelry, some styles bold, others simple. GQ
magazine took up the cause of revolutionary fashion, as did the menswear
industry. By 1965 the magazine had generated a denitive vision of the
man at which it was aimed: the fashion consumer was to be a nonconform-
ing individualist, a creature of incessant excitement and change. An article
that appeared in February of that year featured a full-page illustration of
the famous man in the gray annel suit in his familiar dust-jacket pose
with an X drawn through him (Frank 1997: 189).
The suit was reformulated in the 1970s. Edwards describes the
variations: ared, tight tting, and wide-lapelled often in polyester
or velvet (1997: 21). In Italy, Giorgio Armani began to soften mens
clothes. Instead of stify tailored suits he designed deconstructed
jackets in cashmere and silk/wool blends. In addition to the traditional
masculine colors he introduced softer warmer shades like camel (Steele
2000: 16-17). Armani has been credited over the last three decades for
taking men away from big stiff shoulders, says Rozhon (2/24/04: C1).
Abboud describes the most beautiful sport coat hed ever seen. It was
a $150 jacket designed by Ralph Lauren who had started Polo Ralph
Lauren in 1967. It was gutsy, with very wide lapels and a ared bottom.
Very tted. The epitome of arrogance and 1960s good taste (2004: 91).
Abboud put it on a layaway plan at Louis Boston (2004: 92).
The look of Ralph Laurens Spring 1970 collection was reminiscent of
the 1930s and The Great Gatsby. The political statement he made was a
faith in society and respect for tradition, says Trachtenberg. His 1971
line is described as simplied soft suits, ties printed with partridges and
polo players, nautical cottons, plaid wool, gingham and tapestry print
shirts, and lots of red, white and blue (1988: 62). The New York Times
ran an Associated Press article in 1972 entitled Mens Fashion: A Return
to Elegance which declared that the peacock has tucked in its tail and
feathers Men were shocked, then excited and nally frustrated by
that ood of new ideas in the sixties and now something of a purge
is on. The cascading scarves are gone, and so are the trailing fringes,
enormous belts, electric colors and giant windowpane plaid suits. Mr.
Rubin of Landlubber is quoted as saying, Two years ago we couldnt
have given a blazer away. Now, he explains, blazers account for 75
percent of his outerwear sales. James K. Wilson, the president of Hart,
Schaffner & Marx says, The entire industry has come to realize that the
male customer doesnt want fashions that change so rapidly. He ends by
calling for evolution, not revolution (New York Times 2/5/72).
Sports have been one of the most important inuences on contem-
porary mens fashion. Masculinity, in the sense that it is associated with
strength, virility, and competitiveness, is synonymous with the athlete
(Schreier 1989: 92). Clothing that reects participation in sporting
activities made a smoother transition to menswear than it did to
womenswear. The new casualness of the 1960s and 1970s no doubt
set the stage for sportswear to be acceptable everyday attire for men
to wear. The late 1960s had ushered in the jeans and knits market,
heavily inuenced by the hippie movement (New York Times, 2/5/72).
Sportswear was reinterpreted in the 1970s. In the early 1970s Lauren
began using his polo player logo on Oxford cloth shirts (modeled on a
Brooks Brothers design), Shetland sweaters (modeled on British origi-
nals), and on the new Polo shirt (Gross 2003: 125). Abboud describes
this knit, logo shirt as one of the greatest marketing phenomena Ive
ever witnessed.... When it rst appeared, it had a limited color range and
was just another item in the line. But once it caught on, it hit like a title
wave (2004: 97). Oleg Cassini, Pierre Cardin, and Bill Blass were the
main designers of this period. All three men became household names
and became very wealthy through licensing. Cardin, a couturier, set up
operations throughout the world and in 1960 began licensing products.
Cassini, also a pioneer in licensing, would lend his name to a wide range
of products, as did Blass.
The late 1970s began what was known as the disco era. It began
within the gay subculture and moved out into the mainstream. Bell-bot-
toms could be seen in brightly colored polyester fabrics, as were tightly
tted shirts with wide collars; often these were worn with platform shoes.
Ironically, some women wore more traditionally masculine tailored cloth-
ing at this time. Of course, this disco inspired clothing was not suitable
as business wear and did not replace the more traditional suit, although,
it did have an impact on its style.
Jarnow and Guerreiro say that with the move of established designers
(such as Calvin Klein, Pierre Cardin, Yves Saint Laurent, Perry Ellis,
Christian Dior, and others) from womenswear to menswear beginning
in the late 1970s the menswear consumer began to become more fashion
conscious. Before this time many men made purchases only when they
needed to replace a worn out item (1991: 224). Blass is said by many
to have pioneered the distinctly American, high quality, yet casual look
in menswearsporty sophistication. In the late 1970s and early 1980s,
Calvin Klein introduced designer jeans at more moderate prices making
them accessible to a wider audience of both men and women.
Laver speaks of a move back toward a traditional look in the late
seventies and early eighties amongst men who followed fashion. Ralph
Lauren, Perry Ellis and later Calvin Klein created fashions which often em-
bodied the style of 1920s British aristocrats and American pioneers, a highly
successful formula which they have retained to the present day. During the
1980s even more designers who had previously designed only for women,
such as Thierry Mugler, Jean-Paul Gaultier, and Karl Lagerfeld, introduced
menswear lines (Laver 2002: 276, Jarnow and Guerreiro 1991: 224).
While feminism threatened to seriously undermine if not end the reign
of the suit, says Edwards, it returned in the 1980s with a vengeance
(1997: 21). Rubinstein would argue that there was little danger of that
happening. The 1980s, the years of the Reagan presidency, were a glo-
rication of capitalism, free markets, and nance and a celebration
of wealth (1995: 229). The Reagans knew well from their Hollywood
days how to manage their appearances. The public image they conveyed
would set an example for the American people. Ronald Reagan wore
formal morning attire to his inauguration, an Italian style jacket of black
barathea cloth. This can be contrasted with the vastly more democratic
style of Jimmy Carter at his inauguration in a $175 suit straight off the
rack (Manning 2001).
In the 1980s many American men began to favor Italian suits which
feature a more body-hugging silhouette. Jackets were more tted to the
body and pants more snug and narrower. Agins and Alessandra Galloni in
an article about Brooks Brothers (whose suits are referred to as impec-
cable in the Calvinist style by television actress Arlene Francis) state,
Once exposed to the continental lan of Giorgio Armani, Ermenegildo
Zegna and other Italian labels, American CEOs defected in droves (New
York Times 9/27/53; Agins and Galloni 2003: B1, B3). Michael Douglas in
the 1987 lm Wall Street personies the powerful executive male always
meticulously dressed in high-priced business attire.
Sean Nixon argues that during the mid-1980s in the U.K. a shift
occurred in the masculine script. A new sexualized representation
of the male body or as he calls it, a regime of representation, came
to the fore (1996: 3, 12). The new man is assertive and powerfulas
demonstrated by his physique and gesturesand he is narcissistically
absorbed (1996: 119, 121). For example, one commercial features a
young man who removes his white T-shirt (to reveal a rm, smooth
torso) and 501 Jeans at the launderette. He proceeds to wait in his
white boxer shorts for his clothes to go through the wash cycle (1996:
2). Perhaps this new sexualization of the male in the U.K. had its origins
in the U.S., particularly with Calvin Kleins underwear ads that began to
appear in 1982. Klein took a utilitarian product, often bought for men by
their mothers or wives, and turned it into an element of sexual appeal.
Mainstream Americans were not used to seeing a man in his underwear
posing provocativelycertainly not on billboards in New Yorks Times
Square.
Power, sexual appeal, and individuality were hallmarks of 1980s
style for men. Acid washed jeans were popular. More conservative
preppy styles were fashionable tooperhaps related to the direction
the Republican presidency had established. However, there was also the
relaxed Miami Vice look of a softly tailored dinner jacket over a white
or colored T-shirt worn with jeans and loafers without socks. For more
casual wear, men could be seen in leather bomber jackets and jeans.
For the rst time, in the 1980s creative black tie became acceptable for
formal occasions. The rethinking of formal wear, or rebellion against its
conservatism, can be attributed to celebrities who wore different versions
of the tuxedo on the Red Carpet for the Academy Awards or Oscars.
A variety of new styles were introduced such as fanciful waistcoats
and frock coats in fabrics like silk and velvet (oscar.com). With more
designers on the scene, and more interpretations available, men had far
more choices than they had in the past.
Designer fashions continued to be strong in the 1990s. It was also a
decade of casualization, with the more relaxed atmosphere of the work-
place leading the way. Stan Gellers says that suits went into early retire-
ment and sportswear went to the ofce (11/15/04: 24). Urban inspired
looks, such as Tommy Hilgers, became popularparticularly with a
young male clientele. For many men a sweatshirt and jeans became a
daily uniform; it was worn whenever and wherever it could be gotten
away with. Even Wall Street and the legal community went through a
laissez-faire period (Abboud 2004: 8-9). Many fashion commenta-
tors and designers have said that the casual look went too far becoming
downright sloppy, and, indeed, by the new millennium a dressier mens
sportswear became the style. Suzy Menkes, in reviewing the 1999 Prada
and Gucci mens shows, comments on Prada: strictly practical: ap
pockets, omnipresent zippers, tab fastenings and a military palette of
khaki, fawn, gold, ginger and brown. These clothes are not just sporty but
ergonomic, with a sense that form and function are inseparable. It can
be ultra-cool to be low key in Prada. Gucci emphasizes sensuality
over practicality. Each line is quintessentially 1990s, she says, in that
each piece has a distinctive character (Menkes 1999: 1). The emphasis
is on casual stylishnessa man can pull one piece out of the collection
and wear it with something he might already have. Some young men
wore the grunge look in the early 1990sa annel shirt or a T-shirt
featuring a favorite band.
The mens market is described in an article in the Daily News Record
as being depressed for the last few years. As of late 2003, though, it
has rebounded. The return of the suit, updated product offerings, new
brands, and a revival in the luxury product sector contributed to this
increased interest by men in fashionevidenced by strong retail sales
(Stewart 2/23/04: 81). There has been a return to dressing up in the
workplace. In general more men are dressing up, whether theyd prefer
to or not (2/23/04: 90). The vice chairman of Saks Inc. reports that suits
are coming back (2/23/04: 82); the executive vice president and general
merchandising manager of mens at Bloomingdales cites double digit
increases in suits and sport coats; the senior vice president and general
merchandising manager of mens at Federated Merchandising Group
says career categories have reached an historic strong point; and the
Mens Wearhouse, which has maintained about one quarter of the market
share in menswear, speaks of the increased popularity of suits since 2002.
Suits and sport coats are reported to be winning a newfound favor with
younger customers. Men who never wore suits see the suit as a new,
modern way of dressing (2/23/04: 90).
Gellers of the Daily News Record proclaims that in the twenty rst
century men are back in suits again. There is something new on the
horizon, however. Gellers calls it a softcoat, a new type of blazer,
which is close to the sports coat but less constricted and often in a gutsy
fabric like cotton moleskin, microsuede, corduroy or even wool. Made
by sportswear companies, these soft jackets are boxy enough to be
layered over a couple of shirts and a sweaterand worn with jeans
(3/15/04: 10). There are even suit separates in rugged unlined cotton or
denim (8/2/04: 17).
Beginning in Fall 2002 wovens (shirts that can be worn with a suit
or alone) were setting the pace in mens sportswear. Woven shirts in
colorful stripes and vibrant colors were the big sellers. Christopher Heyn,
president of Nauticas sportswear division, says guys are dressing up
more, and wovens dress up an outt more than a knit (Stewart 2/23/04:
90). Given a better retail climate, retailers are willing to take some risks
in silhouette, color and key items says the CEO of J.C. Penney. Brands
that didnt pay attention to newness (namely Nautica, DKNY, and Ken-
neth Cole) fell apart, says Bloomingdales executive vice president and
general merchandising manager of mens. Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren,
and Tommy Hilger are described as doing some exciting things that
have energized and spurred us on, says Heyn (2/23/04: 90). Custom-
ers are looking for newness, contends the executive vice president and
general merchandising manager of Stage Stores in Houston (2/23/04:
84). The Daily News Records September 2003 Hot Stuff List, based
on market research on the attitudes and behaviors of young consumers,
ranks the Tommy Hilger striped button-front shirt as number 4 stating,
For the past several years blue, button-front shirts from places like
Gap or Banana Republic were de rigueur for young men who worked in
an ofce. Now, vertical and diagonally striped shirts from Tommy are
threatening to replace the ubiquitous blue shirt (9/15/03: 6).
Some industry insiders have noted a desire on the consumers part to
return to older, classic styles. And, they seem to be willing to pay higher
prices for old-fashioned quality. The chief executive of J. Crew, Millard
S. Dexter, states: Clothes have gotten too young looking, too sloppy, too
weird. Theres been an over reliance on cheap clothes, and now weve
reached the tipping point. Retail analyst Richard E. Jaffe says, In the
60s and 70s, nobody wanted to be caught dead looking like the 50s.
Jan Rinzler Buckingham, the president of marketing research at Youth
Intelligence, attributes this to a tremendous appetite for authenticity
amongst young people (Rozhon and LaFerla 2003: C2). In response to
this, and to a downturn in sales for most retailers, companies such as
Brooks Brothers, Eddie Bauer, American Eagle Outtters, J. Crew, Paul
Stuart and Ferragamo are reintroducing exact replicas of past styles
(2003: C1-C2). This is perhaps nothing new. The 1982 Levi-Strauss
back to basics strategy, in which it resurrected its classic 501 jean,
was based on marketing research which uncovered a fascination, almost
a reverence, for a mythical America of the past (Nixon 1996: 117). The
successful campaign was a glamorization of 1950s style and an asser-
tive masculinity (1996: 119).
Retailers report revived interest in the luxury category in 2003. Senior
vice president and general merchandising manager of mens at Saks Fifth
Avenue says that his customer doesnt need another tie or suit, so its
all about lling want (Stewart 2/23/04: 82). Bloomingdales executive
vice president and general merchandising manager of mens says there
is a return to trading up: Canali, Armani, Abboud and Boss. Theyve
added more fashion and luxury goods in Polo Ralph Lauren and Joseph
Abboud, he states. Federated reports trading up from basics for its
customer. This is in response to improved sales in the luxury and the
low-end categories (2/23/04: 84).
Since 2003 most companies have adopted a situationally sensitive
dress code where all three different types of dress codetraditional,
general, and casualare used in different situations at the job. Often,
employees are expected to keep a quick change of formal business clothes
on hand for unexpected meetings, but they wear general business clothes
daily and business casual on Fridays (mensair.com).
The Daily News Record reports that in 2003 the mens industry has
gained momentum with the return of the suit, updated product offer-
ings, new brands, and color, color and more color on the selling oors
(Stewart 2/23/04: 81). European companies, such as Etro, Paul Smith,
and Moschino, began presenting colorful, stripped shirts in bright col-
ors (Gellers 3/29/04: 16). Tommy Hilger was among the American
designers who led the way with boldly and colorfully striped and pat-
terned woven shirts. Rozhon reports that these types of shirts can be
found anywhere from Bergdorfs to Wal-Mart. The fashion director at
Bergdorf Goodman comments, Men are feeling more adventurous, and
were seeing a trend toward patterned shirts. He adds that sales have
more than quadrupled. Some retailers have attributed the popularity
of these styles to Tommy Hilger, and a series of print and bus stop ads
featuring the shirts that appeared across the country. When someone
like Tommy comes out with such an advertising campaign, it puts the
product front and center, says the vice chairman of the dress shirts divi-
sion of Phillips-Van Heusen (11/13/03: C1). Agins reports that retailers
hope they can break men out of the polo-shirt drill with striped and
patterned shirts, the single biggest trend of the season (Agins 3/7/03:
W9). Writing in March 2004, Gellers says the last two or three seasons
in menswear have been about high visibility color. This, he says, was
in response to seeing nothing but black and earth-tone suits, dreary
shirts and dull ties for too long. Gellers says we have Hilger to
thank for popularizing shirts in living color (3/29/04: 16). The Daily
News Record reports in May 2004 that retailers have posted robust
apparel sales, attributing this to the more colorful fashions. Stage
Stores chairman, president, and chief executive, James Scarborough,
says: This year the name of the game is color. Our merchants did a
great job of adding bright and appealing colors to our merchandising
offerings, which created excitement in our stores for our customers
(Ross 5/21/04: 6). Gellers describes mens sports shirts at a show in
summer 2004, indicating that stripes are on their way out and multi-
patterned shirts are in:
Projects sport shirts took a different tack than The Collectives. Sure, there were the
expected intense, multicolored stripes, but there were also the shirts containing as
many as three different patterns: for the body, another for the cuff (inside or outside)
and a third pattern for the neckbank inside yoke. Then there were the embellished
shirts, both stripes and prints, with placed prints or embroideries. Third, spaghetti
Western shirts were everywhere, repeating all of the above (8/2/04: 17).
By 2005 the look became more subdued and brightly colored striped
shirts appeared too loud.
Gellers describes the new male consumer: a citied lifestyle, city
slicker, hip, Mr. X. This man is always 35or younger (11/15/04: 24;
8/2/04: 17). Years of casualization have made him appreciate comfort,
but he has a taste for luxury. Fall 2005 in-town garments combine the
best of both worlds, active and dressy ... there are cleaned up details,
slimmer silhouettes, technical fabrics and liners (11/15/04: 24). Mr. X
is described as a guy who loves to break the rules, he wrote the book
about wearing ultra-dressy, peak-lapel suits with jeanswith his shirt-
tails apping in the breeze. For the jeans price is no object if the t
and wash are right (8/2/04: 17).
Many men seem to indeed be tired of the same khaki pants and white
polo shirt (or T-shirt). Many of the hip-hop clothing purveyors have been
pairing sack-like blazers with untucked dress or sports shirts and baggy
pants; they have also been promoting over the top tailored suits. Lenny
Rothschild, who ran hip-hop apparel specialty chain The Lark, closed
the business and has replaced it with Essex 5, a store selling what he de-
scribes as prestige apparel to an audience over thirty. Gellers says that
original buying attitudes will dene 2006. Men, he says, are developing
a personal style; they are taking risks and enjoying it. Speaking of what he
calls the premium guy, he says that such a man blends lookspreppy,
urban, rock and roll and sartorical. Gellers says:
Hes preppy when it comes to three button blazers and buttondown collars. Urban
about his nylon performance parkas. Rock & roll about making the scene in graphic
print T-shirts and jeans. And he grabs one from column A and another from column
B He never buys a total look because hes the newest do-it-yourselfer (8/2/04: 17).
With the return of more dressy styles in the workplace, it seems styl-
ish sportswear offerings will continue at all price points. New and more
colorful fashion appeared to be a good way for designers and retailers
to get men into the stores and interested in shopping. Tommy Hilger
has shown himself to be an innovative and adventurous designer in this
dressier, more upscale trend, as he has in other trends in the past. He
has been a cultural arbiter and, indeed, a bold entrepreneur for a whole
generation of young (as well as not so young) men; he has extended
into other product lines too. As we have seen, many of the successful
menswear designers have broadened their scope and have become (or
are becoming) lifestyle entrepreneurs on a global scale.
The Observer Magazine (2005) reports a conservative turn in mens-
wear, with ghetto fabulous gear giving way to the grey chalkstripe
suit black-and-white striped shirt with stiff contrasting white collar, and
paisley tiewhich looks like it came out of a Ralph Lauren catalogue.
GQ fashion editor Dylan Jones says there has been a pendulum swing
from casualwear and sportswear to tailoring. Valentino, who always
embraced glamour and sophistication, is said to be enjoying a revival.
His spring/summer 2006 collection included white linen trousers, slick
tailoring, loafers, pastel colours and double-breasted blazers with silver
buttons (Howarth 2005). The Mensair website warns, Dont think
that casual means a slide in styleit doesnt. Casual allows a man
some alternatives and the chance to express himself with contrast-
ing checks and plaids in the seasons best colors, trendy and fun
ties, and artsy or original cufinks (mensair.com). For the man
truly dedicated to fashion, Men.style.com provides trend reports on styles
such as Corporate Killer or Glam Rockthe latter style inuenced by
the 1970s. The must-have item to get the look is a $1,365 Balenciaga
white dinner jacket that can be worn with a tank top and skinny trousers
(men.style.com). For everyday wear, men are advised to wear slim-
tting jeanswith a tapered leg vs. boot cutin a dark wash. Younger
men can be seen in vintage-inspired t-shirts sold at Urban Outtters or
the wearing the hip-hop style which continues to evolve.
Although theres certainly more interest in mens fashion, Abboud
tells us throughout his book that change happens at a snails pace, and
for many men shopping means replacing something that is worn out.
Every so often, he says, the DNR will run a cover asking whether the
three-button suit is dead. Abboud comments:
Two button or three button. Double-breasted or single-breasted. Spread collar versus
pointed collar. French cuff versus button cuff.
The range within which men panic is very small. Theyre so frightened by fashion
that they limit even the options they have (2004: 194).
Abboud, who worked many years as a salesman before becoming a de-
signer and starting his own company, settles on the best advice he thinks
he can give men when it comes to going shopping:
Take your wife...please. Men ought to have a mind of their own, but they dont. They
hate to shop, and who can blame them? Its very confusing out there, and the same
gene that makes men drive around the block fteen times because they wont ask for
directions makes them hesitant to ask for help from their best resource, a salesman.
So until you gather the nerve, take a woman (2004: 196).
It is doubtful that Abboud will succumb to the lasted trend slated for
spring 2007tailored suits with short pants. Michael Kors, Perry Ellis,
Calvin Klein, Giorgio Armani, and others have been showing this look
during New Yorks Fashion Week in September 2006. Menswear buyers
are skeptical. Saks Fifth Avenues mens fashion director, Michael Macko,
says he will be very selective about how he promotes the look. The
stores 100 page spring catalogue will feature two jacket-with shorts en-
sembles. Colby Williams at Neiman Marcus doubts hell show the look
at all. Most people in the streets of Dallas would be shocked if they saw
someone in shorts and a sport coat. David Wolfe of the Doneger Group
cant recall another menswear trend that was so widely embraced by
designers but seemed so commercially iffy. Theyre being serious, but
were all laughing (Smith 9/13/06: A1, A15).
The gene Abboud refers to, that keeps men on a conservative sarto-
rial path, has certainly been dormant at times in relation to fashion and
ornamentation. When, and if, mens gender roles change signicantly
we can expect to see important shifts in their relationship to clothing, to
their appearance, and self presentation. And designers, manufacturers,
and retailers will be only too eager to provide men with alternatives.
Fashion in the Global Economy
Fashion is essential to the formation of identity and the presentation of
self in everyday life and is an indicator of socioeconomic status, a cause
and consequence of changes in society, and a fundamental element of
culture. It should not be surprising, then, that business became involved
in the creation, manufacturing, and merchandising of ready-to-wear and
mass-produced fashion at all price points on a global scale.
Leslie Sklair situates the most important economic, political and
cultural-ideological goods in a global system rather than in the nation
states from which they emerge (1991: 6-7). The key institution in the
economic sphere, promoting the expansion of global capitalism, is the
transnational corporation (1991: 53). The capitalist class receives
support in attaining its goals from political and cultural-ideological
agents, says Sklair. The media, for example, reaches those with dispos-
able income everywhere helping to draw consumers into the system.
Sklair refers to global capitalism as the motor, the culture-ideology of
consumerism as its fuel; and the driver, the transnational capitalist
class (1991: 42). In this scheme the pedestrian, and perhaps victim, is
the developing world which does not benet as much as it is exploited
through the jobs, networks, and consumerism that is created. Sklair does
cite certain benets immediate jobs for one, although they come at a
price (1991: 98). Sklair reserves a nal judgment on whether the trans-
national corporation in the developing world will contribute to long term
improved development (1991: 230).
Two quotes offered by Sklair allow for an interesting segue into fashion
as an important driver in global industry. Without consumerism, the ra-
tional for continuous capitalist accumulation dissolves and, Capitalism
depends on both the reality and the illusion of choice (1991: 82, 86).
Fashion, when we consider it in broader terms, as does Lipovetsky (1994)
and Stanley Lieberson (2000), includes not only clothing and accessories
but all products, services, and areas of life amenable to changes in style
and substance: cosmetics, cars, computers, electronics, appliances, music,
hair styles, air travel, pedagogy, theory, religion. Lipovetsky sees fashion
as the motivating force behind global capitalism as well as its manifesta-
tion. David Harvey (1989) links fashion to the postmodernist aesthetic or
regime that organizes society and cultural practices. This system provides
the identity and status, experiences, and material goods themselves;
these are what drive people to buy, upgrade, change, and aspire. This
motivation and the consumer activity it generates makes it necessary to
develop new systems of more efcient production and distribution, to
build networks, and to expand into new markets. The international fashion
system, as Domenico de Sole (former CEO of Gucci Group) puts it, has
intuition and stylistic inspiration at the heart of the system but has
to be connected within an organized complex of resources and skills
(Saviolo and Testa 2002: ix). This is the source of the industrys genius:
the ability to wed industry to inspiration, thus creating a desire for the
innovative products it provides.
The production of clothing moved out of the domestic sphere to a
guild system, and later to an industrial manufacturing or factory system.
Modern production itself went through a variety of modes from Fordist
and locally based vertically integrated, to networked exible forms of
production common today. On the social front, once mobility from one
class to another became possible, an industry ready to furnish signs of
distinction, differentiation, and association was born. By extending its
reach to those once outside the scope of fashionable consumption, the
industry attained the capital it needed to grow and become a major force
in the world of commerce. Production and the demands of consumers
are, of course, interconnected. Outsourcing is necessary when demand
for a variety of competitively priced products is constant and desire for
prot is strong. Availability of new products and their strategic promotion
as desirable and necessary objects creates demand. The latest trend of
slim cigarette jeans in dark washes renders other jeans that are ared,
faded, or embellished outdated.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, technology enabled clothing
for women to be mass-produced and sold at hitherto unheard of prices
(Gamber 1997: 156). For the rst time the middle- and even lower-classes,
free of the constraints that regulated their consumption choices, had the
economic means to acquire fashionable clothing. Fashion, its laws and
customs mobile, has made tradition a thing of the past with respect to
clothing, observes Malossi (1998: 59). The role of the fashion industry
in modern society is, on the one hand, democratization. Fashion is made
available to the masses. On the other hand there is still stratication based
on status, class, gender, and taste. The industry then has another rolea
paradoxical one: to create signs of distinction which allow individuals to
dene their identities and to mark boundaries between themselves and
others. An important shift has occurred, it is individuals constructing
identities that otherwise might have been regulated by the state, tradi-
tion, or other authorities. Their choices are provided by a system of free
enterprise whose main concern is to sell products and to change public
consciousness in order to sell more.
So long as demand for more and different types of fashion exists
there is prot to be made. Many organizations compete with one an-
other. Some rms are able to create a niche for themselves, others claim
a larger share of the market sometimes by purchasing other rms. The
major rms have a global reach, or near global reach, and are able to
inuence a mass audience. Vera Wang is the latest major designer to
launch a more moderately priced brand. Very Vera by Vera Wang, includ-
ing womens apparel, handbags, linens, etc., will be available at more
than 900 Kohls moderate department stores and kohls.com beginning
in fall 2007. Kohls expects the business to generate $500 million by
the third year (Lockwood 8/24/06: 1, 4). There are also smaller houses
that provide sign-systems for a more select clientele. Increasingly, the
more well-known of these rms may be owned by larger rms such as
Liz Claiborne. Even the elite houses produce commercially viable prod-
uctsbridge lines with department stores, accessories, fragrancesor
risk demise (as has recently happened to Rochas). Producing lines of
products at different price points (available in a variety of stores, some
owned by the brand and others independent) and licensing the name to
a variety of manufacturers broadens a brands reach, often moving a
brand into areas that are sometimes not directly related to fashioncars,
airplanes, hotelsbut that draw on the prestige that the name connotes.
The result of all this activity is a powerful system that shapes economic
markets around the world. Millions of jobs are created and redistributed.
Many prosper and many are exploited in the global back ofces in this
quest for style.
Bridget Foley (1/4/04: 22) of W magazine describes this as the era of
the mega luxury brand. The luxury sector plays a key role in the global
fashion economy. In the past the fashion industry consisted of many small
rms, a few of which were couturiers, and a variety of small and larger
retailers. Today the industry is dominated by a few powerful international
conglomerates (for the most part) publicly held companies, and (in the
retail sector) a few consolidated department stores. Large luxury goods
conglomerates, namely, LVMH and Gucci Group, have been buying out
and building up independent fashion houses. Large corporations, such as
Kellwood, have also been acquiring companies with growth potential;
as have wealthy investors, such as Silas Chou and Lawrence Stroll, who
often pool resources via private equity rms (Galloni 6/20/03: A3). In
the case of Chou and Stroll, promising designers are identied, heavily
invested in (in terms of marketing and brand building), and in three
to ve years the companies are taken public (Agins 11/21/03: B1, B6).
Competing with these powerful global conglomerates are independent
couture and ready-to-wear companies (who may themselves buy up other
brands) as well as retailers like H&M and Zara (which copy the designs
of the high-end fashion houses and sell them in a timely manner at a
fraction of the cost). In 2004 Karl Lagerfeld, who designs for Chanel
and Fendi, put out a low cost line of clothing at H&M showing that the
reverse could also be done.
In the 1990s major fashion companies bought smaller companies or
joined forces becoming megabrands. Many went public. During this
decade many non-founding designers became stars. Tom Ford, who
designed both for Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent until February 2004, is
one of the most visible of these designers. Karl Lagerfeld, with Chanel
since 1983, has the longest tenure of such designers. Lagerfeld was
brought into the privately owned Chanel by Alain and Grard Wert-
heimer, its owners, to resurrect the label. Lagerfeld was given complete
freedom at Chanel. John Galliano at Dior and Marc Jacobs at Louis
Vuitton are designers who became well-known and respected in their
own right. Tom Ford is often credited with transforming Gucci into one
of fashion hottest labels. Saviolo and Testa point to signicant changes
in the last ten years of the twentieth century in the fashion system: The
growing internationalization of the industry, both in terms of trade and
in terms of factors of production, the entry of new competitors, the dis-
tribution revolution, and the ever-increasing amounts of money invested
in brand and image have all contributed to the denitive overthrow of
the craftsman approach and orientation towards products that tradition-
ally characterized the industries that we group under the word fashion
(2002: xiv). The days of long waiting lists for limited items may be
coming to an end. While Hermes craftsmen still stitch most of its bags
by hand, signing them when they nish, Hermes International has hired
three hundred more workers to increase production on high demand
products such as the $7,000 Kelly bag. More tasks will no doubt be
allocated to less skilled and lower waged workers. Louis Vuitton, with
annual sales of $5 billion, has decided to modernize production methods
in factories to meet demand. If a seasonal bag became a hit, the company
wasnt capable of ramping up production. When a denim monogram bag
caught on last year, for example, customers cleaned out store shelves, and
would-be buyers were turned away. With each employee specializing in
a particular skill, assembly might involve twenty to thirty craftspersons
who took eight days to complete a purse. Today the same purse might
be nished in one day by a group of eight to ten employees working in a
U-shaped cluster formation. Starting in 2005 employees were trained to
do several tasks, such as gluing, stitching and nishing the edges of a
pocket ap. This saved time and allowed for production exibility. Last
month, for example, the company shifted more workers to its new $770
Lockit bag, which was selling faster than expected, to boost production.
Supply chains have also been restructured. A global distribution hub is
being built outside of Paris with service to six regional distribution centers
spanning the globe. Within a week of a product launch, stores around
the world feed sales information to France and production is adjusted
accordingly. This efciency is trickling down to retail stores. More
employees have been hired to work in stockrooms so that orders can be
quickly sent up to salespeople who do not themselves have to leave the
oor (Passariello 10/9/06, A1).
Once fashion became a major industry, the success of a product no
longer depended on its intrinsic attributes alone. It became harder for the
unknown designer to rise on his or her own and continue to be indepen-
dentlet alone for the established designer. Success in todays global
economy requires creative talent to begin with but cannot be sustained
without the promotion and expansion of a brand identity. In addition to
an innovative marketing program, one must have the capital and inter-
national business expertise necessary to arrange cost effective produc-
tion and distribution. Saviolo and Testa (2002: 75) state that, Modern
luxury conglomerates have nowadays taken the place of the historical
couturiers. The fact that these rms are managed professionally and
acquire new brandswhich as in the case of LVMH may be outside
the scope of fashion (e.g. champagne)makes them more oriented
towards marketing and nance than towards style and creativity. There
are those who would say that artistry does not gure prominently into
this new equation. Fashion journalist Lisa Marsh claims, the American
design houses that have reigned supremePolo Ralph Lauren, Tommy
Hilger, Donna Karan, and of course, Calvin Klein have proven that
design is a small part of the business of fashion. She goes on to say
that these businesses draw breath from things like the marketing and
positioning of the companys image, shrewd partnerships with retailers,
regular support from the fashion press, and above all, astute business
management who can see beyond the hype (2003: 7). It can be argued,
however, that it is not either fashion design or commercial and public-
ity related activities that these rms must focus on. Successful rms are
organized in such a way as to achieve excellence in both arenas. The key
players in the fashion world are in a position to hire the most talented
designers available, leaders with proven business skills cultivated within
and outside of the industry, and individuals with a variety of technical
and creative capacities. Increasingly, many of these qualities are pos-
sessed by fashion designers. Fashion design schools are responding to
the newly consolidated, intensely competitive and technology driven
luxury goods sector and the demands of the corporate fashion rms by
adding business courses to what may have before been a purely artistic
and technical curriculum (Rohwedder 1/9/04: A7, A9).
For a brand to gain prestige and be effectively marketed to retailers
and consumers willing to pay the price this level of product commands,
design talent remains a necessary ingredient in its formulation and pro-
duction. In addition to a visionary designer like Lauren, Hilger, Karan,
or Klein (or in the case of Klein, Francisco Costa who succeeded him),
many talented people are involved in the cooperative, creative effort
of getting the product off the ground, onto the racks, and into peoples
closets. Of course when it comes to Calvin Klein underwear, produced
by the same licensee that produces Jockeys (and used to produce Tommy
Hilger underwear), there may be little contribution in the way of de-
sign, though there may be some minor distinctions in fabric and cut.
The only difference, says Marsh, is the name on the waistband (2003:
49). Insofar as these names on the waistband are rarely seen by others,
its chief signicance is to indicate to the wearer that he has arrived
or achieved some distinction. Such productsand to this mix we may
add certain licensed productsmay rely almost entirely on marketing,
packaging, and presentation, but in effect they must draw on the place
that has already been secured for the brand. This is achieved in no small
part by the recognition given by industry insiders and consumers to the
quality and stylistic features of items put forward.
McRobbie discusses three ways in which the small scale fashion
scene has been transformed in the U.K. The emergence of big brands
a phenomenon she refers to as prada-ization has undercut independent
U.K. fashion design. Middle range fashion brands like French Connection
have opened numerous stores in prominent locations and have instituted
massive advertising campaigns. Banana Republic had its rst fashion
show in Spring 2004. Such companies take ideas that designers present
on the runways and mass-produce high-quality versions shortly there-
after. At the high-end, corporate fashion houses (McRobbie mentions
DKNY and Calvin Klein) are able to exert an inuence along every
point in the fashion chain through diversication with products ranging
from accessories to household items, and through high-end advertising
campaigns. Companies, such as the Italian brand Diesel, specialize in the
rapid marketing of fashions that begin in a variety of youth subcultures
(2002: 59-60). Major retail specialty stores, such as H&M, Zara, Banana
Republic, and Express, have adapted to changes in fashion by providing
up-to-date styles to women.
Unlike ve to ten years ago explains Kady Dalrymple, executive vice
president of the womens division at Express, women do not want to wait
for what was on the runways one year ago to appear in stores (Larson
2003: 8). The Stockholm based Swedish rm, Hennes & Mauritz (known
as H&M in the U.S.), makes low cost versions of top designers fashion
which it is able to get into its stores about three months after the design is
conceptualized. The time-to-market for high fashion products is three
weeks. Hennes & Mauritz doesnt own any factories but orders from
approximately one thousand suppliers (Sylvers 2003: W1). Hennes &
Mauritz has about thirteen hundred stores in twenty-one countries and
sales of about 8.4 billion. Its agship store is a 35,000 square foot space
on Fifth Avenue in New York City. Sales in its rst year were $65 mil-
lion (Lee 2003 and Georgiades 2004: B4). Hennes & Mauritz employs
seventy in-house designers who keep a close watch on trends (Lee
2003). Spring 2004 ads, for example, released in all countries Hennes &
Mauritz operates in, position the company as a moderately-priced place
for apparel where everyone can nd something (Seckler 2/25/04: 18).
It has been innovative, says Michelle Lee, in making consumers not
feel guilty about wearing an item once or twice then never again. Lee
and others have called their fashion cheap chic (Lee 2003). Inspira-
tion comes not only from the runway but from watching what people
are wearing in the street and listening to consumers, says Margareta Van
Den Bosch, chief designer of mens and womens at H&M for sixteen
years (Larson 5/7/03: 8).
The Spanish retail clothing chain, Zara, outpaces Hennes & Mauritz
and other European rivals, such as the Gap, with its rapid production
and delivery system. Unlike most corporate fashion houses that produce
and stock merchandise on a seasonal basis, Zara comes out with col-
lections inspired by fashion designers at reasonable costs which can be
updated within a given season according to consumer demand. If enough
customers ask for an item with a rounded neck, rather than the V-neck
on display, a new version can be in stores in about ten days. And if an
actress creates a stir with something shes wearing, Zara can reproduce
a version of the outt and have it stocked in all its European stores in
a few weeks. Instead of producing its clothing in Asia, Zara utilizes its
own higher-cost factories in Spain. Trucks deliver the items to stores that
can be reached within twenty-four hours, and more distant stores receive
their shipments via air courier. Zaras operational model is more akin to
that of the grocery store or methods used by companies like Wal-Mart
and Dell Computers (Tagliabue 2003: W1, W7). Most apparel imported
to the U.S. from Asia comes in by boat. Amongst the quick response
guys, says a Hong Kong sourcer, 60 to 70 percent have their merchandise
own in by air cargo (Malone 1/20/04: 24).
Express, with close to seven hundred stores in the U.S., also wants to
be known for the look of the moment. Like H&M, many of its designs
are conceived almost one year in advance but, says Dalrymple, it has cut
its lead times and can get products into the stores in six to eight weeks
time (Larson 5/7/03: 8).
Marie Claire senior shopping editor tells readers:
You dont have to spend thousands to wear the latest trend. Certain stores, like Bebe,
Zara and Club Monaco, specialize in interpreting runway looks for less. They get new
shipments often, so merchandise is always current. Make them your rst shopping
stop (Yraola 2004: 22).
These retailers provide competition to the designers while at the same
time being dependent on designers and not in a position to fully replace
them. They contribute to increasing the competitive intensity of the
environment designers operate in, causing them to search for ever more
efcient, cost effective operational strategies. Many retailers operate
exclusively through catalogue and online sales. The latest runway trends
are dissected and interpreted, and the consumer is shown how she can
combine a variety of looks for the workplace, leisure, and for evening.
Consumer demand and the overall global economy have had a pro-
found inuence on how various sectors of the apparel industry operate.
The fashion system or the fashion pipeline, as Saviolo and Testa call
it, is a cluster of closely interconnected industries. It begins with bers
to be transformed into yarns and woven into fabrics and ends with the
distribution industry (department stores, etc.) (2002: 37-54). The turn
around time within this pipeline is approximately one year and six months
(2002: 58). Though the processes are largely the same, pipelines in
different countries and different regions are not the same and depend
on, for instance, the state of development in that region (2002: 62-63).
Gary Geref sums up the factors that account for the geographical shift
from manufacturing apparel in the U.S. to production occurring mostly
abroad: the search for low-wage labor and the pursuit of organizational
exibility (1994: 102). Apparel industry wages in China tend to be less
than one dollar per hour, and elsewhere they are even less. As many jobs
in manufacturing involved mass production by unskilled or semiskilled
laborers, moving these jobs overseas while keeping other segments, such
as design and marketing, in the U.S. made economic sense to companies.
While corporations may see this shift as a necessary step in achieving
global competitiveness, some scholars and activists would describe this as
a global race to the bottom. The question of whether free trade and the
U.S. outsourcing of production in generalthe immediate cost of which
falls on the shoulders of workers, and not only in manufacturing but in
other industries as well as across skill levelswill eventually bolster the
economy and create new jobs is debated y economists and others.
As U.S. textile rms became larger and more powerful they were
able to demand that apparel companies pay higher prices, place larger
orders, and settle accounts according to their terms. U.S. retailers were
also consolidating and becoming stronger. During the 1960s and 1970s
a few giant department stores bought up many independent retailersa
trend that is continuing today. This allowed department stores to demand
lower prices from manufacturers than could apparel companies. Com-
petition between the department stores also drove down retail prices, as
did large single brand stores and big box discounters (Jette 2005;
Geref 1994: 103-105).
The retail sector and the apparel industry can be viewed as buyer-driven
commodity chains which operate on a global scale. Eileen Rabach and
Ean Mee Kim point out that the media-ization of capitalist consump-
tion, which sells an ideology, set of values, and life style along with the
product, adds to the pace and frenzy of capitalist competition (1994:
137). To keep up with consumer demand, with each other, and in order
to become more powerful by transforming the market these rms must
produce multi-product lines which are continually modied, updated,
and replaced (1994: 136-137).
In producer-driven commodity chains, such as the automotive and
aircraft industries, transnational corporations play the central role in
controlling the production system (Geref 1994: 97). In producing
Model Ts, Ford instituted a standardized production system which was
predicated on little or no need for innovation. As Richard S. Tedlow puts
it, Henry Ford devised a strategy that called for total concentration on a
single, universal car aimed at everyone (1990: 9). Alfred P. Sloan, who
became president of General Motors and led it to world dominance by
reorganizing production processes, introduced through massive advertis-
ing the concept of planned obsolescence. Ford could not compete and
was overtaken in sales by GM in the 1920s (Schoenberger 1994: 53-54).
Sloan introduced the phase III market segmentation in the automobile
industry with the annual model change and the car for every purse and
purpose slogan (Tedlow 1990: 113).
In buyer-driven industries, where a demand for change is accelerated
and competition is steep, exible production networks or commodity
chains work best. In the post-war period East Asia became a dominant
force in the manufacture of textiles and apparel, with Japan as the leader.
In the 1960s world export of apparel increased nearly sixfold (Appel-
baum et al. 1994: 189). For a long time East Asia was exclusively an
area for low-cost production of Western rms (Saviolo and Testa 2002:
81). By the early 1970s, Hong Kong became the worlds leading apparel
exporter providing low-waged, low-priced manufacturing (Appelbaum
et al. 1994: 190). In the 1980s China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, and
the Philippines became the newer, low-cost exporters (Tan 2005: 7). In
this second migration China become the main beneciary (Saviolo
and Testa 2002: 83). In the 1990s the need to quickly produce what
consumers demand led to an expansion of manufacturing in the Pacic
Rim countries (Appelbaum et al. 1994: 190-191).
In the 1960s a quota system was imposed by developed countries on
the amount of apparel that could be exported by individual countries so
as to protect their own textile manufacturers. Limits were imposed on
various categories of clothing, such as mens woven-wool shirts (Buck-
man 2004: B1, B8). Voluntary agreements had been in place before the
1960s. The Multiber Agreement in 1974 represented quotas negoti-
ated between developed and developing countries (Saviolo and Testa
2002: 83). It was revised four times and expired in 1994 (Tan 2005: 10).
Since trade protections were lifted in China in January 2003, Chinese
exports have climbed 22 percent. China has become the major apparel
manufacturer. Consequently, American manufacturing jobs are evapo-
rating at an accelerated pace. In Baltimore, for instance, there were ve
hundred factories that produced apparel in the 1940s; now there is only
one. Eighteen thousand textile jobs are lost each month or six hundred
jobs per day. Since 2001 about 2.8 million American manufacturing jobs
have been lost (Ellis 1/20/04: 2). After China joined the World Trade
Organization, quotas on several apparel items were lifted. In 2003 the
U.S., with the agreement of China, reinstituted temporary quotas on some
categories of apparel (bras, knit fabric, and bathrobes) as the gains China
was making were seen by some as detrimental to domestic manufacturers
as well as the newly developing textile and apparel industries in places
such as Bangladesh and Uzbekistan (Buckman 3/22/04: B8). On January
1, 2005, nearly all quotas on textile imports were lifted. Exported goods
from China showed a 546 percent increase in January 2005 (Sanlippo
2005). China has been widely criticized by U.S. manufacturers for unfair
practices amidst a climate where one-quarter of jobs in the textile and
apparel industry have been lost since it joined the WTO in 2001 (Bar-
boza 2003: C6). Ninety-seven percent of apparel is imported (Palmeri
2005: 88). Various interest groups have weighed in on what they see as
an unfair advantage for China and detriment to others, for example, the
Philippines and Cambodia. Textile industry ofcials contend that, China
and other Asian countries are unfairly taking control of the market by
keeping their currencies weak against the dollar and then dropping their
prices even more to compete unfairly. The National Textile Association
and the American Yarn Spinners Association fear that China may soon
control 75 percent of the U.S. apparel market (Barboza 2003: C6).
The removal of quotas did not only apply to China but to all mem-
bers of the WTO that ship apparel to the U.S. The result expected is
that U.S. buyers will concentrate on fewer countries since there will
no longer be limits on the number of garments they can purchase from
one country. It is expected that China will be the main beneciary with
many apparel manufacturers likely to move production there (Buckman
3/22/04: B8).
Garments that require high levels of quality, quickness of delivery,
and exibility in the alteration of style, tend to be manufactured in
higher-wage areas that have highly integrated local industrial districts
such as Hong Kong and Seoul. On the other hand, garments that al-
low for high-volume standardized production, and that do not require
quick delivery or high quality, tend to be produced in low-wage areas
(Appelbaum et al. 1994: 202). With decentralized production, the same
rm may utilize many different manufacturers across the globe depending
on its particular needs. High-end fashion items may be manufactured
in Italy, or fabrics may be purchased in France, and clothing made in
Hong Kong. Lower-priced and simpler garments may be manufactured
in Bangladesh, for instance. One sometimes nds labor exported from
other parts of the world to factories located in Italy, for example, so that
the highly regarded Made in Italy label can legitimately be used. Simi-
larly, garments carrying the Made in the U.S. label may have actually
been made in the Mariana Islands, a U.S. possession.
Geref has devised a ve-tier system with the skill of workers and
the quality of production decreasing as one moves down the tiers. Tier
one encompasses Italy, France, the U.K., and Japan, the source for
high-fashion designer rms. Below this department stores and specialty
chains, which sell higher quality private label merchandise, tend to
utilize established Third World suppliers residing in second and third
tier countriesHong Kong being in tier two and India in tier three. Large
discount stores like Wal-Mart and Target, and large designer rms like
Liz Claiborne, are also able to use second tier manufacturers due to the
lower costs they secure in exchange for higher volume, steady orders.
However, smaller discount stores that sell low-cost merchandise tend to
use the three outer rings. Eastern European countries, the Caribbean, and
Sri Lanka belong to the forth tier, and Bolivia, Madagascar, and Qatar
belong to the fth ring, for example (1994: 110-111). Sometimes triangle
manufacturing is utilized with East Asian manufacturers transferring
technology to lower-cost production sites and managing the quality
control, nance, and shipping for those rms. This allows for production
to be dispersed across the globe with less work and involvement on the
part of large rms who may focus their efforts on design and marketing
(1994: 116). This innovation can be compared to the evolution from
manufacturer to jobber in the rise of the Garment Center in New York. The
jobber has now become not only a designer but a global manufacturing
contractor. Ironically many of these modern day jobbers, if we may
call them that just for a moment, are (according to one industry insider)
ashamed of their Garment Center roots and take care to associate their
names with their Madison Avenue retail locations and not their Seventh
Avenue garment district ofces.
Beginning in the 1970s, designers gained prestige. Clothing rms, be
they established couture rms or new rms started by ready-to-wear de-
signers, sold clothing under the name of the designer. Without the added
prestige that a designers name could bestow, the clothing produced by
developing countries (that would become more procient in the quality
and styles offered) could have eclipsed the U.S. and European fashion
industries. Europe further adapted to competition abroad by concentrating
its efforts on the luxury category, utilizing technology and expertise that
could not be matched, and by focusing on quick response fashion.
Focusing more on image may have also been a response to shifts in
the textile and apparel industry. Hong Kong became the world leader
in exports of apparel in the 1970s and 1980s (Dickerson 1995: 150).
Growth rates in apparel production in the U.S. continued to drop in the
1970s. The developed countries, the U.S. and Japan, and the European
Union countries dropped to a near-zero growth rate in the 1973-1987
period while developing countries experienced healthy increases, ex-
plains Kitty Dickerson (1995: 195). Until the economic reforms of 1979,
Chinas textile and apparel production was for domestic use only. China
would emerge as the world leader in apparel and footwear (1995: 155).
Production costs in the U.S. and other developed countries had become
high; domestic manufacturers could not complete with the availability of
low-cost labor provided by the developing world (1995: 200). The U.S.
responded by becoming part of the global textile and apparel economy.
Services were subcontracted to factories overseas where garments could
be cut, sewn, and assembledincreasingly in a variety of different
countries. Finished goods were sold by U.S. rms to department stores,
national chains, discounters, or small retailers. Image was one of the few
things the U.S. could produce.
One of the most important developments in fashion involves its expan-
sion both on an international scope, in places near and far from major
cities, and in the broad audience it reaches. India and China, despite the
logistical challenges each presents, have become a focus for retailers
and brands ranging from the high-end luxury to major discounters, most
notably Wal-Mart. In 2006 Valentino, Fendi, Ferragamo, Christian Dior,
and Versace joined ranks with brands already established in India, such
as Chanel and Louis Vuitton. Major brands are establishing a presence
in smaller cities and places previously consider off the fashion radar.
For example, Emporio Armani opened a store in Siberia (Kaiser and
Bowers 12/12/06: 13).
The sharp distinction between high-end fashion and more accessi-
bly priced items has eroded to the point where certain crossroads have
emerged. As advances in technology parallel the emergence of new
markets, designers and brands once known only to few became house-
hold names, presenting the possibility for greater prot. Vicky M. Young
speaks of the mass-to-class game when referring to the collaboration
of Max Axria and the French hypermarket Carrefour. Carrefour is the
second largest retailer after Wal-Mart and although it does sell apparel
along with groceries and other items, it has not sold designer fashion.
Walter Loeb, a retail consultant, says, This is the trend, and well see
other mass merchants embrace fashion designers (Young 12/7/06: 22).
Vera Wang has partnered with the discounter Kohls; Uniqlo, Japans
fast-fashion store which has recently come to the U.S., has signed design-
ers Alice Roi and Phillip Lim. The Gap has collaborated with high-end
designer Roland Mouret whose collection has appeared in select stores
and is said to be discretely collaborating with Phoebe Philo who left
Chlo in January 2006 (Socha 11/27/06: 2). Sharon Edelson compares
what she calls high-low collaboration or a populist movement to
Bergdorf Goodmans having abruptly severed ties with Halston after
he did a collaboration for J.C. Penney in the late seventies (12/12/06:
6). Established designers are increasingly involved in licensing deals
in collaboration with other brands. For instance, Vera Wang, known for
bridal gowns, fragrance, and a home collection, now has a Vera Wang
Serta mattress collection. Vivienne Westwood designed shoes for Nine
West, and Derek Lam designed shoes and small leather goods for Tods
(Womens Wear Daily 12/12/06: 7). In what might seem like a surprising
move for Ralph Lauren, whose stock went up over 47 percent at the end
of 2006, a designer through the Global Brand Concepts division of Polo
Ralph Lauren will design lifestyle brands for department and specialty
stores as well as develop advertising and marketing (Womens Wear Daily
12/12/06: 3). One of his rst clients is J.C. Penney. Its American Living
brand is said to debut in Spring 2008 (Daily News Record 2/5/07: 16). In
a reversal from licensing arrangements, Lauren will provide the sought
after aesthetic and the manufacturer, or in this case the department store
will place their own name on the label.
Fashion has become more focused on image and less grounded in a
straightforward hierarchical system of status. Not only designers but
celebrities, supermodels, sports gures, and socialites continue to lend
their prestige to brands and vice versa. Celebrities have replaced socialites
as A-list guests at fashion shows, and, as Julie L. Belcove comments, the
death knell rang for high society when cute-enough twentysomething
girls started to appear on publicists guest lists for events where theyd
have their pictures taken in borrowed clothing and would subsequently
be declared socialites (2007: 32).
Todays ready-to-wear and mass-produced fashions require a complex
network of organizations transversing national boundaries sometimes for
its design and increasingly for its production and disseminationthe
latter being both actual (sales) and symbolic (media). The exibility of
this system mirrors the social demand for innovation, generated in part
by the industry itself and in part by a growing consumer market. India,
a tier three provider of low-waged labor for First World companies,
is simultaneously seen as a consumer market by these same companies;
Tommy Hilger led the way in enthusiastically introducing his total
lifestyle concept in stores throughout the Indian subcontinent in 2004.
It is in this context of a continually shifting mass culture, says Malossi,
that fashion products acquire meaning and value (1998: 157).
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
93
3
The Fashion Designer
In order for the designer to be seen as an important entity in his or her
own right, changes would have to occur in society and in the way people
thought about fashion. Dressmakers, the majority of them women, had
been anonymous gures, working behind the scenes whether in small or
large scale enterprises. Dressmakers visited prominent women in their
homes and took direction from their customers. They did not get personal
credit for their creations. Eventually designers would be recognized as
skilled craftsmen and craftswomen as well as, in some cases, artists.
Some would even become international celebrities.
As fashion increased in importance and extended its inuence to all
classes of people, the status and role of the designer was recongured.
No longer seen as involved in peripheral activities, the fashion designer
had the possibility of achieving recognition and becoming a cultural
arbiter. Most women would never own a Christian Dior creation, but his
New Look ltered down to all classes. Diors ideas about style and
self-presentation were drawn from his interpretation of the culture, and
they reect an ability to connect these ideas to styles of clothing that
women could relate to and would wear. Many years after his death the
House of Dior would become a part of the LVMH luxury conglomerate,
thus broadening the scope of Diors inuence.
Although only a few designers could attain personal recognition,
sometimes internationally, the fact that some designers did served to
elevate the status of the entire profession. A career in fashion design is
no longer just for those who, perhaps, could not have followed a more
prestigious line of work. The allure of fashion design and its relevance
to a much wider segment of the population caused an expansion of the
industry and a need for professionals in management, nance, merchan-
dising, marketing, and other areas.
The development of the couture industry shifted the focus onto the
couturier. The former curator and associate curator of the Costume In-
stitute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art dene couture in this way:
It represents the fusion of fashionthe modern entity composed of
novelty and synergy with personal and social needsand costumethe
consummate arts of dressmaking, tailoring, and constituent crafts to ap-
parel and accessories (Martin and Koda 1995: 11). Couture is the art
of dressmaking, and in the late eighteenth century it had reached a high
level with couturiers designing for European royalty (Waddell 2004: xi).
The emphasis in its early stages was on costume and dressmaking with a
focus on the uniqueness of the individual for whom the clothing was being
made. The styles made for Europes elite were copied by those who could
afford such services (Drew 1992: 15). The couture industry began in the
nineteenth century. While women dominated small-scale French couture
in the 1920s and 1930s, once fashion was reconceived as big business
and high art it was men, such as Christian Dior, Christobal Balenciaga,
and Jacques Fath, who achieved recognition (Steele 2000: 8).
Charles Frederick Worth established the rst haute couture house
in 1858 in Paris. He produced his own collection, which was shown to
customers on live models. Linda Drew (1992: 15) states, Not only had
he conceived the idea of the fashion show, but also he had mastered the
art of selling a dream to women. From his collections, shown semian-
nually, customers could select the styles they would like made for them
(Martin and Koda 1995: 47). Worth, not the client, became the arbiter
of fashion. Instead of being dictated to by the customer, the fashion de-
signer became the authority. Milbank (1989: 121) states, Worth led the
way by conducting himself like an artist, not a tradesman, and making
sure his establishment was exclusive. Laver (2002) explains that Worth
required ladies (with the exception of Eugnie and her Court) to come
to his establishment. Women had to be formally presented and accepted
before allowed to schedule an appointment (2002: 186). By the end of
the century couturiers like Doucet were accepted as gentlemen in soci-
ety, and before World War, I Poiret had exotic parties to which everyone
wanted to be invited (Milbank 1989: 121). The Chambre Syndicale
de la Couture Parisienne, a regulatory institution funded by the French
government, was founded by Worth and built on his innovations.
For most of the twentieth century Paris designers had been inuential
in setting the fashion standard at all levelseven though American de-
signers had established roots. New Yorks Seventh Avenue manufacturers
would adapt sketches of the latest couture designs for their clientele. Gerry
The Fashion Designer 95
Dransky, who reported on the couture houses in the 1960s for Womens
Wear Daily, says of Coco Chanel, Coco vowed shed never do ready-to-
wear because she didnt want to dress everybody. The couturiers were
already rich, they did not need to sell to a large audience, he observes.
Their snobbishness was greater than their greed (Agins 1999: 23).
Nevertheless, Paris design houses allowed American manufacturers to
send their best sketchers to their fashion shows in exchange for a cover
charge of several thousand dollars and an agreement to purchase several
couture items (Marsh 2003: 28). Italy, Spain, and Britain (in this order)
also had notable couture houses, but, as Waddell puts it, Paris was the
supreme authority (2004: 5).
The U.S. had established department stores such as R. H. Macy in New
York, Marshall Fields in Chicago, and John Wanamaker in Philadelphia
(Agins 1999: 23). Indeed, as early as 1903 specialty stores and department
stores were presenting couture gowns from Parisor their own adapta-
tionsto editors and customers (Fortini 2006). The stage was already set
for the contemporary designers entrance. World War II disrupted Paris
couture industry and severed communication with the rest of the world.
Green tells us that the war furthered the progressive shift in American
womens clothes. Simplicity and comfort became the watchwords of
American style (1997: 67). Dorothy Shaver, vice president of Lord &
Taylor, a few years earlier began promoting American designers instead
of the manufacturers for whom most designers worked (Crane 2000:
138-139). In the U.S., through the 1960s, it was still the norm that the
manufacturers name appeared on the label. Only European couture de-
signers had achieved considerable recognition under their own names. It
is important to remember that only a few designers achieve prominence
under their own names. The majority of designers work under someone
elses name, be it a designer, manufacturer, or retailer.
Claire McCardell is regarded as one of the most important American
ready-to-wear designers of the twentieth century. During the 1940s,
McCardell was inuential in establishing a unique American style, re-
ferred to as the American Look (Stegemeyer 1984: 35-36). Inuenced
by the simple lines and classic draping of Madeline Vionnet, McCardells
designs were intended not only to be fashionable but to be practical and
comfortable (Baudot 1999: 12, 82). McCardell worked with easy to care
for fabrics such as denim, ticking, gingham, and wool jersey (Stegemeyer
1984: 37). California native Bonnie Cashin is another example of an
American designer who, instead of looking toward Paris, designed func-
tional sportswear for the active woman and, like McCardell, designed
for a mass market (Steele 2001: 192; Crane 2000: 139). This approach
can be contrasted with Parisian couturier Christian Dior. Baudot (1999:
144) describes his fashions as elitist; a turn away from the practical
realities of life.
Crane (2000) informs us that between the late 1940s and the 1960s
there was a turn back toward Parisian couture. American manufacturers
produced line for line copies of these styles, some highly priced and others
of lesser quality, in large quantities and at lower prices (2000: 139-140).
Martin and Koda attribute the rebirth of couture in the late 1940s and
1950s to the attention that Diors 1947 collection drew. It was referred
to by Carmel Snow of Harpers Bazaar as the New Look (Martin and
Koda 1995: 12). After a period of wartime austerity, Dior presented a
nostalgic femininity of corsets and, most controversially, owing skirts
that would use up fty yards of material (Phaidon Press 1998: 27). But
this would not prove to be a full turn. Beginning in the 1940s, American
designers were promoted in the fashion press. With designers names
becoming prominent, manufacturers and retailers became less important
(Milbank, 1989: 130). Ready-to-wear designers were to become more
well-known than the few American couturiers. Their names and designs
were advertised and sold all over the country (1989: 132).
Haute couture remained in place as a guiding light of fashion in
the 1960s say Martin and Koda (1995: 12). However, in the early 1960s
London ready-to-wear designers began capturing the worlds attention
by adapting young peoples street styles in their designs (Crane 2000:
138). Waddell states that it was only because of the fashion revolution
in London that ready-to-wear emerged as the chief exponent of high
fashion (2004: 27). In the 1960s people were called to reject commer-
cial fashion in favor of their own natural look (Rubinstein 1995: 114).
The hippie way of dressinga style originating in the U.S. featuring
handmade and ethnic-type clothingwas to become the ultimate form
of this type of self-expression (1995: 220). Beginning in the 1960s a
bubbling-up phenomena occurred. Styles originating in the streets were
copied, causing Paris inuence to wane (Crane 2000: 140). As Simmel
(1904/1971: 300) pointed out as an exception to his trickle-down
theory, the mingling of classes and the leveling effect of democracy
exert a counter inuence. What had begun as an oppositional youth
cultures anti-fashion statement was picked up by the fashion industry
and marketed to the mainstream and to the upper classes.
Yves Saint Laurent, at age twenty-one, was selected by Dior to be his
successor. Alicia Drake speaks of the shock this news generated. Fashion
had since become a youth industry but back in 1950s haute couture was
designed by people called Madame, Monsieur or Mademoiselle, in the
over-fty bracket and catering to a similar clientele (2006: 20). When
he began assisting Dior in 1955 haute couture was still a world of patri-
cian beauty (2006: 37). In 1961 he began his own couture house, and
in 1966 designed his rst ready-to-wear collection, Rive Gauche. The
Left Bank name and identity was a stroke of genius that set the collec-
tion apart from that of couture and gave the ready-to-wear a badge of
youth and cool (2006: 49). Saint Laurent belonged to that French haute
couture tradition that saw fashion as part of the art world. Both Paris and
London fashions were inuenced by the youth culture of the 1960s, but
McDowell (2000: 47) explains that nding inspirations in what was hap-
pening in the streets meant different things to Saint Laurent than it did
to the London designers. His was an intellectual and not a visceral
inspiration. It was not directly inuenced by pop culture but by the
current Left Bank artistic and philosophical climate.
Saint Laurent was among the French designers who produced civi-
lized variations of hippie clothing. He created the rich hippie look
featuring gypsy skirts and peasant blouses intricately made from the
most costly fabrics (2000: 371). The hippies motivation for embracing
Indian clothing had to do with associating traditions of the East (India
in particular) with authenticity, while the West was seen as supercial
and misguided. This distinction was embodied in the hand spun cotton
materials used by Indians and the synthetic fabrics used in the West.
Wearing Indian peasant clothing identied one with values which
were taken to be more meaningful. In the Western context these clothes
represented freedom from constraints and egalitarianism, while in India
the same clothing was connected to an intricate system of hierarchies.
Such clothing became a symbol of the counterculture in the West. These
identications held, on some level, too for the wealthy women who wore
Saint Laurents rich hippie look.
A key event in the time line of fashion according to those who study
the subject occurred after the short hemline of the 1960s was met in the
later part of the decade with a militant dropping of the length to below the
knee. A decisive change had taken place. The new long length maxi skirt
was rejected by women. This was a trauma to couture, becoming a chal-
lenge to the supposed ultimate authority of fashion. The pantsuit, introduced
at the same time, however, was a success (Martin and Koda 1995: 39).
The new freedom of expression in the fashion of the 1960s continued
in the 1970s. Several styles co-existed: ethnic clothing, hot pants, and
platform shoes. Steele (2000: 13) tells us editors and designers feared
being labeled fascists adopted a new language of freedom and
choice. During this time California style sportswear began to dominate
the sportswear industry. This, Steele (1998: 69-70) explains, contributed
to the shift in production away from New York and to the West Coast.
A shift in attention away from couture had occurred. Martin and Koda
explain, Fashion design in the early 1970s was dominated by ready-to-
wear and sportswear, both because of new standards of casual behavior
and because of the expanded interest of the bourgeoisie in fashion. Yet,
Saint Laurent was instrumental in drawing attention back to couture and
to Paris. Saint Laurents fall/winter collection of 1976-1977, a luxuri-
ous Russian peasant inspired look is described by Martina and Koda
(1995: 41) as counter-revolutionary to the 1960s. He refreshed cou-
ture, making it seem desirable and distinctive in a time of ready-to-wear
leadership. Saint Laurent captured the attention of the public, and had
inadvertently paved the way for the emergence of superstar designers
from ranks less prestigious than his own. In Paris Karl Lagerfeld worked
in ready-to-wear for some years before joining Chanel.
The 1970s are often described as the decade of the designer fashion
craze. During this period aspirational brands to be marketed to a mass
audience appeared. A trend that started in the 1940sthe designer la-
belhad matured in the 1970s. The American designer had attained a
prestige that before was limited to the couturier. Instead of being tied
to a manufacturer, many designers headed their own conglomerates and
began to license their names to manufacturers (Crane 2000: 147). Carl
Rosen, a clothing manufacturer who headed a company called Puritan,
decided to market designer jeans. He rst approached Pierre Cardin with
the idea. Cardin, offended by this notion and Rosens rough demeanor, is
said to have remarked, Mr. Rosen? There are no cowboys in Paris before
walking out of the room (Marsh 2003: 42-43). The American designer
Calvin Klein was Rosens second choice. He was to become the premier
jeans designer. They signed a licensing deal which, Marsh says, became
legendary in the industry. Klein received a $1 million signing bonus, $1
million every year, and a royalty of $1 per pair of jeans sold with a built
in cost-of-living increase. Calvin Klein jeans were introduced in 1978
during the early stages of the designer jeans craze. His jeans featured
his name on a label on the back pocket. They were promoted in contro-
versial television commercials such as one featuring the provocatively
posed adolescent Brooke Shields saying, nothing comes between me
and my Calvins. One-third of Puritans $80 million sales that rst year
were from Calvin Klein jeans, making them second to Gloria Vanderbilt
jeans (2003: 43-44). Gloria Vanderbilt jeans were manufactured by the
same businessman who would a few years later decide to promote the
career of Tommy Hilger.
Fashion, for more people, became a means of living out a fantasy.
When William Leach (1993: 107) describes the rise of a commercial
culture of desire in the late nineteenth century as a new national dream
life, the idea but not the objects themselves were available to most Ameri-
cans. America was unique in not only promoting sportswear as fashion
but in generating a great deal of excitement about this more ordinary
type of fashion. Trachtenberg (1988: 12-13) says that the creating of a
designer mystique in the 1970s was a brilliant marketing tactic. It
revived the mens wear industry, it boosted womens wear sales, and it
meant higher retail prices and greater prots. The designers themselves
shared in the riches, buying country estates, hiring private chefs, and
emerging as eager bidders at the famous auction houses.
The designer logo was an important development that would contrib-
ute to the broad recognition of designers and a massive demand for their
highly visible products. Mass-produced clothing attained a prestige that
before depended upon the items intrinsic properties and its recogniz-
ability. Jeffrey Banks, a designer who worked with Klein during the
early years of his career in the beginning of the 1970s, explains how
the Calvin Klein logo came about. Banks decided to make a present for
Klein. It was a T-shirt in his favorite color (chocolate brown) with the
Calvin Klein logo. Previously this logo was only used on the folder for
the press kit. Banks had this emblem silk-screened on the sleeve. Barry
Schwartz, Kleins friend from the Bronx and business partner, thought
it looked great and assumed it was part of the line of clothing to be pre-
sented. This inspired Banks to have more T-shirts with logos made. He
had the women who seated people at the shows, the salesgirls, each
wear one. The next day buyers were asking for the T-shirts (Marsh 2003:
37). Logos are not limited to mass-produced items. Couture houses such
as Dior, Chanel, and Versace use them on some of their highest-priced
items as well as on more accessibly priced goods.
In the 1980s, many designers attained international star status. Karl
Lagerfeld, a German, was hired by Chanel to revive the business, and
Giorgio Armani became known worldwide. This trend continued in the
1990s and in the beginning years of the twenty rst century with fashion
conglomerates hiring well-known designers or promoting designers as
stars to represent their brands. Tom Ford, an American from Texas, de-
signed for Gucci from 1994 until February 2004 (Wilson 2004: 1). When
John Galliano moved to Dior from Givenchy in 1997 he was replaced by
another Englishman, Alexander McQueen (Waddell 2004: 18).
Today the interest in and fascination with the fashion designer can be
perhaps compared to the designer craze of the 1970s. The show Project
Runway began its second season on Bravo in December 2005. It follows
the model of other TV reality shows, notably, The Apprentice and Survi-
vor. The Runway nale in March 2006 drew almost 3.5 million viewers.
Host and supermodel Heidi Klum attributes the shows popularity to
peoples interest in fashion and creativity (Oldenburg 2006). Designers
with various levels of ability and experience compete in weekly design
challenges until only three remain. For the Olympus Fashion Week
competition, which aired on October 18, 2006, four designers competed
for cash and prizes well over $100,000. Nina Garcia, Fashion Director
at Elle, Tim Gunn of Parsons, and designer Michael Kors are the shows
three permanent judges. Diana von Furstenberg has appeared as a guest
judge (Shepherd 2005: 13). Tommy Hilger hosted his own show in
2005 called The Cut. Designers provide a way to look at the world and
direction on how to look in the world; as such they hold a certain degree
of power. The sometimes harsh judging by which designers are selected
and eliminated allows individuals to have a role in the fashion process.
This happens not only vicariously but also by voting online and posting
messages regarding their own choices and impressions. This provides a
sense of power to the viewer and an ability to be a part of the excitement
of the world of fashion.
The famous couturiers and their runway shows are a direct factor in
the lives of only a small segment of the population. Couture fashion
is bought by less than ve hundred women worldwide. Yet, it has an
inuence on designers and rms that produce ready-to-wear, and due
to its association with a raried world, the names of such designers can
command attention and high prices in the ready-to-wear, perfume, and
accessories categories. Consumers who buy middle-range and mass,
lower-priced fashion know these names and may purchase these products
when offered at a more accessible price range or through alternate chan-
nels, such as Ebay or resale boutiques. Waddall, a designer, forecaster,
and academic, argues that ready-to-wear and mass-produced fashion
rely on couture for inventive and original notions which are translated
to a marketable product (2004: xii). The same need for distinction and
identication exists amongst those who do not participate in the highest,
cutting-edge levels of fashion, and it exists amongst those who dont
acknowledge participating in the fashion system. Couturiers, as do all
other designers, make most of their money on a middle-range audience.
Couturiers license their name to manufacturers who produce more ac-
cessibly priced goods.
As fragmented as societies may become, imitation for the purposes
of tting in and attaining higher statuswhile at the same time distin-
guishing oneself as an individualremains an essential feature of human
interaction. It has become more complex, with people balancing multiple
allegiances and identities that go beyond divisions of class. Personal ex-
pression through fashion and the ways in which fashion is produced and
disseminated provides us with an understanding of how people negotiate
the evolving social and cultural domain. Designers provide a bridge that
helps people connect these endsnot on just a local or national level,
but on a global one. The globalization of the fashion industry means also
a globalization of the signs used to construct identities.
The Designer as Artist and Craftsperson
In answering the question of whether a fashion designer is a crafts-
man, an artist, or an artist-craftsmanto use Howard Beckers
(1984) classicatory systemwe must rst distinguish between these
terms. Becker denes artists as those who make objects that are unique,
and they are neither useful nor necessarily beautiful. Craftsmen, on the
other hand, produce objects that primarily have a use-value. Artist-crafts-
men stress both the beauty and elegance, as well as the utility of their
products. Fashion can be art, craft, or a combination of both, but when
fashion hangs in the closet rather than in an art gallery or museum it is
apt to t either of the last two denitions.
Crane (1993: 56), in deciding to study fashion designers, points out
that there are virtually no sociological studies of fashion design as an
occupation. Crane does not discuss the particular work that designers
do, rather she argues that the work a designer does is constrained by the
social and organizational environment within which he or she operates.
She nds that fashion industries vary by country, and that the prestige and
role of the designer will be inuenced by four structural variables: (1) the
structure of the clothing industry; (2) the organization of education for
the arts; (3) the existence and vitality of urban street cultures; and (4) the
development of fashion worlds consisting of designers, clienteles, shop-
keepers, magazine editors, and department store buyers. Crane argues
that in France and Japan the decorative arts and recorded cultures are
highly valued, while in the United States commercial values predominate
in all sectors, and in England cultural values and perspectives are highly
correlated with social class origin. While these structural and cultural
factors effect the role assumed by or assigned to the designer, fashion
seems to have in many ways transcended these national boundaries.
In France, the designer, particularly the couturier but also the crateur
who designs expensive ready-to-wear clothing, tends to be viewed as
an artist. These designers form the majority in France. In the 1980s, the
status of designer as ne artist was ofcially recognized by the French
government through the funding of fashion museums and exhibits in the
Louvre (among other places). Beginning in the 1980s, designers started
to work in the Sentier, Paris garment district. These designers target the
lower-priced youth market and are inuenced by American sportswear
and urban street fashions (1993: 56, 60-61). The fashion world in France,
even today, is linked to its associations with the highly prestigious art
world. This connection allowed French designers, typically originating
from the lower social stratum, to move in elite social circles (1993: 57).
Crane points out that the designers collection is presented in France as
the creations of a single individual working alone in the studio. Crane
says that the increasing prestige of the profession and its participation in
an elite lifestyle gradually attracted practitioners of higher social status;
for example, after World War II men who could have entered careers in
law, medicine, or architecture might become fashion designers. At this
point the designer as artist role was combined with that of a corporate
executivewhether it be the designer acting in both roles or, more fre-
quently, a partnership between a business executive and a designer. The
cratures also catered to a luxury market in ready-to-wear, and the young
designers of the Sentier addressed the youth market, a segment that had
never been addressed by French designers (1993: 58-60).
The London designer tends to be an artisan, argues Crane. Due to
the lack of prestige accorded to the profession of fashion design and
the degree of stratication in British society, the person who embarks
on a career in fashion is likely to be from a lower middle-class or
working-class backgroundsomeone who could not gain entrance into
the university, says Crane. Trained in the ne art model, which takes an
oppositional stance to the established culture, he or she is likely to see
himself or herself as a part of London counterculture. Crane argues that
English designers do not have the same access to upper-class circles,
which in England are made up of the establishment and not those who
have acquired wealth or fame on their own (1993: 62-63). Some design-
ersthe gloried artisando cater to the established, conservative
upper-class client (1993: 64-65). Others work for large manufacturers
or abroad where more opportunities exist (1993: 62-63).
Certainly, there have been some changes in the British fashion world
since Cranes study. Heading two of the worlds most prestigious fashion
houses are London designers from Central Saint Martins College of Art
and Design. John Galliano, who describes himself as a south Londoner of
modest background, was appointed chief designer at Givenchy in 1995;
he became the rst British designer to head a French couture house. His
replacement, Alexander McQueen, was also of modest background. Both
designers appealed to the French couture houses because of the oppo-
sitional aspect they could bring to couture houses that were becoming
rather staid. No doubt the success of these two designers and of Stella
McCartney (who is neither of working class background nor a designer
who draws on street culture) will confer a great deal of prestige on the
career of fashion designer for young British people, perhaps in some
way closing the class-based chasm that Crane has described. Vivienne
Westwood, a British designer who in the 1970s incorporated bondage
gear in her punk-inspired fashions, won the Queens Export Award in
1998 and was awarded a place in the Victoria and Albert Museum. In
2004 the museum featured a retrospective of her work.
Crane describes the role of the American fashion designer as having
little prestige before World War II (1993: 65). Perhaps this subordination
to large clothing manufacturers had a positive result, speculates Crane.
Innovative designers like Claire McCardell learned how to make practical
clothes that were also stylish from low-cost and easy care fabrics. Designs
that could be worn by all classes were made by some American designers,
says Crane. This paved the way for Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren, who
emerged in the 1970s, whose sportswear was worn by a broad segment
of the American population (1993: 65-66). Given their broader focus,
American designers had to get to know their clientele and that meant
learning about the needs of the general population and making clothing
suitable to their needs. Crane refers to the successful American designer
as a lifestyle specialist or corporate executive (1993: 67-68).
Crane also discusses the Japanese context and its fashion designers. In
Tokyo there are several distinct segments divided by neighborhood: Ha-
rojuki geared toward adolescents, sells a great variety of Western styles,
particularly from the United States, Ginza and Aoyama sell Japanese
and Western designer clothes to a clientele consisting largely of young
women who live at home and spend their own and their parents money
on clothes. Japanese apparel rms supply clothing to these markets.
Crane says the major role of the Japanese designer is that of a business
executive. The most prominent designers, however, are artists who Crane
says, attempt to develop new forms of clothing based on traditional Japa-
nese clothing, considered by many to be unwearable (1993: 69-70).
McDowell, discussing the inuence of the Japanese designer entering
the Paris fashion scene in the early 1980s, credits designers such as Rei
Kawakubo and Yohji Yamamoto with upsetting the foundation of fashion.
Fashionespecially in its highest formhas traditionally been about
sexuality and the power it bestows on women, says McDowell (2000:
132). Japanese designers deconstructed Western fashion and aesthetics
by realigning and misaligning seams and covering the body rather than
enhancing femininity in traditional ways (2000: 443). Yet, as Yuniya
Kawamura argues, it is because Yamamoto, Kawakubo, and other Japa-
nese designers accepted the preeminence of French fashion that they
sought to become a part of the system (2004: 13).
In a later study, Crane (1999) contrasts the role of male and female
designers in France, England, and the U.S., asking whether female de-
signers may be more likely to detect and be sensitive to the changing
realities of womens lives. Crane nds that women have made signicant
innovations in this type of fashionparticularly when they are at the
periphery of the fashion industry. On the whole, she nds, both female
and male designers are constrained by the organizations in which they
work and the larger context of the fashion industry. Organizations, she
says have the tendency of propelling them toward either sensational or
safe apparel. Today, with a globalization of fashion markets and the
subsequent dominance of men in the industry, there is less chance of
challenging the fashion establishment. Crane sees women designers as
excluded further (1999: 10-11). McRobbie concurs, explaining that in
the U.K. female designers are milked for the benet of the corporate
brand, they remain anonymous, and they are employed by companies
for no more than a couple of years (2002: 60-61).
Certain practices in fashion design, regardless of the context in which
they occur (whether at the Gap or at Chanel) are consonant with the work
of an artist. Barthes (1983) sees the clothing created by designers as an
artistic product. Clothing, he says, is a poetic object, an intersection
of language and matter. Fashion in particular, now quoting Barthes,
mobilizes with great variety all the qualities of matter: substance, form,
color, tactility, movement, rigidity, luminosity (1967/1983: 236). If we
take fashion out of its literary realmwhich Barthes sees as rhetorically
impoverished, e.g., the creamy and dreamy petticoatand look at
actual items of clothing, we see dynamic objects that already embody
certain meanings; these meanings given to them by designers. When
they are worn, of course, they may take on yet another meaning. If we
consider the garment in its pure state on a mannequin or hanger, the
qualities of matter Barthes describes as brought into being by the de-
signer take on innumerable forms. A glance at garments from different
periods demonstrates this versatility. It is the designer as poet, or more
aptly artist, that must give shape and direction to the matter he or she is
charged with manipulating. It is possible then to consider the poetic
function of clothing as an artistic one. The designer uses a variety of
materials to make a work of art, albeit one that is put to more than just a
decorative use. Transforming material into the shape of a human gure,
or using material to transform the shape of the human gure, as some of
the avant-garde Japanese designers have, can be compared to sculpture.
Joan Juliet Buck (2002 Fashion Victim), the editor of French Vogue,
speaks of the inner architecture of the Gianni Versace dress. The dresses
are constructed in such a way as to transform the female form. Even
before it was announced he was sexy, the sexiness was in the design of
the dress and what it did to the woman who wore it, she says. Whereas
the sculptor transforms matter consisting of marble, clay, metal, etc. by
chiseling, cutting, or melting, the designer does essentially the same with
different materials and tools. Both the artist and designer commit to a
particular meaning, and they shape their creations accordingly.
The artist takes some material, for example, stone, metal, canvas,
paint, and uses it to create a form. This representation is presented to
others for them to gaze upon. In classical art forms the aim was delity
and beautication as opposed to a disruption of such objectives. If we
take the Greek and Roman traditions, sculptors made heroic, idealized
images of warriors and athletes with a pride of bodily vigor and noble
carriage, observes Arnold Hauser (1985: 73). The gures created are
what we would call today classically proportioned. This commitment
to a stylized naturalism continued until modern times.
In the fashion system the designer already has the human form, avail-
able in a number of standardized sizes as well as a number of cultural
and aesthetic theories of beauty, proportionality, and so on, at his or her
disposal. Just as the sculptor and the painter are subject to the aesthetic
philosophy current in their time, to one degree or another, so is the design-
er. Within the organizational setting, cultural and aesthetic theories will
be further modied according to local denitions; Hilgers denition of
a mens casual woven shirt is different from Armanis, for instance.
In the patronage system of the Renaissance an artists work would be
commissioned. The fact that a patron dened the parameters made the
artist no less of an artist. It is then with certain specications that the
designer carries out his or her work, analogous perhaps to carving and
painting except with fabrics, textures, and patterns of design.
Like the sculptor or painter the designer also has to take into account
the intrinsic qualities of the materials with which he or she is working.
It is in mixing the palettes of the colors or fabrics and cutting and shap-
ing them that the designer becomes an artist. The way in which this is
done, the amount of attention, time, and inspiration that goes into it,
may deem certain objects more artistic than others. Waddell states,
the haute couture garment can be likened to a work of art where every
stitch, seam, hem and binding is of superb qualityso perfect that the
nished item transcends dressmaking (2004: 1). The designer creates
a composition in which shape, proportionality, texture, and color are
assembled to create a particular effect. In making this composition, the
designer in fact is artfully creating a human form appropriate for view-
ing and appreciation in a social context. These designs are presented to
informed and inuential cognoscentibuyers, and fashion editors, and
more recently fashion bloggers. The presentation whether in a showroom
or on the runway can be compared to an art exhibition, carefully choreo-
graphed and edited. The clothes are artfully arranged in the showroom
with the aid of various props that will further convey the full message
the designer wishes to communicate. In the fashion show, the garments
are worn by models with certain ideal-type gures who become living
and moving sculpturesperformance art. Once selected, these garments
are displayed for all to see and buy in magazines, stores, and perhaps
online. When a garment is selected by an individual, she or he can use it
to make herself or himself appear in public as an object of art, carefully
constructed to elicit admiration, desire, controversy, etc.
Nevertheless, the claim that the designer is an artist has been a con-
troversial one. When asked, Is fashion an art? Norman Norell, one
of Americas most renowned fashion designers, hesitates, then gives a
qualied yes. He says that The best of fashion is worthy of the name
art (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1967: 130). Others have rejected this
notion very strongly. The sculptor Louise Nevelson (1967: 132) says,
Fashion could be an art but isnt. Dilys Blum (2004), writing about
designer Elsa Schiaparelli, makes a distinction among designers. She
says, Chanel viewed dress-making as a profession while Schiaparelli
regarded it as an art (2004: 10). Early in the eighteenth century Charles
Baudelaire had no doubt about the artistic merits of fashionable clothes.
He examines a series of fashion plates and observes:
These costumes...have a double kind of charm, artistic and historical.... The idea of
beauty that man creates for himself affects his whole attire, rufes or stiffens his coat,
gives curves or straight lines to his gestures and even, in process of time, subtly pen-
etrates the very features of his face. Man comes in the end to look like his ideal image
of himself. These engravings can be translated into beauty or ugliness: in ugliness
they become caricatures; in beauty, antique statues (1972: 391; Blum 2004).
Fashion designers, most notably the couturiers, have drawn from art.
Yves Saint Laurent created the Mondrian dress of three colored panels.
Schiaparelli collaborated with Salvador Dali, Jean Cocteau, and Man
Ray. Blum observes, her fashions should be understood as another
reection of the zeitgeist of 1930s Paris, a time when a number of sur-
realist artists were working in and interacting with the world of fashion
and many couturiers were keenly aware of developments in the arts
(2004: 121). Schiaparelli designed hats that resembled female genitalia
and gloves with embroidered rings, red ngernails, or gold claws (2004:
122). These surrealistic expressions added a touch of whimsy or at their
most dramatic a frisson of the unexpected. In 1936 she collaborated with
Dali on a group of surrealist suits and coats with pockets that looked like
miniature drawers complete with dangling handles (2004: 123). Some
designers have moved into the art world entirely no longer designing
wearable clothing. Designer Issey Miyake aligns himself with postmod-
ernism, concentrating solely on A-POC designsshort for a piece of
cloth. Clothing is made from a single tube of cloth and can be cut out
to a desired shape and t along the melded or seamless edges.
As to whether the designer is an artist, designer Alexander McQueen,
who now heads the French couture house of Givenchy, says in an in-
terview:
I dont think you can become a good designer, or a great designer, or whatever. To
me you just are one. I think to know about color, proportion, shape, cut, balance is
part of a gene (Frankel 2001: 20).
One can debate this issue endlesslywhether fashion is art or the
designer an artist. It seems, returning to Beckers work, that the fashion
designer is a rare combination of all three designations: craftsperson,
artist, and artist-craftsperson. Abboud (2004) speaks of fashion design
in terms of art, craft, and business. He says he sketches all the time. He
gets hit with ideas everywhere, nding inspiration in the most mundane
things (2004: 12). Looking out on Fifth Avenue at dusk, The Empire
State Building is the guy in the gray annel suit with a dark blue shirt to
him (2004: 13). Fabric is the beginning, the heart and the essence of my
clothes. Its the touch and the feel and it tells me what to do. The mate-
rial is always the dictator (2004: 12). Yet, he is always conscious of the
consumer who buys his clothingmen who live in the real world. Im
not Versace or Dolce & Gabbana, experimenting for experimentations
sake, going for provocationand press (2004: 14).
It is possible to claim that the process and methods employed by the
designer make him or her an artist of a particular kind. It is possible to
get carried away by the aura that has enveloped the idea of art and artists
over the centuries. Before artists claimed sole authorship, art ourished
in all human cultures. Sculptors have made idealized images for religious
worship and others have made etchings and paintings for this and other
purposes. In the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance in Europe,
artists worked in shops owned by masters and produced collective works
of art that bore the signature of the master. One aspect is common to
all artists: they take certain materials and transform them into different
shapes so that others can gaze at them for aesthetic pleasure or use them
for everyday purposes. If we apply these conditions to the designer of
clothinga self-conscious, deliberate, and goal oriented personit is
clear that he or she qualies as an artist. The designer takes materialfab-
ricand converts it into an objectfashionupon which others gaze.
Harrison White (1993), in a study of careers and creativity in the arts,
argues that artistic careers embody identity, narrative and style, and
each artist strives to forge his or her own unique manifestation of these
variables. A fashion designer is no exception to this, however, the fashion
designer is also different in important ways from the traditional artist.
In Schiaparellis words:
The interpretation of a dress, the means of making it and the surprising way in which
some materials reactall these factors, no matter how good an interpreter you have,
invariably reserve a slight if not bitter disappointment for you.... A dress cannot just
hang like a painting on the wall, or like a book remain intact and live a long and
sheltered life. A dress has no life of its own unless it is worn and as soon as this hap-
pens another personality takes over from you and animates it or destroys it or makes
it into a song of beauty. More often it becomes an indifferent object or even a pitiful
caricature of what you wanted it to bea dream, an expression (Blum 2004: 125).
We might add to this that while some fashion objects may be the one
of a kind pieces Schiaparelli refers to, most are mass-produced. Never-
theless, whatever may become of a creation through industrial processes
or through the consumers own intentions it was invariably conceived,
sketched (by hand or via a computer aided design program), and made
into a sample. Even if this process occurs in various locales and involves
several individuals, there is a creative aspect and a selective process that
requires an artistic vision (or visions) for the object to be realized.
The role of the fashion designerand indeed all designers in a civiliza-
tion that is both industrial and consumeristis a complex one in which
he or she is at once an artist and a craftsperson. Increasingly, he or she is
also a businessperson who must be concerned with reaching a particular
segment (or segments) of the market. Every designer must be able to
translate the abstract into something concrete, work well with others,
meet deadlines and budgetary constraints, and have the ability to adjust
to unexpected situations. Artist and craftsperson are overlapping roles,
though in some cases designers self-consciously classify themselves as
artists, as in Schiaparellis case. For those who refuse such a designation
or are not given it by others, it still can be argued that the work they do
and the products they create contain artistic components.
The Designer as Cultural Arbiter
In the Middle Ages in Europe and elsewhere, sumptuary laws regulated
appearance through rules about clothing and presentation of self at social
ceremonies (Hunt 1996: 7). These laws were a rst response to moder-
nity (1996: 9), an attempt at social, economic and moral regulation in
the face of urbanization, the emergence of class, and new varieties of
gendered relations, argues Alan Hunt (1996: 7). To resolve the tension
these changes brought about, regulations connecting backwards to
the medieval world with notions often embedded in religious ideologies
were put into place (1996: 10). Sumptuary laws can be found in virtu-
ally all civilizationsthey were well established in fourteenth-century
Italyand have persisted at least until the dawn of modernity (1996:
9, 45). Although many scholars dismiss their signicance saying they
were generally ignored, slightly enforced and gradually obsolete, Hunt
differs (1996: 9). For Hunt they are connected to the role of the state
and the governance or legal regulation of its citizens. Indeed they were
necessary for the maintenance of the social and interactional order.
The fashion system as an enterprise which provides signs of distinc-
tion to all classes can exist only in modern consumer-capitalist society.
Within this framework, one can consider the role of designers as agents of
social control, enforcing this control not through legal means but through
persuasion. Clothing is central to the construction of ones economic
standing, social position, and gender. The scope of its importance has
expanded beyond categories of class to provide insight into ones level
of sophistication and preferences. Its attributesthe material, pattern,
color, and silhouette, for instancerelate to a variety of categories. Cloth-
ing, like other possessions such as ones car or home, is a visual form
of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1984). Wittingly or unwittingly, clothing
acts as a barometer of sorts. It provides others with relevant information
and speaks to ones own self-concept.
Designers in one way or another contribute to the social ordermain-
taining it, disrupting it, reconguring it, etc. Having to negotiate (as
they do) information pertaining to norms and values, forms of aesthetic
expression, political currents, and popular trends the work they do can
be described as that of a cultural arbiter. The role of the modern designer,
as it has come to be dened, is one of a leader able to convey his or her
lifestyle vision to the public. Persuading people to wear these gar-
ments and to live this vision is a means of inuencing social action. To
do so in a way that can be easily understood, perhaps mainly through a
visual medium, the designer often draws on archetypes that by denition
are culturally meaningfulthe athlete, cowboy, movie star, rock star,
WASP. In this way fashion captures the essential myths and stereotypes
of a society.
Once designers were running fashion houses, which were often pub-
licly held corporations, they attained considerable power and public at-
tention. This larger-than-life status that designers would acquire was very
unlike that of the traditional American designer working anonymously
for a large manufacturer. It was different, though it borrowed from the
European couturier whose persona bespoke exclusivity and privilege.
However emulated his or her styles might have been at all social levels
(via a trickling down process), the couturier designed for an individual
client or a select audience. The aim of the American designer, for the
most part, was to directly reach a much broader middle-class audience.
This is reected in the kinds of fashion American designers made, no-
tably sportswear.
In an earlier period, designers had to rely almost entirely on fashion
editors to achieve recognition (Agins 1999: 25). These editors had the
power to make or break fashion (1999: 15). Once designer names
began to achieve household recognition amongst a large segment of
the population, people began looking to these individuals for direction
on matters of fashion and taste, bypassing the authority of the fashion
press. Hilger quite notably accomplished this with a TV, billboard, and
magazine advertising campaign rather than taking the requisite smaller
steps to win over the fashion insiders. This kind of posture was only
possible once the designer had been recognized as an independent entity
and had other means of conveying his or her message. The growth of a
media culture puts control in the hands of the public. Designers careers
have been transformed overnight, after their product appeared on the
HBO hit series Sex and the City, now shown on network television (La
Ferla 2003: B7).
McDowell (2000) asks the question, How did the cult of the fashion
superstar evolve, and why? He precedes this question with the assertion
that designers are in the top echelons of heroes, alongside lm, sport
and pop stars. The status of designer has been elevated because design-
ers lead lives that are often far more glamorous than that of their clients
(2000: 80). In order to lead a glamorous life, one needs wealth, not
breeding, he points out. In the past no matter how wealthy a designer
might be, he or she was viewed as a service provider and, as such, was
excluded from society. Being able to lead a privileged lifestyle gave
fashion designers access to the mores of high society, says McDow-
ell, which in turn gave people condence in their judgment (2000: 83).
Leslie Kaufman (2002: 1) comments in The New York Times referring to
Yves Saint Laurent, But he is just one in a generation of designers who
emerged in the 1960s and 1970s and became celebrities whose per-
sonal lives were chronicled almost as assiduously as those of movie stars.
McDowell (2000: 80, 83) mentions Valentinos yacht, Ralph Laurens
life of aristocratic splendor, and Calvin Kleins East Hampton house
as indicators of their class position. People in large numbers bought the
clothing of these designers once they had become recognizable talents.
Editors and buyers identied with them and with what their clothing had
come to represent.
A consumer culture allows names to become synonymous with ways
of being through a product that acts as a medium for such representa-
tions. Deborah Root (1996), in discussing the commodication of the
artists name, compares this to the commodication of the designers
name in the fashion industry but sees the later as much more obvious
(1996: 129). The Metropolitan Museum of Art sells Diego Rivera plates
and other household goods and articles of clothing ennobled with the
artists name (1996: 129-130). In the past there were only straightfor-
ward reproductions of an artists work (1996: 130). Utilitarian objects
are transformed into objects with aesthetic value because they are refer-
ences to an exalted artist (1996: 127, 130). In fashion, Root says, The
ability to purchase a bottle of Chanel perfume for $40 is meant to refer
to the $3,000 suit that very few are able to afford. Chanel specically
markets accessories this way because these cheaper, more accessible
products constitute the bulk of its business (1996: 129). While her prices
need some adjustment, Roots point is well made.
The Italian designer Gianni Versace played an important role, be-
ginning in the 1980s, in dening the direction of what we might call
postmodern fashion. Versace embodies the designer as cultural arbiter,
creating a universe built on simulations that he himself lived amongst,
used to dened the brand, and to attract a following. Versace, referred to
as the Sun King and the Emperor of Fashion, lived in a spectacular
mansion in Como, Italy; later he also lived in Miami Beach, Florida.
His boyfriend of fteen years, when asked about Versaces claiming to
be able to spend $3 million in two hours, says that he could spend a lot
more than that and sometimes did. In a documentary about him, various
people described the splendor of his life, the magnicent, grand parties
and the celebrities and models that he was always surrounded by. Malcolm
McLaren describes his lifestyle and his fashions as vulgar, brilliant, and
brazen. Buck says there was always more music, more owers, more
champagne, more chocolate, and more modelseverything was faster
and louder, he loved bright, shining, better than normal. While other
designers had one supermodel, Versace had Kate, Naomi, Claudia,
[and] Christie Turlington all at once. He was the rst, she says, to pay
supermodels enormous salaries. Louis Canales who managed public
relations says that people validated themselves in the reected image
of the Sun King. Without Versace, he claims, the House of Dior and the
House of Hubert de Givenchy would have never hired John Galliano and
Alexander McQueenthey were brought in to compete with this new
force in the fashion world (2002 Fashion Victim).
In a society where it is possible to be upwardly mobile and to move
from one class to another, the symbols of those who had long been on
the top are coveted. Versace boldly used classical symbols of Roman
art and architecture in his couture and expensive ready-to-wear cloth-
ing. Ralph Lauren turned his attention to sportswear. To begin with,
sporting clothesoutts made for polo playing, riding, yachting, and
sailingwere worn by those who engaged in these activities. Gucci was
one of the early aspirational brands. Owning a Gucci bag or luggage
was by the early 1950s an indication of rened style and taste and
wealth (Forden 2001: 24). Warren Helstein, a friend of Ralph Laurens,
recalls a purchase Lauren made early in his life at Guccia horse-bit
buckle belt. Helstein says Lauren experienced this purchase as a genuine
achievement (Gross 2003: 87). Lauren was to go on to create an empire
using such logic. He was one of the rst American designers to com-
mercialize basic sporting itemsto take them out of their upper-class,
largely European context and market them to all who could afford them.
Lauren is quoted as saying, I present a dream. He describes his clothing
as vehicles that transport one to a desirable place. Clothing becomes a
ticket to a particular lifestyle.
They are a world youd like to be a part of. In that world youd wear that kind of
thing. I dont see a pant. Everything is connected to something else. Nothing is apart.
I design into living. Its a lifestyle (Gross 2003: 3).
Hilger takes simulation to another level. He adeptly used the media
to create an image for his lifestyle brand without any of the props that
Versace, for instance, painstakingly acquired over the years. Designers
had conferred status on their products only after their names had achieved
recognition and renown. Some might say that Hilger redened what
Ralph Lauren had begun to do with sportswear some years earlier; he was
building, in effect, on a simulated hyperreality. Hilger simply claimed
recognition and proceeded to build an image. He is asked this rather odd
question, Have you ever wondered if the acceptance of your clothing
has anything to do with how your name looks or sounds? His response
speaks to the issue of an established name ennobling a product:
I dont think it does. It could be any name. If you have the right product, the right
advertising, the right imaging behind it, it could say Johnny Hallyday (Playboy
1997: 60, 65).
Hilger cites the importance of the right product but in this state-
ment we see a shift from a secure, grounded referent to an image which
needs no real point of reference. There is a desire on the part of people
to align themselves with something new that could provide an avenue
of prestigeand perhaps some diversion. Hilger does not refer to his
lifestyle, accomplishments, personal ideals, and beliefshe starts with
the product. Those who began to buy his products could not have known
anything about his life, which initially was very average. They did not
buy Tommy Hilger because they assumed he was a jet-setter or because
the upper classes had visibly embraced his creations. For the couturier
though, and for those ready-to-wear designers who achieved prominence,
this was a necessary step. The couturier is by denition established.
Many celebritiesSean Combs, Jennifer Lopez, Eve, Missy Elliot, Mary-
Kate and Ashley (the Olsen twins)have cashed in on their success
by starting their own fashion lines. By contrast, the public began buying
Hilgers (and before him Laurens) designs for another reasonnot for
who he was but for what he promised. They bought into a lifestyle that
was projected through advertisements, and, not incidentally, many bought
the Tommy Hilger brand because it was widely available in major de-
partment stores. The designer behind the product was perhaps assumed
to represent the lifestyle that the product promoted (as designers before
him had). Hilger subsequently attained success; he appeared in the fash-
ion press, newspapers (indeed, in the society pages), and on television and
radio, but the emphasis has never been on him exclusively. Mass-produced
fashion, unlike couture and higher-level ready-to-wear, is not speaking to a
cognoscente and as such must be more immediate in its impact.
The shift away from the celebrity of the designer to desirability or
coolness of the product, as Hilger achieved, presents a situation in
which the brand as a whole can become the arbiter of a certain lifestyle.
In those rms headed by designers, the name of the designer provides a
certain cach, placing him or her in the company of an Yves Saint Laurent
or a Christian Dior. Even without a visible designer at the helm, though,
companies like Abercrombie and Fitch or Benetton are able to convey
a particular identity.
Janet McCue (1994) mentions Calvin Kleins elevating such mundane
stuff as blue jeans and underwear to the status level of a Chanel purse or
a Gucci loafer (1994: 1F). What gives Chanel, Gucci, and then Klein the
ability to elevate mere products to status symbols? Chanel and Gucci in
particular, because of their European roots and reputation as producers
of luxury products, are associated with high fashion. They have been
marketed as elite houses and have achieved that reputation. Whether or
not an individual has heard of Gabrielle Chanel or knows if she is still
alive is not essential. Chanel products, from cosmetics to accessories and
clothing, are sold in exclusive stores and boutiques at prices far higher
than most other products in a similar category. A certain prestige has
become associated with being able to buy and display such items. They
are auctioned on Ebay and are widely counterfeited.
Once the product is accepted and gains esteem, it becomes identi-
ed with the designers name. At this point the name begins to develop
a life of its own. The brand and/or logo becomes both a product and a
marker of the products value. This is the ethos of the fashion business:
product-name-product.
Calvin Klein, one of the worlds most recognized brands, was able
to use his position as a designer (once such a position held value in the
public mind) to confer status on the products he sold even if in this case
they were principally jeans and underwear. In doing so Calvin Klein
provides a route to prestige and status that is accessible to more people
than does Chanel or Prada.
Taste has always been a marker of class. The capacity to see or know
is a matter, to use Bourdieus phrase, of cultural competence (1984: 2).
In societies where there is relatively free mobility, or at least the hope of
upward mobility, there is a desire for markers that will allow one to carry
off the new social position they occupy or aspire to occupy. Designers
and those who produce fashion are not only producing cultural objects
but are designating these objects as appropriate to one or another status
or manner of living. They create representations which link something
in the actual worldan upper-class lifestyleto their product. This is
manifested in the product itself; perhaps a crest is used or the material
or tailoring is exclusive, and the way the garment is presented. In an ad-
vertisement it may be placed in a setting which suggests privilege, such
as at a polo match; or sexuality, as in Calvin Kleins jeans and fragrance
television commercials in the 1970s and 1980s.
Berger (1972) tells us that we never just see things, we always see
them in relation to other things and to ourselves (1972: 9). Designers
create styles that will elicit certain associations, just as do artists work-
ing in other media. A concentration on the aesthetic aspectsform
and mannerare most pronounced in art but can be found in cooking,
clothing, and decoration, says Bourdieu. He calls this a stylization of
life (1972: 5). In couture fashion, this aesthetic focus will be most in-
tense, just as it will be in the creation and presentation of haute cuisine.
In fashion though, a designer must always be concerned with form and
manner, even when practicality and cost are also an issue. Food at times
may be a private matter, but so long as one is present before others in the
world, appearance is an integral part of the practice and performance of
self. Realizing this, the designer must always be aware of the message
a particular style has the potential to communicate.
Once people began looking to the designer for direction or began ac-
cepting his or her formulations, he or she became a cultural arbiter. That
is, the designer became one who provides the means for an appropriate
self-presentation, who is capable of dening what is fashionable, and
who shapes trends. The cultural arbiter in fashion can be compared to
the literary or lm critic or the intellectual or scientist who has gained
renown in their respective eld. Thus they command a following or at
least hold some inuence in the eyes of those who are interested in their
sphere of expertise.
The master designer becomes a cultural arbiter by using his or her
individual talents, interests, ideals, and the social networks in which he
or she operates. These factors provide a foundation for the brand that
will emerge. The master designer may engage in social activities that
together comprise a lifestyle. This lifestyle allows one access to certain
types of information. A lifestyle may involve such components as en-
gagement in popular culture or ne arts, activities of a certain type, and
connections with certain places. Participation in one or another dened
activities leads to an understanding of that sphere. Sometimes this par-
ticipation may be more constructed than genuinefor example Ralph
Lauren presenting himself as a cowboy or Martha Stewart cultivating the
image of a homemaker. Commitments are related back to the product
and indeed come to dene that product. These associations of the brand,
often based on the lifestyle of the master designer, provide a window for
the public to a particular world, one to which many may not have access.
The master designer often represents the public face of the company and
the image of the brand.
The master designer also plays a key role in the organization. Not
only does his or her status become synonymous with the company in
the eyes of the public, it becomes so within the organization. The master
designers persona and lifestyle may be experienced differently within
the company. The persona and lifestyle of the master designer denes the
direction of the company. The ideals the master designer holds should
be consonant with the brand image. If this is not so, there will be a lack
of authenticity around the brand; it will be much harder for employees
charged with creative functions to themselves identify with and grasp the
meaning of the brand. Individual designers, executives, and people of all
positions within the company are expected to personify what becomes
the company image, imparted by the master designer. How this occurs
will become clearer when the culture of an organization is discussed.
Other designers in the company can also be seen as cultural arbiters
contributing in various ways to the overall image of the master designer
and to the company/brand. Each designer, to a varying extent based on
his or her position in the company, acts as a cultural arbiter. Designers
are expected to be creative and to be engaged in activities outside of their
organizational life that will lead to the formulation of new ideas and in-
novations. They must be able to pick up on trends that have a relevance
to the companys overall philosophy and incorporate these insights in
their everyday work. Perhaps they may even move the company in a new
direction, thus contributing to a redening of the brand. Consequently,
there is both an individual and a collective aspect to the cultural arbiter.
The designers work together to achieve a goal which is deemed appro-
priate for the company. Working in concert with the master designer,
they promote his or her status of a cultural arbiter in the public eye and
in the company itself. Achieving a public persona involves the work of
designers and others, who within the company are recognized for their
unique contributions. This can be extended to rms in which there is
no visible designer. The brand in and of itself takes on a public persona
and attains certain characteristics. Once inside the company, one would
nd a particular organizational structure: a CEO or a principal designer
leading the company and many designers who each act as arbiters in
their own divisions.
Kaufman says Calvin Klein, Giorgio Armani, Oscar de la Renta, and
Ralph Lauren will someday have to surrender the reins of the compa-
nies bearing their names, and hope that their signature vision will live
on without them. Such a transition, she states, is particularly delicate
in the fashion industry. First, the designers gut feel for what their
consumer wants is difcult to replace. Second, these designers maintain
a bond through an image with the masses and through interpersonal
contact with their elite clients (2002: 1-2).
High-end designers like Arnold Scassi, must demonstrate that they
are a part of the world they service. That means attending clients par-
ties and weddings and being seen at certain events. Scassi goes as far
as to say: I support the charities that my friends or clients support. I
support PEN, the writers group, because Gayfryd Steinberg does. And
I support the Girl Scouts because of Austine Hearst and Edna Morris
(Daria 1989: 32). It is doubtful that Scassi, who runs a small, exclusive
rm, could be replaced by a new designer who could carry on his vi-
sion as has happened with the larger luxury fashion houses. Oscar de la
Renta comments, Once the name gets institutionalized it can go on for
a long time. Bill Blass puts it bluntly, In the end we are no different
than Heinz chili sauce (Kaufman 2002: 1-2).
Blass retired in 1999 and passed away in June 2002. After his
retirement, Blasss friend and former t model, who rose to become the
company spokeswoman, designed the Fall 2000 collection and continued
to assist his rst replacement. Since his death several designers and others
have been red (Wilson 2003: 8). Kaufman (2002: 1) states, For rms
that churn out merchandise for the mass market and have hundred[s] of
millions of dollars in sales, like Polo Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein,
design succession is less of an issue.
David Wolfe, creative director of the retail and fashion consulting
rm the Doneger Group, is amongst those who have doubts about how
well major rms may do after their visionaries depart. Ralph Lauren
has become a personality and celebrity, consumers may not want to
buy his products if theres no Ralph Lauren, he suggests. Julie Gilhart,
Vice President of Merchandising at Barneys, feels there needs to be a
person behind the brand. Kaufman points out another dilemma, Once
an outsider takes over a company, there is no guaranteeand, more
importantly, no obligationthat the standards and style of the original
owner be maintained. Thus, the name itself may become tarnished
(2002: 1-2).
In 2003 Calvin Klein sold his rm for $430 million to Phillips-Van
Heusen, which also owns Izod. Phillips-Van Heusen, whose Van Heusen
shirt division is the largest shirt seller in the world, is expanding the Cal-
vin Klein company, particularly in Asia where there is room for growth
(Weber 2004). The main person who now designs for Calvin Klein is
Francisco Costa, who is in his thirties. A review of his show in September
2003 concludes that Costa is leading Calvin Klein through fresh eyes,
drawing on certain themes established by Klein in an innovative way
(Horyn 9/16/03: B7).
Kenneth Cole is another example of the designer as cultural arbiter.
Once he achieved this presence, he used his persona to promote not
only the culture of fashion but social and cultural issues. He has actively
taken a role in promoting awareness on issues such as AIDS and gun
control, and has used his fashion advertisements as a platform for these
agendas. In his book Footnotes he discusses his philosophy. In a talk to
FIT students in November of 2003, Kenneth Coles appearance on stage
was preceded by a lm interspersing the milestones of his fashion career
with the major news events of that year. The audience no doubt got the
message that Cole sees himself as more than just someone who sells
fashion. In fact, Cole tells the audience early in his talk and reinforces
this point throughout the talk, he wanted his work to be about more
than just making money. He says he realized that nobody needed what
he was selling. His shoes were something hed have to convince people
they needed. Along with this came an understanding that what he did
was not important. Cole described how he made it important. When
he began selling shoes in 1985 he noticed a consciousness that he com-
pared with the 1960s. People, via the music industry, were concerned
with hunger in Ethiopia, for example. Cole decided to use his ads as a
platform to call attention to AIDS and to promote condom use. An ad
featuring a condom said: Shoes are not the only thing we encourage
you to wear.
Cole tells the audience that he did not have enough money to produce
and run ads in the fashion magazines. But with this social message he
was able to get top models to volunteer their time, perhaps the photog-
rapher too, and thus was able to afford publicity he never could have
nanced on his own. Cole tells the audience that today there is a name
for this: cause related marketing. He says that he and those who work
for him shudder at the thought that this is what they were, or are, do-
ing. What we do is not marketing; he says that is opportunistic and
exploitative. A real concern with AIDS and other causes they represent
is embedded in the culture of the entire organization. Cole presents
himself as having a platform through fashion where people will listen
to what he has to say.
Cole presents us with some very interesting insights into the idea of
the designer as cultural arbiter. For such a leader to emerge there had
to be changes in the social fabric. His equating the mid-1980s with the
1960s leads us to ask, what was different about this consciousness?
As Cole points out, these movements to end hunger in Ethiopia and the
like were started by the music industry. Bono and Bobby Shrivers Red
campaign goes a step further. It enlists the participation of retailers and
fashion brands, such as Emporio Armani, the Gap, and Macys, and
proposes that shopping itself can be the means by which consumers help
eradicate AIDS in Africa. The American Express Red Card donates 1
percent of eligible purchases to the Global Fund and rewards members
with shopping discounts and access to various events and offers. Some
of the purchases, a red Motorola cell phone and the red Gap Inspi(red)
T-shirt, are signiers of ones participation. There is a (Red) Manifesto
(http://www.joinred.com/manifesto.asp) that speaks of collective action
in terms of buying power. This is very different from what happened in
the 1960sand certainly is unlike the Marxs Communist Manifesto!
Though the consciousness of the sixties became very much connected to
music and popular culture it was not conceived in an executive boardroom
or on Madison Avenue. It followed the trajectory of a social movement
originating, in this case, with a counterculture and gradually (with much
opposition) made inroads in the mainstream. Since then, society has be-
come heavily invested in corporate enterprise within which the fashion
industry is a major force. We can say that there is a culture generated by,
or perhaps, culture in general is generated by music, fashion, lm, and the
media industries. People are aware of how important it is to conform to
the standards that are set. This is why designers like Kenneth Cole have
a platform, and those who are not such big players in this very visible en-
terprise do not. Public ofcials, clergy, educators, and intellectualsthe
important voices in the pastare no longer amongst the most inuential.
Many people are listening to and looking at fashion. One might note in
the New York Times alone how much space is dedicated to fashion both
in terms of advertisement and journalistic discourse. As of August 2004
a new Sunday magazine, T, is dedicated entirely to fashion and related
areas. If Cole decides to include in his ad a message about gun control,
an audience will already be there to absorb this statement.
A designer must rst become recognized, otherwise no one will be
willing or able to listen to his or her message, nor will it be available to
a signicant audience. Cole shows us that harnessing the media is an
effective way to do this. The Cole family had been in the shoe business,
but Cole wanted to take it further. Cole, who once designed a collection
for an Italian factory (he couldnt afford to do this on his own), describes
the two choices he had. He could either rent a room at the New York
Hilton where nine hundred other companies would be showing their
shoes to buyers, or he could rent a fancy showroom within a two block
radius from the Hilton. He jokes about not being able to afford the hotel
room, let alone a showroom. He got an ideahed park a truck on the
corner of Sixth Avenue and Fifty-third Street and show his shoes right
in front of the Hilton. A friend in the trucking business would be happy
to lend him the truck but he laughed off Coles request as an impossible
scheme. An inquiry to the Mayors ofce revealed that there were only
two ways to park your vehicle for three days on Sixth Avenue: if you
were a public utility company performing necessary services, or if you
were a production company shooting a lm. For fourteen dollars Ken-
neth Cole changed his companys name to Kenneth Cole Productions
and within forty-eight hours got a permit to shoot his motion picture,
The Birth of a Shoe Company. He sold forty thousand pairs of shoes
and the business was in full swing. Cole said when you are in a room
full of people who are shouting no one will hear you, if you shout in a
room where everyone else is whispering, then you will be heard. This
initial attention put Cole in a position where he could employ similar
tactics in the media.
Once a cultural arbiter, a designer must settle on who his or her audi-
ence will be and how he or she will cultivate this audience. This is, in some
ways, similar to a political candidate or anyone in a leadership position
who must appeal to the public. Cole describes his job as anticipating
and understanding what people will want and giving it to them but not
as they expect. He describes this as the gray linebeing edgy but not
going so far as to not be appealing.
Cole, who branched out to accessories, mens clothing, and more
recently womens clothing, said he had to decide at some point whether
he would appeal to a larger audience and thus compromise on integrity
and quality or sell more to the same customer. He decided on the later.
In Oscar de la Renta we simultaneously see a disdain for commercial-
ism, yet a willingness to make concessions. Oscar de la Renta admires
the fashionable woman who starches her white cotton shirt rather than
wear a more convenient no-wrinkle material. He believes fashion is a
matter of discipline. He says:
Women dress today to reveal their personalities. They used to reveal the designers
personality. Until the 70s, women listened to designers. Now women want to do it
their own way. There are no boundaries. And without boundaries, there is no fashion
(Hirschberg 2002: 15).
Yet de la Renta demonstrates his responsiveness to the market when he
said in his talk at FIT and to a New York Times reporter that his decision
to leave Paris and couture was based on his realization that the future
was in ready-to-wear (De la Renta 1985; Hirschberg 2002: 15). More
recently he has developed the O Oscar line which features a jacket, for
example, in the $75 range; this is much cheaper than his bridge line where
a jacket would be about $425 or the couture line where prices would
range between $1,000 and $4,000 (Agins 3/5/04: W1).
Nevertheless, fashion continues to exist even while (once exclusive)
Isaac Mizrahi designs for Target, and both Oscar de la Renta and Michael
Kors go after the Banana Republic customer, says Agins (3/5/04: W1).
There is a need for fashion at all levels, and therefore the audience open
to the designer is larger than ever. As de la Renta said, there is no one
fashion. There are many niches for designers (1985). Even though large
scale companies may have taken a market share, in fashion the landscape
is always shifting, allowing entry points for new designers and audiences
eager to receive them. The opposite ends of the fashion spectrum are both
proting: luxury items and lower-priced up-to-the-minute fashion rms
like Zara and H&M (Agins 3/5/04: W1).
Coles role as cultural arbiter is one of the more extreme. Most design-
ers do not even pretend to want to make political and social changes; they
admit that their objective is rst and foremost prot. Nevertheless, as do
other large corporations, fashion rms often wish to give something back
to the community. They contribute to various causes that will enhance
the image of the brandusually things that are safe and do not have the
potential to offend potential customers. This, indeed, becomes part of the
organizational identity of the company and exposes the brand in ways
that can be inuential. It allows the designer to add another dimension to
his or her public persona. Marc Weber, president of Phillips-Van Heusen,
describes his company as very benevolent. Building schools in Central
America, working to raise the minimum wage paid to their workers, and
donating clothing and money are amongst some of the activities he men-
tions. Other activities have a clearer business aim. The company sponsors
celebrity golf tournaments so as to inuence the inuencers who may
continue to wear the clothes they were given. Just to be sure, an entire
team of photographers is hired by Phillips-Van Heusen to photograph the
celebrities in their Izod golf attire. Outtting all the lifeguards in Ocean
County, California and the staff at Walt Disney World, to whom 33 mil-
lion tourists come into contact with each year, also gets an exposure that
could not be achieved by advertising (Weber, 2/9/04).
The designer as cultural arbiter must constantly add to his or her
repertoire, not only in the designs he she produces but in respect to his
or her own image. The designer must work consistently to maintain,
and hopefully to expand, his or her inuence which in turn is extended
to the brand. This is achieved by personal appearances, corporate spon-
sorship, aligning oneself and/or the brand with celebrities, and adeptly
using the media to disseminate this information to the broadest possible
audience.
As the middle class expanded, more people sought and could afford
signs of distinction. Fashion designers appropriated signs of distinction
that once may have been rmly anchored; this allowed people to buy
into these signs irrespective of objective class position. So long as codes
are no longer rigidly enforced, people can actively construct a personal
identity based on innovations provided to them by designers and by the
larger industry. Values are not totally commutable within this scheme.
Even if signs become only tenuously connected to signiers, the designer
and fashion house or brand takes on a value in the estimation of the
public and particular individuals allowing for certain items to command
a greater price than others. There is not one arbiter of fashion, there are
many, each speaking to a particular community of people who value his
or her judgment or hold his or her name (or that of the brand) in regard.
Increasingly, as the fashion industry becomes more complex, we nd a
multiplicity of individuals and organizations specializing in areas such
as trend spotting, color forecasting, and branding strategies that can be
hired as cultural arbiters. Designers use this information in creating new
design concepts to enhance their brands.
The Creative Process of Fashion Design
Lucien Goldmanns Durkheimian approach to creativity holds that the
cultural sphere, whether it be literature, art, or even fashion design, is
informed by the world view present amongst the social group in question.
The cultural and artistic works of creative individuals, he says, would not
emerge unless they corresponded to fundamental elements of the con-
science collective. Although closely linked, such works are never simply
a reection of the conscience collective (Goldmann 1973: 115, 119). The
designer, for example, must modify ideas in accordance with his or her
own vision. Goldmann does not detail how such a process might unfold
in terms of creative production within an organizational setting, but his
theory speaks to the origins of creative ideas and to the negotiations and
compensations that must be made by fashion designers.
Cheryl L. Zollars and Muriel Goldsman Cantor say that in the past
sociologists have been guilty of seeing culture producers, particularly the
artist, as somehow operating outside society. The artist was looking from
the outside in, or he or she was simply following a personal vision. We
see this romanticism in the popular imagination too with artists and those
associated with art, such as the architect or fashion designer, envisioned
as someone who transcends the mundane world of social and cultural
forces. On the other hand, those studying mass media and other forms
of popular culture tend to see practitioners as technicians suppressing
their creative ideals to reect the views of the dominant class. Zollars
and Cantor argue that the individual creator should be viewed as a part
of an interconnected system consisting of organizations, occupational
norms and values, and legal and cultural constraints and enhancements
(1993: 3-4).
Roseanne Martorella, in an organizational study of opera, shows that
the form the presentation of opera takes (the choice of opera, musical
style, casting decisions, etc.) is contingent on economic considerations
rather than solely with the integrity of the art form (1982: 42). Clearly,
the conscience collective is selectively mined so that the presentation
of certain works and their interpretation will speak to the interests of
patrons. In a fashion rm commercial interests both inspire and temper
a creative vision, just as they do in artistic/cultural pursuits. Juliet Ash
and Lee Wright, for example, point out that British designers who are
trained in the art school model are regularly derided by managerial elites
for being too adventurous and their work, therefore, commercially
unsound (1988: 2).
Cameron Ford, in summarizing research on creativity and innovation,
explains that it has taken two separate directions. Innovation research
focuses on the macro-organizational and industrial level, on hierarchies
and markets; while creativity research is limited almost exclusively to
psychology, with a concentration on individual level variables and group
dynamics. Ford argues that a productive stance would be to look at the role
of creativity across the innovation processthe interaction of elds and
domains (1996: 1112-1113). Within the organizational domain two fac-
tors contribute to creative actions and innovation: absorptive capacity
and disposition toward risk. Absorptive capacity is an organizations
ability to recognize the value of new information. Without this capacity,
an organization would get locked into familiar ways of doing things and
will miss emerging opportunities (1996: 1128). Disposition toward risk
is an ability to balance the possibility of failure with the cost of missed
opportunities when making judgments (1996: 1129). Those involved in
creative activity must be able to think across various levels of domains:
divisions within the company, consumers, markets, regulatory commis-
sions, and so on and so forth (1996: 1132). Ford develops what he calls
a multiple domain theory of creative action which investigates how
various factors inuence the decisions of the creative individual or team
(1996: 1134).
Richard Woodman and colleagues investigate the factors that con-
tribute to the development of new products, services, ideas, etc. within
organizations by utilizing the existing research on innovation and cre-
ativity (1993: 293). They expand an interactionist model of creativity,
developed by Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1989), to address the complex
interaction between individuals and situations within organizations. The
creative situation is a complex mosaic of individual, group, and organi-
zational characteristics (Woodman 1993: 310). Antecedent factors that
contribute to an individuals creativity, such as personality traits, cognitive
abilities, motivation, and knowledge/expertise, may in no small part be
responsible for bringing him or her into the organizational environment
(1993: 297). There are certain qualities and skills a designer must bring
to his or her vocation, and these attributes will unfold in different ways
depending on the particular organizational setting. Woodman et al. see
group creativity as a function of individual creativity while also encom-
passing group dynamics such as leadership, size, cohesiveness, norms,
and diversity as well as contextual or organizational characteristics such
as cultural inuences, resource availability, organizational mission and
strategy, reward policies, structure, and technology (1993: 296, 310). They
propose various hypotheses that may be tested in empirical settings. For
example, they expect that individual creativity will increase when group
norms promote sharing and decrease under situations that require high
levels of conformity. Furthermore, Group creative performance will
be increased by the use of highly participative structures and cultures
(1993: 312-313).
Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell (1991) point out that organiza-
tions in the same line of business that constitute a eld are characterized
by isomorphism of structure and practice, rather than by variation. In
terms of innovation a new idea or design, for example, does not remain for
long in the province of one organization; it is quickly adopted by others
in the eld. They state, Organizations respond to an environment that
consists of other organizations responding to their environment, which
consists of organizations responding to an environment of organizations
environments (1991: 65). This is particularly relevant to the fashion
industry where style trends quickly become industry-wide, though they
may be interpreted in a variety of ways. Isomorphism at the product level
is a result of the demands created by the common environment all rms
operate in. However, to remain competitive rms must move from imita-
tion to innovation so as to distinguish themselves. This may be achieved
by interpreting a trend in a way that supports the established image of the
brand and meets the expectations of the consumer base. Responsiveness to
the external environment in organizationally specic ways seems to be the
force that drives fashion to change on an industry level. At the structural
level of isomorphism, one rm in a eld may operate very much like
another rm of a similar scale in terms of technologies and procedures
that have proven efcient (e.g., exible production schemes).
In order to understand the special role of designers, those who actu-
ally create the new products, one might refer to Hausers consideration
of artists. The early Renaissance artists studio was still modeled on the
guild system of the Middle Ages. Until the late fteenth century artistic
labor was a collective enterprise. Artistic creation involves the participa-
tion of assistants, pupils, and apprentices of the master artist (1985:
54-55). The work of the artist had not yet been dened as the expres-
sion of an individual personality, as it would be after Michelangelo
(1985: 55, 59).
Harvey Molotch investigates the work performed by product or
industrial designers by observing them in the workplace and through
interviews. Molotch nds two sources of creativity: the rst concerns
the designers as individuals. Their involvement in theater, music or
free thought movements expands their thinking repertoires. Also,
they demonstrate an ability to pick up on cultural currents (2003: 31).
The second source of creativity occurs at the collective level. Designers
work cooperatively to create style boards or lifestyle boards which
picture the products and settings of the target group for which a product
is created (2003: 45). This team arrangement is conducive to the task
at hand. Molotch notes that designers work best under conditions of
minimum bureaucratic control (2003: 42).
Dana Cuff (1991), a professor of architecture, remembers seeing the
San Francisco skyline and believing, as many people might, that it was
created by architects working independently in their artist-like studios
(1991: 1). With experience, and after conducting an ethnographic study
of the profession, Cuff tells us that this is not the case. The realization
of a given building is a collaborative effort involving many architects as
well as hordes of politicians, planners, clients, bankers, engineers, civic
groups, corporate executivesjust to name a few of the key players.
Similarly, we could take a dress and name a different set of characters
that gure into its eventual form. Cuffs study of architects situates
architectural practice within a bureaucratic, organizational context and,
in doing so, demonstrates a gap between the ne art and theoretical
training at schools of architecture (as well as the standards set by the
professional association) as well as the realities an architect encounters
once employed (1991: 44). The design process is described as emerg-
ing from collective action. It has a social dimension. Good design,
Cuff says, emerges from groups (1991: 13). At the larger rms, tasks
become very specialized with owners or partners retaining all design
responsibility and specic tasks being delegated to particular architects.
The jobs of most architectural workers are less meaningful and more
alienating; a small but powerful group of architects at the peak of the
hierarchical pyramid take for themselves what they consider the most
rewarding work (1991: 49). Few projects, says Cuff, have fewer than
10 people involved in the decision making (architects, engineers, interior
designers, specialist consultants, construction managers, public agencies,
and, of course, clients) (1991: 77). Clients must give nal approval to
a project, giving non-professional outsiders a considerable amount of
power in the creative process.
In fashion design we see the melding of rational, bureaucratic prin-
ciples with the subjective phenomena of aesthetics and inspiration. A
creative energy needs to be fostered amongst designers so that new ideas
are produced. This is the lifeblood of the fashion industry. These ideas,
eventually taking the form of garments, are moved forward by various
administrative structures that regulate personnel, schedules, procedures,
policies, directives, etc. Without the creative work of designers, though,
administration is of little value.
The designer is expected to bring certain talents and abilities to his or
her work and to keep oneself abreast of new developments and trends
in the fashion world and popular culture. There is both external and
internal work that needs to be done. External work occurs outside of the
organizational context and represents the designers own investment of
time in activities that provide knowledge and inspiration, for example,
shopping/browsing the market, attending art and other exhibitions, travel-
ing, reading periodicals and books, and seeing lms. The designer, as a
professional, sees this work as an investment in his or her own cultural
capital, not merely as a service to the rm. As creative energy is the key
to a successful enterprise, the rm itself will take certain steps to ensure
that the designer can fully develop his or her own potential. Providing a
less bureaucratic environment is one way that creative, culture producing
rms typically foster a freer work atmosphere. Having designers work in
teams promotes the exchange of ideas and provides a sense of collegiality.
It allows one to feel part of something larger and to experience, through
relationships with others, a sense of accomplishment. Collaboration
also serves to lessen the burden of strict deadlines and other limitations
imposed on the creative process. It also helps one deal with the anxiety
and stress that such an environment produces.
Allowing a certain space for each person to express his or her own
creative ideas is also necessary so that the collective work situation does
not itself become oppressive. There must also be allowance for some time
away from the intensity of ones work. Some companies allow time for
shopping/browsing and have areas separate from ones work space such
as libraries or design closets, rooms that house fabric, clothing, and
objects of various kinds. Designers are able in this way to get away from
their work, to solve problems, to nd sources of inspiration, and, ideally,
to return reinvigorated. Neither creativity nor a structural arrangement in
enterprises of this scope could operate without the other. How they actu-
ally are managed and unfold in given rms will be somewhat different.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
129
4
Leadership in the Fashion Industry
Leadership plays an important role in the success of any organization.
In industries that rely on individual creativity there are unique challenges,
and we therefore nd similarities in the way work is organized. The size
and scope of the rm will have an impact on how the organization is
structured, as will the demands of a particular industry. Styles of lead-
ership arise in response to these and other factors. Here I will consider
the factors shaping leadership in creative enterprises, specically the
fashion industry, and will look at the role that leaders play in several
fashion design rms.
Howard Davis and Richard Scase (2000) look at management prac-
tices in creative organizations. They argue that creative work requires a
exible, anti-bureaucratic style of management that is found in many
traditional or charismatic organizations. Mechanisms of formal control
are relatively less developed, instead, we are likely to nd shared values
and an informal and collegial work environment (2000: 99-100).
Work is coordinated through an understanding of the founders vision
or other clearly dened goals. The personal charisma of the founding
entrepreneur or the tradition provides the glue that holds the organiza-
tion together (2000: 100). Creativity cannot be precisely dened and
measured, as it is a result of self-expression; freedom from constraints
is a necessary prerequisite (2000: 9). Creative companies, they say, have
a less clearly dened hierarchical management structure (2000: 13-14).
Davis and Scase state that there are several structural constraints on the
extent to which work processes can be standardized and determined by
hierarchical methods of management (2000: 15). They acknowledge
that, despite the unsuitability of a standardized hierarchical approach
to creative work, some rms do use a variation of such a form of ad-
ministration. Commercial bureaucracies are where formal and explicit
coordination and control are used exploit creativity. Management speci-
es the conditions to be undertaken for prescribed goals and employees
are monitored, measured and appraised (2000: 98). This results in an
ongoing tension that thwarts creativity.
Creativity, and the exibility that it requires, nevertheless can and does
reside within relatively inexible structures, namely, within bureaucratic
organizations with clearly dened rules, job descriptions, and so on.
If this were not possible we would not nd multibrand luxury groups,
such as Prada Group NV, whose complex operations require coordina-
tion on a global scale, yet are able to produce cutting-edge products. In
such creative endeavors we need not conceive of an either/or process:
autonomy vs. authority, nonconformity vs. conformity, determinacy vs.
indeterminacy. The fashion industry requires that creativity occurs within
denite boundaries insofar as merchandise must be designed, produced,
presented, and delivered according to schedule. Within each of these steps
we nd a clear division of labor, standards that have to be met, budget-
ary constraints, and complex networks through which information must
ow and services are provided. This does not mean that the process is
not fraught with problems. It often is; but many rms not only nd a
balance between coordinating tasks in a predictable manner and allowing
for creative expression, but they integrate these two aspects.
Lindsey Owens-Jones, former CEO of LOral, the French cosmetics
company, speaks of how he changed the culture from one that had been
dictatorial to one in which entrepreneurial creativity was nourished at
every level. He says, So the challenge is to encourage your own organiza-
tions to take those risks while somehow making sure that they stay within
reasonable trend lines as to overall brand strategies because they cannot
zigzag around too much because you need continuity. He continues, The
difcult balance lies in handing over responsibility to younger and very
creative people who are just not necessarily very business-disciplined and
yet keeping just enough control to make sure that it works nancially
(Womens Wear Daily 5/5/06: 5). Leadership becomes a key component
in creating an organizational culture and a system which fosters imagi-
nation and innovation, yet is efcient and meets protability goals. The
charismatic leader, through his or her connection with members in the
rm, bridges the gap between a work environment which is routinized
and one that is capable of sparking new ideas.
As bureaucratic mechanisms are a necessary component of admin-
istration within large fashion rms but cannot stand on their own, it is
useful to look at the work of Max Weber on the administration of formal
organizations. Webers systematic analysis of authority and the types of
Leadership in the Fashion Industry 131
leadership that emerge within the three types of administration he has
outlinedtraditional, charismatic and bureaucratichas provided a
foundation on which to begin to understand organizations. In each type of
administration there are grounds for legitimate authority. In traditional
and bureaucratic forms of authority obedience is owed to persons oc-
cupying a particular status. Weber denes charisma as an extraordinary
quality that confers a unique, magical power on an individual. Rather
than obedience being owed, one feels a devotion to the specic and
exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual
person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by
him (1947/1968: 328). Previously, the term had been used to describe
a magical or religious energy. Reinhard Bendix says of charismatic au-
thority that it is a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue
of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with
supernatural, superhuman, or at least specically exceptional powers or
qualities (1977: 88 fn 15). In theology it has been dened as a divine
grace bestowed on man by God (MacRae 1974: 3). In the context of
discussing modern bureaucracy Weber compared the rational legal bu-
reaucratic authority prevalent in the modern world to charismatic and
traditional authority. Bendix states that Webers view of history is that it
alternates between the charisma of the great men and the routinization
of bureaucracy (1977: 326).
Charismatic authority, as Weber describes it, exists apart from any
institution; it is a property of a particular individual who has the power
to gain adherence from others and to lead them. Weber uses Jesus Christ
as an example. Traditional authority, the dominant mode for most of
history, is based on established systems or institutions, e.g., monarchy
or the Church. An individual inherits a position of authority (say in the
caste system amongst a Brahmin priesthood) or it is ritually bestowed
upon him or her, not because of any individual qualications but because
of his or her favored status. Charismatic authority is created by an in-
dividual, and it begins and ends with that person unless it is routinized
in various practices of an organization. Charisma is stabilized and can
continue, albeit in a changed form, even after the charismatic individual
is no longer present. Weber speaks of the development of the Catholic
Church. Elements of Christs charisma are present in the authority of
the pope and in the consecration of priests. The institution becomes the
bearer of charismatic authority, acting on Christs behalf by interpret-
ing, promoting, even adding to his teachings and offering sacraments,
etc. A living, divine inspiration is replaced by rituals and administrative
practices. Christian churches claim the rightor in some cases exclusive
rightsto Christs charisma.
As charisma is the least stable form of authority, the leader must
continually work toward maintaining his or her sanctity, heroism, and
exceptional character. Jay A. Conger and Rabindra N. Kanungo explain
that unlike in the permanent and formal structures on which traditional
and bureaucratic leadership are built, the charismatic leader is dependent
on human relationships (1994: 440-441). Weber sees charismatic author-
ity as a process. To begin with, it exists in a pure state and is experienced
as a personal relationship between the leader and his or her followers.
Charisma progresses from an ideal to a routine form, moving in the direc-
tion of bureaucracy. In the Catholic Church, anyone occupying a given
ofce has the ability to dispense certain sacraments or to perform rituals.
Although the charisma of Christ may be experienced by the community
partaking in these rites, the character of the charismatic authority has
become radically changed, says Weber (1947/1968: 364).
Weber expected that as modern society became more rational, charisma
in general would be eclipsed by bureaucracy. Referring to the rare case
of Napoleon, Weber briey describes the possibility of the charismatic
leader operating in a strictly bureaucratic organization, in this case the
military (1947/1968: 383). No organization, no matter how mundane,
can be entirely bureaucratic as Weber realized when he spoke in terms of
ideal types. All organizations consist of individuals engaging in ongoing
interpersonal transactions which may further bureaucratic aims but at the
same time may also promote informality, favoritism, and discrimination.
Charismatic leaders may found bureaucratic organizations; they may
emerge within pre-existing organizations or they may be brought in from
the outside. Through the presence and leadership of such individuals the
direction that the organization may take is shaped.
Conger describes charisma as a leadership style. In isolating charac-
teristics that can distinguish charismatic leaders he nds that they are to
varying degrees creative and unconventional; they also have an unusual
ability to see opportunity and inspire others (1991: 17-19). Traditional
leaders, by contrast, tend to be low-risk takers and are pragmatic (1991:
17). Robert J. House and Boas Shamir (1993) identify this type of
leaders ability to further his or her vision or mission. James McGegor
Burns distinguishes between the bureaucrat, transactional leader and the
charismatic, heroic leader whom he calls the transformative leader.
The transactional leader relies on bargaining as a basis for relations.
Performance depends then on remuneration (1978: 169). Those under
the sway of the charismatic leader experience a devotion based on their
trust in the leaders judgment and in his or her moral leadership. The
transformational leader is concerned with the overall well-being of his
or her followers, meeting the followers own needs, and larger ideologi-
cal purposes (1978: 248). While the transactional leader engages in a
means to an end relationship, the authority of the charismatic leader
runs much deeper allowing for a level of dedication in followers and a
determination in the leader not found in other authority-based relation-
ships. It is important to note that the success of a company depends on
other factors such as marketing strategies, the resources a company has
or is able to secure, networks, production facilities, and even chance.
Charisma functions as a catalyst for success, and it can be so only in
conjunction with other factors.
The charismatic leader creates conformity through solidarity, steers
the organization in a particular direction, instills a real belief in the
rms mission, and has the ability to create the conditions under which
innovation may occur. Although many researchers focus on charisma as
a personality trait, Conger, for instance, acknowledges the importance
of factors outside the individual in dening charisma. He argues that
certain behaviors are perceived as charismatic, and these perceptions
are shared by a culture. In a different context a charismatic individual
may be seen as a deviant, not as a gifted person, and may not be able to
attain any inuence (1991: 22-23).
Robert Perinbanayagam argues that Webers notion of charismatic
leadership needs to be expanded into a consideration of it as a dialectical
and interactive process, thus incorporating the positions of Hegel, Marx,
and Mead (1971: 388). Charisma is dialectical in that it moves in a certain
direction in relation to the often contradictory demands of the larger con-
text, rather than being xed and constant. If it were seen, conversely, as a
personality trait or as a gift in the religious sense, it would be inherent in
the individual and not subject to the contingencies of the environment. It
could transcend obstacles to attain an almost predetermined end. Certainly
people may believe this to be the case; this allows them to put an inordi-
nate amount of hope in the charismatic person. Rakesh Khurana speaks
of the extraordinary and blind faith executives place in nding a CEO
who can put the company back on course (2002: 67). More important
than knowledge about and experience in the company, or even industry-
related experience, is the irrational belief that a charismatic individual
(often an outsider who was regarded as a star) can come in and apply
his or her magic to the rm (2002: 20-21). Perinbanayagam, referring
to Goffman and Kenneth Burke, proposes that charisma is created by
symbolic processes which involve appropriate presentation of selves
along with the management of identities and the manipulation of
instruments and strategies of rhetorical nature. As charisma is an inter-
active endeavor, the audience plays a role as responsive, indifferent,
or something in between. This responsiveness can sustain or thwart the
charismatic individual (1971: 390-391). Perinbanayagam presents the
case of Gandhi, and in doing so investigates how his charismatic authority
was acquired, cultivated, sustained, and ultimately extinguished (1971:
391). Gandhi took on the persona of a holy man, an identity that would
resonate with the Hindu majority. His new manner of dress, comportment,
rhetoric, and lifestyle supported this otherworldly self. Perinbanayagam
refers to these manifestations as symbolic productions (1971: 393).
Through such actions as fasting for Hindu-Muslim unity, Gandhi in-
creased his power and validated his identity (1971: 393-394). Gandhis
charisma was not within him in the sense of being a personality trait
or a divine gift. He used relevant symbols and became charismatic, in
part because he was embraced by a majority of people. At the same time,
Gandhi developed a counter-charisma amongst those Muslims and
fundamentalist Hindus who were not willing to make the concessions
he proposed, which ultimately included dying at the hand of a member
of the latter group (1971: 395-396).
Incorporating the interactive and dialectical position with regard to
charisma helps account for the drive noted in charismatic leaders and
the divergent directions that charisma may take. The way charisma is
expressed or the uses it is put to depend on a variety of conditions. A
charismatic person in one culture or era, for instance, will act in a very
different style and toward different ends than someone from another
circumstance. Similarly, the type of charisma called for in the fashion
industry would be completely inappropriate in investment banking.
The history, structure, organizational culture, and goals of individual
rms within an industry will also allow for a certain type of charisma to
be manifested in a leader or amongst executives/managers empowered
by this leader and the organization; other styles will be disallowed. The
charismatic person may inspire people by being kind and likeable, or they
may instill a sense of awe. He or she may be amboyant or understated.
Indeed, a charismatic person may be destructiveeven evilhistory
provides many examples. The personality or disposition of the leader
will play a role in how charisma is expressed. Certain general traits, like
decisiveness and self-condence, are key attributes that every charismatic
person possesses apart from whatever individual characteristics he or she
may have. One should not, however, underestimate the degree to which
charisma depends on interactive factorsthe conditions met on the
ground, so to say, in face-to-face encounters and interpersonal transac-
tions. A cool reception from key individuals will cause the charismatic
person to alter certain behaviors and to shift his or her objectives; indeed,
he or she may take on another personality. We see this quite often in
politicians and other leaders who depend upon public support. If, despite
all adjustments, there is a lack of support; if a persons charisma is not
acknowledged, he or she will eventually cease to be charismatic. Cha-
risma is dependent on a persons ability to manipulate symbols and use
them to cultivate an image that resonates well with the targeted audience
and others outside of his or her immediate scope. Charisma arises within
a particular context and is adaptive.
Due to the many facets one must balance; from possessing skills and
abilities relevant to the task at hand, to being able to interpret cues and
undertake actions in a strategic manner; it can be said that charisma is
in the possession of some people and not others. Most people, no mat-
ter how much coaching they have or how many management books
theyve mastered, are not able to sense and to take appropriate charge
of their surroundings thereby becoming charismatic leaders (even if the
circumstances they nd themselves in are optimal). Charismatic lead-
ers, by contrast, often sense opportunity and create the conditions for
their success in an environment that seems to others to offer very little
possibility.
Charisma, in addition to being multifaceted and difcult to attain, is
elusive; it must be worked at interpersonally and strategically for it to
be sustained. Elton Mayo, discussing authority, speaks to the issue of
charisma needing to be upheld:
The person who exercises so-called authority is placed at an important point in the line
of communicationfrom below upwards, from above down, if one thinks in terms of an
organization chart. It is his business to facilitate a balanced relation between various
parts of the organization, so that the avowed purpose for which the whole exists may
be conveniently and continuously fullled. If he is unsuccessful in this, he will have
no actual authority in the organizationhowever important his title.
An approximate denition of authority Mayo says, referring to Chester
I. Barnards discussion of authority in The Functions of the Executive
(published in 1938) is that it:
is the characteristic of a common (order) in a formal organization by virtue of which
it is accepted by a contributor or member of the organization as governing the ac-
tion he contributes.... Under this denition the decision as to whether an order has
authority or not lies with the persons to whom it is addressed, and does not reside in
persons of authority or those who issue these orders (1945: 49-50).
Authority, we see, must be received as such. Charismatic leaders are
able to not only effectively convey their authority, but they do so in an
heroic manner.
The literature on charisma within organizational sociology tends to
look at it as an institutionalized practice reected in structures and au-
thority-based relations. This concept can be expanded on three fronts.
An investigation of charisma should include the means used to establish
charisma: practices, performance, symbols, skills, etc. Charisma can
continue to be possessed by an individual or individuals even as it is
routinized in practices and structures. These practices are performed by
certain people and not others, and structures are upheld through collec-
tive actions. The support of those surrounding the charismatic individual,
thereby contributing to the emergence and continuation of this leadership
style, must also be considered. In addition to a focus on leadership one
should, within a business context, consider the implications of charisma
on product development and design, as well as its conveyance to the
public as a means of dening the brand. In order for the product to be
successful, a type of charismatic authority must extend to the brand.
Charismatic Leadership in the Fashion Industry
Having a charismatic leader, usually in the form of a master or prin-
cipal designer (often the founder of the company) or a CEO or president,
is imperative in a company that creates fashion and is in the business
of selling an image. A leader must not only collaborate with and direct
designers and others in the rm, he or she must construct a creative cul-
ture, be capable of shaping and promoting the brands image, and, most
importantly, inspire others. In the end he or she must produce something
that will be judged favorably. Giorgio Armani sums this up quite well,
With fashion you have to renew yourself and Ive always said that youre
only as good as your last collection (Thorley 2006: 10).
The inspiration a charismatic leader provides unfolds in a variety of
ways and occurs across various contexts. The style in which a person leads
will inform the culture of the rm and will shape it into a particular type
of dramatic production both within the rm and in terms of the image
projected onto the brand. In the section on charismatic leadership styles
we will see several examples. The charisma of the leader, then, does not
end within the rm. In dening the identity of the brand, and in infusing
that brand with a particular aesthetic as a cultural arbiter, the brand takes
on its own charisma. Accomplishing these tasks, both routine and novel,
requires an individual possessing some mix of those attributes common
to the charismatic leader: talent, vision, drive, an ability to relate to and
to lead others.
Lauren, Klein, and Hilger came from modest backgrounds. They were
all able to make do with very little or no specialized training in fashion,
without resources or inside connections, and in a tough environment that
worked against their succeeding. Talent, intuition, interpersonal skills, and
dedication to a vision helped propel the careers of these men. Each man,
if necessary, was able to reinvent himself and to change direction, thereby
remaining relevant in a hostile industry. Like the men just mentioned,
Armani had no formal training. Giorgio Armani came from a family of
ve. My father didnt make enough money to support us, he states,
we didnt even have enough to eat, just like many Italian families back
then. Armani started to work in a department store and realized he had
a talent for fashion. This really shocks people, I learned everything on
my own (Armani 2006). Other major designers have similar stories,
though they have come into the eld through different doors. Some have
had greatness trust upon them, says Ariel Levy (2006: 50) referring
to Donatella Versace. What designers who have attained success have
in commonwhether they were self-made or inherited their position as
Donatella Versace didis that they are charismatic. This charisma is put
to use as a form of authority, a leadership style within their own rms
(in the case of Lauren and Hilger, they continue to head the rms they
have founded), and as a form of inspiration tied to the brand. Designers,
should they be famous enough to be known to the public, become icons
and cultural arbiters in their own right.
The fashion industry is by nature dynamic and highly competitive.
Individual rms must have a guiding vision concerning the brands
identity and how it is positioned, and they must be exible. As Savi-
olo and Testa explain, fashion design requires a seasonal analysis of
silhouettes, colors, and materials. And, renewal of stylistic codes
must occur without a distortion in the rms overall stylistic identity
(2002: 160). Many rms fail due to an inability to maintain a consis-
tency of vision; their product becomes too diffuse and loses its identity.
Consumers cease to see anything distinctive in the brand and may just
as well buy something else. Tracie Rozhon and Ruth La Ferla observe
that several fashion rms are now looking to their archives instead of
creating entirely new designs. They comment that it is a way of restor-
ing an identity when so much merchandise is look-alike and customers
are telling pollsters they cannot tell one store from another in the mall
(2003: C1-C2). Firms that have attained success with a certain formula
may fail to innovate and become stagnant. With the exception of a few
classic styles, such as the polo shirt, most items will sooner or later fall
out of fashion. Each season a style, such as a polo shirt, will undergo
variations in silhouette (becoming more tted or shorter in length), color,
and material depending on trends. Purveyors of basic fashions, retailers
that began with more focus on value than style, run into problems if they
fail to innovate from one season to the next. Target, Wal-Mart, and Old
Navy pay serious attention to fashion trends. In response to weak sales
since November 2004, Old Navy has been adding higher end items and
embellishments to its basics (Moin 2006: 13). Cheryl Clark, executive
vice president of merchandising, states, We use Abercrombie as our
internal gauge (Merrick 2006: B1).
Designers who ignore consumer demand in favor of their own artistic
vision or who cannot manage the business side of their enterprise are sure
to run into trouble. Isaac Mizrahi went out of business in 1998. Agins
says that retailers begged Mizrahi to repeat his very successful paper-bag
waist pants. Agins, describing him as an artiste who refused to be a
garmento, says that he refused to do something that bored him, and on
one occasion said of a collection that he couldnt imagine how it would
translate into retail (1999: 5-6). In Spring 2006 he did his sixth collection
for a mass audience at the retailer Target in addition to doing his own
couture collection. Abboud comments on the irony of Mizrahis return.
Mizrahi has his own show and hosted the 2006 Golden Globe Awards.
Through his visibility on television, he has become the voice of reason
in the unreasonable and illogical world of fashion (2004: 16-17).
Maintaining a balance between innovation and continuity, art and com-
merce, requires the leadership of a visionary person who can negotiate
between the aesthetic, cultural, and commercial spheres, thus formulat-
ing strategies to move the company in a protable direction. As Saviolo
and Testa put it, the management must integrate aesthetic creativity and
commercial strategy (2002: 160). The charismatic leader may seem to
be all knowing but can better be described as knowledgeable, intui-
tive, and able to get the information or assistance they need from others.
Company executives, creative directors, and individuals with expertise
in a variety of areas provide the leader with the tools needed to make
strategic decisions. Many charismatic leaders say, when asked, that their
success is largely dependant on the people he or she has selected. The
leader must hold the trust of those who work with him or her. Without
a belief in the validity of the principal designers judgment and a real
consensus about which path to follow, the concerns of various individu-
als may be brought into competition with one another, for instance. One
designer may use his or her inuence to push forward certain designs
that may not be marketable, or the marketing department may insist on
more of the same based on the past seasons sales. The principal designer
has access to the full scope of information available in the rm while the
expertise of most others is limited to their division and area of specializa-
tion. It takes a charismatic individual to unify the rm. Ideally, he or she
creates an environment where unity prevails. The leaders preferences
have priority and are nal, yet he or she allows for the incorporation of
the ideas and innovations of others in the rm. If the later is not accom-
plished, creativity and the sense of accomplishment that comes with it
can be stied leading to frustrations.
A charismatic leader can be said to arise in response to the circum-
stances particular to the fashion industry. Given that the industry is part of
popular culture and is a catalyst in shaping popular culture, it generates a
great deal of excitement. Fashion is connected to celebrities, music, and
modelingfeatures of popular culture that many people enthusiastically
follow. Fashion design itself has become a profession that many people
nd fascinating. For those who work in fashion there is the excitement of
being in the moment and always moving forward. This is coupled with
the anxiety of being in a very competitive and, as one former designer
describes it, pitiless industry (Patner 2003: 1). This is tempered by the
possibility of fameperhaps some moments in the limelight or at least
working with someone who has this chance. This atmosphere calls for
a certain type of leader. The leader must be larger than life, in a word
charismatic, to live up to the expectations that he or she engenders. The
leader not only provides afrmation on a personal level, but by afliation;
he or she allows others to share in his or her lifestyle and accomplish-
ments by contributing to the success of the brand.
In fashion design rms all products that employees are involved in
creating carry the name of one individual or, in some cases, a brand name.
This name may belong to a designer who is the head of the company
and as such is a real person with his or her own interests and values. It
is essential that designers in particular understand and identify with the
brand so that each persons ideas and labor can be channeled in a direc-
tion appropriate to this aesthetic. Work in the fashion industry entails
personal sacrice, long hours, and, for most individuals, little personal
recognition outside of ones own division or perhaps rm. It requires a
high degree of personal and emotional engagement. There is also a ten-
sion that comes from knowing that ones job is never secure. In a large,
corporate fashion design rm, one must work cooperatively with others
to produce and market products on a global scale. A charismatic leader
is necessary to encourage employees to go that extra distance, feel that
their own contribution is important and valuable, and feel unied within
and across a variety of divisions (such as design, marketing, public rela-
tions, licensing, merchandising, e-commerce, legal, human resources,
administration). All employees must have an enthusiasm for the brand
so that work may be carried out not only in a routine manner but with
inspiration. Of course this will occur to varying degrees depending on
the nature of the work performed and the individuals own assessment of
and investment in the work environment. If one were indifferent to the
world of Ralph Lauren, it would be very difcult and unpleasant to be
surrounded by images from this world everydaylet alone to effectively
contribute in furthering this image.
There is an important self-selection process on the part of employees.
Individuals who are not receptive to the image Ralph Lauren conveys,
for example, and who do not themselves feel comfortable in this lifestyle
may be reluctant to work at Polo Ralph Lauren insofar as this type of
work involves an emotional identication with the brand and its repre-
sentations. Human resources will attempt to eliminate applicants who do
not seem like they would t in based on the impression they make and
on their prior experiencesboth work-related and personal. The chair
of menswear design at the Fashion Institute of Technology commented
that rms like Polo Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilger look for people
who went to prep school, attended the right colleges, or who vacation at
the right places. It is not necessarily about ones class origins or race, he
explains, it is about the lifestyle and attitudes one can convey. This comes
more easily to some than to others; it is particularly easy for those who t
the role. Once individuals enter a rm, just like young people who have
sought admission to a particular college, they will be prepared to immerse
themselves in the culture of that organization and to t themselves to its
demands. Each rm will have a unique organizational culture particular
to its objectives. Cultures in the workplace must be upheld by members
and given direction by those in leadership positions. Leaders use a variety
of strategies to create environments where their own aspirations and that
of the rm can more easily be met.
The charisma of the rms leader must extend to its representatives.
The leader must transfer his or her charisma to managers in various
divisions so that these individuals are accepted as legitimately embody-
ing his or her ideals and are seen as capable of making decisions in line
with his or her vision. In rms such as H&M where there is no found-
ing designer, a chief designer takes this role. In most cases only a few
important editors and retailers will come into contact with the rms
designer and leader. Most people responsible for promoting the brand
will encounter intermediaries. It is important to gain the condence of
those on the outside, for instance, fashion editors who will judge the
rms creations, department store buyers, and salespeople. It is impor-
tant that the rm establish a reputation that extends beyond the personal
characteristics of its leader. Ultimately, a form of charisma must reach
the public through the brand if they are to be persuaded in large numbers
to buy the companys products.
Bureaucracy and Charisma in Fashion Firms
Fashion rms operate as bureaucracies. Yet if we step inside these
rms we are likely to nd an organizational culture where a vision, shared
values, and innovation exist within a rational bureaucratic structure. There
will be a clearly delineated hierarchy, a complex division of labor, and
activities that have been standardized. There will be a denite calendar
according to which certain tasks must be performed. Objectives will be
dened, responsibilities assigned, and strategies formulated. Alongside
these mechanisms of formal control we are likely to nd features exist-
ing in organizations dened as the polar opposite of the bureaucracy:
informality, collegiality, favoritism, competitiveness. Structurally, we
may have a bureaucracy with alternative structures (such as teams in
which designers work), while culturally we nd a closer t to the type of
enterprise where a high degree of personal engagement and unity may be
found. A new dimension is added when the charismatic leader, unlike the
prophet or seer, is the head of an established rm set up in accordance with
bureaucratic principles. Indeterminacy and rationality operate in tandem.
The ambiguities of personal engagement are not traded for precision and
efciency. Weber states, Bureaucracy develops the more perfectly, the
more it is dehumanized, the more completely it succeeds in eliminating
from ofcial business love, hatred, and all purely personal, irrational, and
emotional elements which escape calculation (1946/1958: 215-216). In
creative endeavors certainly the hallmarks of bureaucratic organization
(predictability, efciency, strict control, and subordination) are insuf-
cient to attain the desired result: a musical score, a lm, an advertising
campaign, or fashion. In the fashion industry these conditions may be
insufcient, yet they are necessary. To create fashion on a global scale,
rather than in an atelier for one client at a time, a bureaucratic system
must be in place. A need for exibility and for the type of inspiration
that can best be provided by a charismatic individual coexist with these
bureaucratic hallmarks. Within the corporate environment we nd our
hero or heroine; someone who is a visionary with exceptional character,
embodies the spirit of the brand, and has an ability to confer sacredness
in the midst of everyday rationality.
Every fashion rm operating in a corporate global environment must
meet certain challenges for which charismatic leadership is particularly
suited. Firms at once must be bureaucratic while fostering an environ-
ment where creativity may ourish. In rms where a founding designer
heads the company, he or she will be the natural leader of the company.
The business of the rm will typically be handled more directly by
specialists with the designer focusing on the more creative aspects in
the rm. There are a variety of other congurations that are possible.
The master designer may also manage the business of the rm, as does
Giorgio Armani, though in most cases this can only be fully realized in
relatively smaller, private companies. A designer for whom the brand is
named may no longer head the rm or there may be another designer who
has taken his or her place; this has recently happened at Calvin Klein and
has been the case for decades at Chanel. Calvin Klein was sold to Phillips-
Van Heusen and the majority of Chanel is owned by the Wertheimer
brothers. A company with or without the leadership of its namesake
designer may be private or public. It may be a single brand or as with
Liz Claiborne, Inc., the company may own multiple brands and licenses.
Firms in some cases may be bought by private equity groups/investment
rms or by manufacturers. Often a designer may maintain ownership of
a majority of the rm and will hold a leadership position but will sell it
to raise capital. How much control he or she will have depends on the
conditions agreed upon. Private equity groups are more likely to act as
nancial partners and to exert less interference than would entrepreneurs
specializing in apparel. Many rms, such as Gap Inc., are not identied
with a particular designer. In such a case leadership may be divisionally
based with a CEO as the rms leader. Some rms, like Diesel, are run
by a founding designer but do not bear the designers name. Though this
creates a different public persona for the rm, operations inside are likely
to parallel rms headed by designers for which the rm is named. The
multibrand conglomerates such as LVMH will have a master designer,
various executives, and staff at each of the brands as well as having a CEO
and other executives at the parent company overseeing all the individual
brands. The master designer may in this case act as a charismatic leader
in the brand he or she heads; he or she might select staff and have a great
deal of creative freedom. However, the more complex organizational
structures become the more possibility there is for difculties concern-
ing the power that particular leaders may hold. The size and complexity
of the rm, the products it produces, the demands of shareholders, and
the degree of autonomy a leader possesses are but a few of the essential
factors that will shape leadership practices at individual rms.
Armani, Lauren, and until recently Hilger devoted themselves ex-
clusively to their own brands. Hilger had been for some time looking
to acquire other brands and eventually bought the rights to license the
Karl Lagerfeld name. Lauren, not desirous of extra capital or cachet, is
opposed to the multibrand strategy. He states, You buy up a company,
it looks good for a minute, and then all of a sudden, the management is
weak. He explains that for a business to grow it needs a strong leader,
and who better than the guy who conceived the business (Beatty 2003:
A8). Lauren turned his company into a lifestyle brand taking the company
public in 1997. Exclusive designers who may prefer to design couture
fashion and are in need of resources typically enter into licensing agree-
ments. Most notably this occurs in fragrance and with other arrangements
such as developing accessories lines, contracting out services, designing
for other lines, or even selling their companies so as to allow them to
pursue their artistic aspirations.
Dennis Gay, a former senior vice president and division head at Liz
Claiborne, Inc., presents one scenario that illustrates the way in which
the dilemma of performing creative work in a bureaucratic environment
is solved:
If you work here you cant have an ego. Your original ideas never go through un-
changed. Everything is done by committee. Its a challenge daily to depersonalize
yourself from the product and take a hard look at it and think, Does this represent
what women in America want to buy? and Does it personify the Liz Claiborne
point of view? (Daria 1990: 16).
It seems from this comment that designers at Liz Claiborne, Inc. are
forced to t themselves to a certain mold. Daria notes in her own obser-
vation in May 1988:
What makes Liz Claiborne, Inc. unique, and so extraordinarily lucrative, is that the
sales department here has an inordinate amount of input into the nal look of the
clothes. Since it is they who have the most contact with retailers, it is they who know
what retailers and their customers want. Today we will watch as the Collection de-
signers expose their work to the critical eyes of the sales vice-presidents, as well as
to Jerry Chazen, co-vice-chairman. Each of these executives will be thinking of only
one thing as they view the Collection: How many pieces of each group will sell and
what can they do to the product to make it sell better (1990: 40).
Davis and Scase speak of the exploitation of creativity in the bureaucratic
rm and its negative effects (2000: 98). Is it possible, one might ask,
to depersonalize or alienate yourself from what you are creating, and
still yourself create something that is genuine enough that it personi-
es Claibornes point of view? Certainly one can be forced to achieve
a separation between ones labor and the product producedas on a
factory assembly line. Indeed, those who are sewing and assembling
garments in factories need no attachment to the brand. Each person per-
forms a distinct step in the routinized construction of the garment. This
detachment would be much harder to achieve in fashion design. Arlie
Hochschild (1983) discusses the commodication of human emotion in
two professions: bill collector and airline stewardess. Service oriented
companies expect employees to not only present a certain self but to
express genuine emotion in line with the companys particular objec-
tives. Such workers face an identity confusion between a real and an
enforced self, she argues. Hochschild states the dilemma: How can
I feel really identied with my work role and with the company without
being fused to them? (1983: 132). She continues:
In resolving this issue, some workers conclude that only one self (usually the nonwork
self) is the real self. Others, and they are in the majority, will decide that each self
is meaningful and real in its own different way and time. Those who see their identity
in this way are more likely to be older, experienced, and married, and they tend to
work for a company that draws less on the sense of fusion. Such workers are generally
more adept at deep acting, and the idea of a separation between the two selves is not
only acceptable but welcome to them. They speak more matter-of-factly about their
emotional labor in clearly dened and sometimes mechanistic ways: I get in gear, I
get revved up, I get plugged in. They talk of their feelings not as spontaneous, natural
occurrences but as objects they have learned to govern or control (1983: 133).
Fashion designers see their work as a profession and a vocation, much
more so than service personnel. As such there is not this experience of
a split between a real and an enforced self. Designers want to become
fully immersed in their work. If one is not fully immersed in his or her
work as a designer ideas will not ow freely, and one will not be moti-
vated to seek out forms of inspiration that can be applied to ones work.
Of course in any job, and in life in general, one must at times bend to a
degree so as to present an appropriate self. This reality is not generally
experienced as a dilemma for designers. If a designers heart is not in his
or her work it becomes hard to do it effectively, and they generally move
on to a company where they feel more comfortable. To create fashion
that is reective of a certain aesthetic requires a real identication with
the brand or as in the above example, with Liz as a person.
Jay Margolis, executive vice president and president of womens
sportswear at Liz Claiborne, addresses the dilemma between the orga-
nizations bottom-line goals and individual creativity in a more delicate
manner than Gay. He introduces yet another element, When we do
things, especially in design, we think about what Liz would say or do
about something (Daria 1990: 233). This comment was made shortly
after Claibornes retirement from the rm. In it we can see a suggestion
of a need for identication with Liz as, even in her absence, she provides
inspiration and direction.
Daria describes the process of designers showing their ideas to
Claiborne. Though Claiborne has the nal say, and can be blunt in her
criticisms, there is a constant dialogue. Claiborne can be persuaded.
She wonders about a color scheme for the line and Judith shows Liz
an ad from a foreign magazine that features a man in a shirt and pants
reclining on an Oriental carpet. Yes, those could be our colors, says
Claiborne (Daria 1990: 58). We can surmise that when Claiborne was
actively involved in the rm, designers enjoyed securing her favor and
her approval on various matters. Although they worked for her and un-
der her name they were given a chance to exercise their own creativity
through their identication with her. Daria speaks of a dress rehearsal for
an upcoming fashion show. The reader gets a sense of the enthusiasm of
the designers. This is what it is all about for them, she explains (1990:
72). Later they take their bows on stage as Claiborne and others watch
them (1990: 72).
Some companies will offer more creative freedom to designers than
others. Former Gucci chief executive ofcer Domenico DeSole says of
Alexander McQueen, Creativity is important, but this is business; not
personal charity. We support him, we believe in him, but at the end he
understands that we have to make money for our shareholders. Cecile
Rohwedder asks whether McQueen will be able to preserve the ec-
centricity that originally attracted Gucci and make clothes that people
will buy. Within these connes that every designer must contend with,
Rohwedder tells readers that McQueen has complete creative freedom
at Gucci. However, he complained bitterly about the bureaucratic envi-
ronment at LVMH where he used to design for Givenchy (9/26/03: B1,
B4). In 1997 Marc Jacobs become creative director for Louis Vuitton,
a brand described as having become stodgy. Jacobs transformed the
brand and in exchange received support for his own label (Agins 2/9/04:
A1). Later in 1997 he opened his rst Marc Jacobs store in New Yorks
Soho neighborhood; he has opened more stores since that time and ex-
panded his offerings. Jacobs has, however, complained that LVMH has
not done enough for his own brand and that Tom Ford was treated better
nancially (2/9/04: A23).
Ford, who designed for Gucci and for Yves Saint Laurent until 2004,
has started his own line of mens clothing and will be opening a store
on New Yorks Madison Avenue in November 2006 (La Ferla 2/28/06:
C3). A statement about his career at Gucci illustrates well the interplay
between creativity and bureaucracy in terms of protability and the steps
that lead toward it:
Mr. Ford is an originalnot so much for his dressmaking skills but for his ability to
recognize a decade ago that those skills matter less in the increasingly global fash-
ion business than marketing and personal relations. He has the interest and ability
to speak to investors, as well as celebrities. He can take Guccis advertisements to
the outermost limits of taste. Yet, there can be no doubt that he knows how to make
things that sell (Horyn 11/5/03: C3).
Clearly if Ford were not at once a creative genius (one who could ef-
fectively lead and inspire people) and someone with a sharp sense for
business, he would not have been selected to design for both Gucci
and Yves Saint Laurent, nor would he have decided to go out on his
own.
Although McQueen doesnt feel he is constrained creatively, Tom Ford
and Pinault-Printemps-Redoute chief executive ofcer Serge Weinberg
had a very public disagreement over the primacy of the brand and the
corporate structure that stands behind the brand vis--vis the designer.
Weinberg is quoted as saying, the debate about whether its the designer
or the brand that is more important is open. No one talks about Miuccia
Prada. No one knows its she who designs the Prada brand, says Weinberg.
Ford states, Its very clear to me that Serge wants to be in control of this
company. He continues: And thats okay. They bought the company.
Ford adds, however, You become a star if what you do sells, and if the
customer and the press relate to what youre doing. He goes on to say,
illustrating the tension between corporate and creative power:
All the people at Gucci are wonderful. They are there because I love them and I hired
them. Butit sounds cornyDomenico and I are really the keystones, the arch. No,
we cant do it all ourselves. But we are the thing that holds it all together. And some-
times, without the keystones, the arch doesnt stay up (Horyn 3/8/04: B8).
Ford and De Sole are credited with rescuing Gucci from near bankruptcy
in the 1990s; they transformed it from grandfatherly to a hip and
sexy brand (Horyn 3/30/06: G1). John Carreyrou and Alessandra Gal-
loni say that experts cite Ford as being one of the few designers in high
fashion to shoulder so many executive responsibilities. Along with
De Sole he has decided which brands to acquire and has molded
a corporate culture that is nimble and autonomous with few executive
layers (2003: B5). Weinberg has been described by some as a serious
numbers man; he was someone who did not, by his own admission,
understand the complexity of the creative process. A senior executive
says that he has not a clue about the work Ford and his team do. De
Sole and Ford did not renew their contracts after threatening to leave.
Says Horyn, referring to this departure and the pairs replacement by
several unknown designers, to let the two people go most closely identi-
ed with the brands fortunes stunned the fashion world, and at the same
time raised questions about Mr. Weinbergs knowledge of the high stakes
luxury business (1/10/04: C1).
Most designers do not have the creative freedom that someone like
McQueen or Ford is afforded. They work under many levels of hierar-
chy and report to someone who reports to someone else. The assistant
designer may be under the direction of an associate or senior designer
who may assign routine tasks. Nevertheless, he or she may hope that their
talent will be recognized, future tasks may be more rewarding, and that
they will be promoted to the next level. Some designers hope to be the
next Tom Ford but realize they must put in the time, learn the necessary
skills, and be in the right place at the right time so that their potential will
be recognized. Many more may be satised working for a well-known
company. Aspiration, commitment to a profession, a love of fashion, and
the excitement of the industry create the conditions where a leader can
have a strong impact. Although designers may become very attached to
those they work for and emotionally invested in their work for a particu-
lar brand, their commitment should not to be compared to someone, for
example, who is in a religious cult. Firings and restructurings are very
common. Designers realize that they may not stay in a rm for very long.
Sometimes a designer may reach a point where the work is no longer
challenging and may decide to move on. The skills they have developed
are portable and can be used as capital in another companypreferably
one similar to the last company as the eld is very specialized and one
is dened by the brand for which they last worked.
While the brand must achieve a certain continuity, fashions change
from one season to the next. When a leader is effective, he or she is
able to bring about these transitions and to protect the integrity of the
brand and the commitment of those within the rm. Leadership which
accomplishes these ends is described by Saviolo and Testa: Having a
strong positioning and being oriented to market needs allows for ltering
and interpreting trends in an original way, and it avoids the domination
of pure aesthetic logic. In rms that do not have designers with strong
personalities, focusing on product results in a leveling of the offers.
On the other hand, the interplay of management of creativity creates
an interdisciplinary area of extreme richness, that is the essence of the
fashion system (2002: 160).
Styles of Charismatic Leadership
It is up to a leader to dene objectives and to point designers and others
in an appropriate direction that will benet the brand. This is a necessary
condition for the rm to continue and to achieve some measure of suc-
cess. This can be achieved in an autocratic or in a democratic manner.
The charismatic leadership style allows for both extremes. A charismatic
leader doesnt have to be nice to win the favor of others. Many people
in the fashion industry say that the devil in The Devil Wears Prada is
an angel compared to some of the persons theyve worked for. Certainly
Anna Wintour, played in the lm version by Meryl Streep, is a charis-
matic leader. Burns denition of the transformational leader, which
can be equated with the charismatic leader, may need to be amended
in this particular example presented to us in the lm. Moral leadership,
in the traditional sensea concern for the well-being and the needs of
othersmay not need to be present in those who have the capability to
lead and inspire others (1978: 248). Miranda Priestly may not be an ac-
curate representation of Anna Wintour, but Ginia Bellafante (2006: 19)
who reports on fashion for the New York Times says the lm does not
exaggerate the manner and proclivities of people in the industry.
Organizational culture will be shaped in its most denitive sense by a
leader. It is within this culture that a leader is able to have an impact on
members of the organization and, indeed, to enact his or her charisma.
One person told a story about how her own boss rivaled the devil;
The book reminded me so much of her, but she is so much crueler.
She started by telling me that her boss assistant goes through so much
on a daily basis.
Everyone is afraid. She can really lose her cool and when she does she is relentless.
The rage can last a few moments or all day. Either way she will make you feel like
a complete fool.
I asked this person, a merchandiser in this small rm, about how her
boss related to the designers. Designers work very closely from begin-
ning to end. She will not ever let them get to the point where she has
to say This is all wrong. She watches every move. I asked for some
clarication about whether the designers worked collaboratively with
her. She said, They work independently and together depending on
what theyve been given to do but it is always under her direction. She
explains that She gets very mad if something does not happen the way
she wants. Everyone is afraid. We work our asses off. I asked if she
ever had a negative experience.
I dont have to deal with her on a personal basis very much but if sales go down shed
take my head off. I make sure everything is right on target. There is no possibility for
errors and I dont make errors.
She has also only been at the rm for four months. She continues:
I will give you an example of a time when she lost her temper. I dont know
what it was over but I was waiting to go into her ofce. She was standing with
her assistant and all the sudden she started screaming and she threw her salad
really hard on the oor. The salad went all over and a lot of it went in her hair.
She had pieces of cheese and tomato in her hair and she stood there screaming
at the top of her lungs while her assistant picked the salad out of her hair. I just
walked away after a moment and came back later on. She was ne, as if it never
happened, and the assistant seemed totally alright, even though she knew I saw
this incident.
Is there a positive side to working there? I asked. Do the designers
like to work for her? With this question her tone changed completely,
and for the rest of our conversation she spoke admiringly of her boss:
They feel very privileged to be there. It is an opportunity of a lifetime. We have interns
who get paid absolutely nothing to work there. And they work from early morning
to late at night. The designers have said that they learned so much from her. She is
so amazing. She can take something, anything, and do something incredible. We all
work very closely so I get to see what she does.
She points to a woman in the room who is wearing a custom-made
necklace.
This is so Miami, the way the jewelry designer put these colors together. Look at the
arrangement of the pieces. It is so much like something she would do. She designed
all the bottles for her perfume by herself. And she will change things over and over
until they are just right.
Is there a way she unites people in the rm, I asked.
Everyone is into whatever she is into. Whatever she is doing. She is the focus of all the
attention. If she is not there everyone talks about her. We all become very involved in
what she is doing, we just get around her way of thinking and that is very exciting.
This designer, because of her talent and her recognition in the industry
and from the public, is able to secure the devotion of her colleagues.
Everyone at the rm feels that they are in some way special in that they
were selected to be a part of her world. She is no doubt forgiven for
certain outbursts and incidents of crueltythis style of interacting may
even add to her allure as an artist and a celebrity. By denition such
people cannot be ordinary.
Lagerfeld is said to demand total adherence to his vision from those
who work with him; this is expected in the more raried environment
of French fashion. He works from sketches and directs assistants. He
does his own photo shoots. It is said that Lagerfeld moves through his
days with an entourage of assistants, publicists and pretty people who
are all dressed in black and who hover just outside his personal space.
Givhan (2006) observes when a member of his staff enters the sleek
black and white showroom with its bouquets of white roses wearing
a rose colored coat; she receives a subtle but caustic glance from a
colleague. She immediately sheds the offending outerwear, revealing
a nondescript black ensemble (2006: C01). In the eyes of followers
the charismatic leader is heroic, even sacred. It is not surprising then
to afford him or her a great deal of deference, to humble oneself, and
to minimize the personal sacrices one makes to be in his or her favor.
The elite stature projected by Lagerfeld adds to the exclusive appeal
of Chanel and of his own brand which he will under certain conditions
loan to others (publicly to H&M on one occasion and more discretely
to Hilger through a licensing agreement). Perhaps it can be said that
designers who represent more democratic brands may work, or at the
very least may present themselves, in ways that are more in line with the
image that brand conveys.
Lagerfeld is a fashion icon. He separates himself from others and is
interested in maintaining these boundaries. Lagerfelds appearance is
dramatic, as is his discourse. He enjoys discussing a wide range of top-
ics and does so with the air of a French philosopher. When asked in an
interview for a documentary about him why he did not have children, he
said it was because they did not remain children. When they get older
you look one hundred years old. He spoke of the disappointments they
might bring by not accomplishing anything or by accomplishing more
than they should. The happiest day in a mans life must be when he
realizes that his son will be mediocre, says Lagerfeld. In other words,
Lagerfeld could not bear being outshone. This calls attention to another
characteristic that many charismatic people share. Through they are very
skilled at interacting with others, they desire to be the center of atten-
tion, not just one of the crowd. Givhan speaks of Lagerfelds signature
style since 2000:
He took to wearing pencil slim trousers, tight-tting jackets with high armholes,
motorcycle boots, ngerless gloves and enough silver jewelry to short-circuit metal
detectors. He no longer carries a fan. But he still powders his ponytail, a grooming
quirk that at close range can leave the uninitiated wondering if the designer has a
particularly aggressive form of dandruff. He continues to wear shirt collars as wide
as a neckbrace.
Lagerfeld says when asked about his image: Its good to have an image
like this. You meet a person with a big smile and they are the meanest
person in the world. He continues, Its good to be seen as unapproach-
able sometimes. People wont bother you (2006: C01).
Donatella Versace, once a supportive presence or hostess as Levy
calls her, assumed her brothers role after he was murdered in 1997. Do-
natella Versace was responsible for entertaining, At her peak, nobody
could top Donatella or all-night full-on excess.... Everybody knew there
would be coke at the Versace postshow parties (at least after Gianni went
to bed), coke backstage (Levy 2006: 50). As a leader in her own right,
Versace maintains the Versace image without the gilt of the 1980s, while
continuing to extend her hospitality to employeesalbeit with food and
what is described as a maternal attention. Levy describes her leadership
style in discussion with a former employee; this allows a glimpse of
Donatella Versaces charismatic presentation of self and how this draws
employees into the world of Versace:
If you were to go to the Ralph Lauren headquarters, it is unlikely you would nd
Ralph himself sitting down to supper with his staff, but this is Italy. Donatella likes
to see people eat, she likes things familial, she likes to be intimate with the people
who work for her. Dinner was always in her suite, she tells you where to sit, she
makes sure everybody eats, says Jason Weisenfeld wistfully. We were always very
well taken care of.
When he would travel with her by private jet, for instance, Weisenfeld came to expect
that upon arrival at whatever ve star hotel they were staying at, his suitcase would
be unpacked, clothes neatly hung on satin hangers, fruit chilled and peeled and wait-
ing in a bowl, every detail art-directed.... Weisenfeld recalls going back to her hotel
room with about ve other staff members and noticing after a while that Donatella
had disappeared. All of a sudden, the doors to the suite wing open, and this ice-cream
cart comes in with all these different big, giant silver domes and trays with ice cream
on them, and theres Donatella in her silk robe, high heels, and a black mini-stole
wrapped around her, and all of her jewelry, saying in a heavy Italian accent, Ice cream
for everybody! Get your ice cream! Who wants ice cream? So heres this woman
who had just been in front of a hundred camera crews and paparazzi, and shes doing
all this work, and she gets a free couple of hours and all shes focused on is feeding
everybody and making everybody laugh. Donatella is a, you know, shes an Italian
woman. Shes a mother (2006: 52).
Deborah Lloyd is creative director for Banana Republic. Her environ-
ment and the conditions under which she meets those she works with
are corporate. It is not surprising then that her charismatic style is suited
to the culture of the rm in which she works and in no way resembles
Donatella Versaces style. Lloyd is, of course, not known to the public
though she is known in the industry; she came to Banana Republic from
Burberry where she headed womens design for the Burberry London
line for ve years. Lloyd says she has long admired the brand and that
this is her dream joba chance for her to give a handwriting to an
entire brand. She says, perhaps demonstrating to readers of the industry
newspaper Womens Wear Daily the commitment a designer is expected
to have, I just had a real afnity for the brand and it was a job I always
wanted to do. Lloyd has a team of sixty-eight designers. She explains the
creative process in this way, illustrating the interplay between directing
others in accepting her own vision while allowing others to participate
actively in that vision. She says, Theres a real nice rapport here. I will
work on the colors and general trends then Ill show it to the designers
and theyll bring back their ideas. She continues:
Theres a real conversation. In the end, I take all the ideas in and steer the team on a
course thats very sort of focused. I think you need that, otherwise you dont come
across as having a handwriting. I will still design some pieces, but I have a very strong
philosophy of where we want to go, so I really direct it (Larson 2003: 8).
Diesel, through its chairman and director Rosso, creates an organiza-
tional culture that is global and experimental because of his emphasis
on standing apart and on starting trends rather than nding them. Rosso
says, Everyday we are looking for whats not done (Polhemus 1998:
13). Though its headquarters are in rural northern Italy, Rosso explains
(to Ted Polhemus who has written about the company) that the roots
are Italian but the brand draws inspiration from all over the world (1998:
10). A designer, Marly Nijssen, comments:
Because were not in the center of where its all happening in the fashion world,
were not so likely to just go with the ow. Were not inuenced by the things that
everybody else gets excited about. But we all travel a lot. In the last four months Ive
been to Morocco, Holland, Belgium, Hawaii, Bali, Singapore, Tokyo, L.A., Miami
and London.
Polhemus explains that each designer has funding for at least two re-
search expeditions to anywhere in the world. They come back with new
ideas and use these ideas in formulating designs for an upcoming season.
Chief designer Wilbert Das describes the aesthetic:
We collect stuffwe mix it up always giving it a twist, at the very least putting
different conceptual frames around it to give it a different meaning. More often we
completely deconstruct something. We go crazy. We take things from different cultures,
from different eras, and throw them all together to make something new, something
pleasantly confusing (1998: 36).
Compare this form of deconstruction to what Old Navy admits that
designers did to come up with better tting and high-priced jeans:
designers looked at jeans from high-end brands like Seven for All
Mankind and Citizens of Humanity, which sell for more than $100.
They took the garments apart, examined the stitching and fabrics,
then asked Old Navys factories to create something similar (Mer-
rick 2006: B1). Diesel is interested in uncovering the zeitgeist and
translating it into fashion. Das says designers often bring back similar
types of inspiration from different parts of the world. Das says, This
synergy is a sign of the timesthese global times (Polhemus 1998:
11). Designers nd themselves in a culture where they are given time
to reect and to work at their own pace. They are told to trust their
guts. Presumably, this inspiration must come to fruition at a set time,
but how they get there seems an individual matter. Rosso promises
to risk the company on the instincts of its designers (1998: 10).
Each designer works on his or her own project, from A to Z, says
Nijssen. He or she nds solutions and the product, she says ends up
with few compromises and more integrity (1998: 11). Nevertheless,
looking through clothing on the racks of a Diesel store, one nds a
coherence although there are certainly pieces that stand apart and
may reect an independent thought. This more individualistic culture
can be contrasted with the collaborative culture of DKNY. Associate
designer Donna Gal speaks of the importance of being a team player:
One person will do graphics and everything is combined together to
create one garment. People think that one shirt is just a small thing
but it is a big deal. There is a person responsible for the wash, for the
care labels, for the buttons, for all the details, for all the colors (www.
virtualjobshadow.com).
Charismatic leaders must select people that will effectively further his
or her own goals. In some cases, particularly in smaller rms, designers
will be selected by the leader himself or herself. Renzo Russo, after he
assumed complete control over Diesel, states: I hired some open-
minded new stylists whose basic preferences mirrored mine. I encouraged
this group to ignore current movements within the fashion mainstream,
and instead to focus their energies on who we were as people. I wanted
clothing inspired by our own combined interests, tastes, and sense of
curiosity (Polhemus, 1998: 10). Diesel projects an irreverent aesthetic,
one very different from Ralph Lauren. The style of life, the vocabulary
and the self-presentation of someone seeking admittance to the world
of Diesel would necessarily be very different from one aspiring to be
part of the Polo Ralph Lauren establishment. Designers can, of course,
realign themselves to a degree so as to t in a new environment. Not
everyone can work at the company that may be his or her rst choice, and,
indeed, some designers make a living doing freelance work. Organiza-
tions, especially the larger rms, are set up in such a way to incorporate
individuals into the new environment. New members in any environ-
ment, be it a bank, university, country club, or a place of worship will
be motivated to t in and to adjust themselves to the new environment.
In a matter of time one begins to identify with the new organizations
culture and learns to not only to conform but also to accept the norms
and the value system.
Sometimes a designer will select his or her successor, a person he or
she believes can carry forward the vision. Donna Karan worked closely
with Anne Klein. When Klein suddenly died of cancer, Karan was named
successor in accordance with Kleins wishes. Karan stated her own
rm in 1984 building on the charisma she had acquired though her as-
sociation with Anne Klein. Eventually she sold her rm (which she still
designs for) to LVMH. Armani, when asked by Galloni about the future
of Armani and the possibility of a public company, says: Five years
ago, I said no to the stock market. But I am (nearly) 72 years old now,
and I need to give a signal to the market that despite the fact that I am
a sprightly old man, I have to think of the future of the company. I also
have to give signals to the people who work here. Armani says its not
only difcult to contemplate one person who will take over his position,
its unthinkable. He envisions a team that has been used to a certain
Armani style. Given that Armani sees himself so closely tied to the
brand, he says the public may nd this easier to understand (Galloni
and Passariello 2006: B1).
Routinization of Charisma in the Brand
The individual charisma of a leader becomes routinized in the ad-
ministrative practices and procedures of the rm while at the same time
continuing to be enacted by the leader. This sets the tone for policies and
for the types of interpersonal interactions that are acceptable in the rm.
This charisma is also extended to the products bearing the designers
name or logo.
The leadership and teachings of Jesus Christ denes the practice of
Christianity and later the institution of the Church. The products, if you
will, of this institution (sacraments, benedictions, and holy oil) are infused
with Jesus Christs charisma so that long after he is gone they can be said
to embody his presence. The institution of the church confers charisma
on these objects by consecrating them (Bendix 1977: 313). In fashion the
artfully constructed charisma of the designer is transmuted, for example,
to the House of Dior; the products of such designers continue to carry
charisma even if they are mass produced or made by licensees. There is
of course a saturation pointof which every company must be aware.
When one encounters cheaply manufactured merchandise, for example
Pierre Cardin toe nail clippers, the name begins to lose credibility. Of
course, to some consumers the product gains credibility and becomes
more desirable than the same clipper without the designers name. Pierre
Cardins charisma is called into question only by those who can appreci-
ate what the name used to stand for or who have a sense that it has been
cheapened; just as in religious circles the improper enactment of a ritual
may cause some to see it as compromised or even invalidated. Since a
name has a resonance with people there is the temptation to exploit it. The
result is usually a short term nancial gain. Calvin Klein was involved
in a law suit with Warnaco, a licensee, whom he claimed sullied the
brand by selling it in J.C. Penney and other even less prestigious stores.
Warnaco wanted to increase sales and knew they could cash in with the
Calvin Klein name. Klein saw this as an irresponsible move and sought
to buy back the license so that he could manage his name in a way that
he saw betting. Halston, who began to sell a line of lower-priced fashion
at J.C. Penney found that more exclusive department stores pulled the
line because of its association with J.C. Penney.
Counterfeiters capitalize on the charisma of a particular brand by
realizing that there is a market willing to pay high prices for the status
that the product will bring. People buy counterfeit items fully realizing
that they are not genuine with the belief that others will take them to be
authentic and, perhaps, because they cannot afford the actual item or
prefer to save money. Counterfeiting and presenting such items as real
can be viewed as an unsanctioned use of the charisma of the product.
Licensing products to be made by various manufacturers is a sanctioned
use of the brands charisma. Licensing is a carefully controlled practice
which enables the brand to get an exposure that it could not achieve on
its own. This added exposure should reect positively while generating
additional revenue for the brand with less expenditure and investment
of resources on the part of the rm. If executed properly it can be a win-
ning endeavor.
One might equate the idea that a designer can build his or her initial
talent or gift for design into a global corporation with a prophets
adherents being organized into a formal congregation.
It is the leader in a rm that will dene the aesthetic of the brand
and will invite others to assist in upholding and rening this denition.
That vision may be a collective accomplishment with contributions
from various individuals and divisions within the company. However, it
must be given a coherent meaning and direction by the leader so that all
products produced will reect the brands identity and will have a certain
consistency. This sense of connection to the brand and to others work-
ing toward a similar goal is accomplished through the leader providing
a direction for the culture of the rm. The meaning of the brand must be
recognized by those inside the rm who contribute to the larger vision
and by customers. The aesthetic of the brand is often closely tied to the
persona of the leader. His or her own charisma informs the brands image.
Sometimes this personal charisma will be visible to the public; in other
cases it will be visible only to those within the rm and to those who
have dealings with the rm. Lagerfeld is only well-known to those who
seriously follow fashion while the average woman, as Robert Passikoff
nds, recognizes the Chanel brand but not Lagerfeld (Givhan 2006: C01).
The brand is infused with the leaders charismain Chanels case both
that of Chanel and that of Lagerfeld who has for so long been designing
for Chanel. Some will have greater access to these representations than
others. For most people Chanel becomes synonymous with the brand
allowing the brand to take on a life of its own. Chanel may simply equal
high status because of its price point and/or the ads one has seen. In this
way it is not so different than the Gap or H&M in that it is not connected
to any particular individual in the mind of the public.
When a founding designer also leads the rm and often lends their
name to the brand, his or her personality will infuse the brands identity.
The aestheticthe philosophy, commitments, or the lifestyle that is
implied by this brandis identied by its tangible attributes (nishing,
construction, materials) and intangible attributes (style, image, emotional
and commercial benets to the wearer) (Saviolo and Testa 2002: 140-
145). Saviolo and Testa state, Armanis identity pervades the whole rm,
the environments and the atmospheres starting from the designers real
lifestyle. They continue to say that the symbolic system is immediately
recognizable, whether it relates to products, stores or communications
relating this to the sleek tailoring of the Armani jacket (its distinctive
shoulder, a certain style of button) and to his marketing of products
(2002: 156).
Armani is as close as one can get to the pure example of the designer
as leader. Unlike many other designers he is said to fully control both
creative and business aspects of his enterprise, while other designers
mediate between the direction proposed by professionals charged with
managing the rm (CEOs, CFOs, COOs, and so on) and the actual work
of designing. After the death of Armanis partner and close personal
friend/companion in 1985, Armani decided not to hire someone else
to oversee the entire business (Galloni 4/10/03: B1). Giorgio Armani
SpA is one of the worlds largest fashion groups. It employs approxi-
mately 4,600 direct employees and has thirteen factories. In addition
to designing, manufacturing, distributing and retailing apparel, it has
accessories, eyewear, jewelry, etc. Recently Armani has ventured into
an international collection of Armani Hotels and Resorts. Each of these
product categories has a CEO and an executive leadership structure in
place. It would be a mistake to assume that Armani can single-handedly
manage product categories ranging from chocolate to resorts, neither
of which he has any particular expertise in. With a management infra-
structure in place, Armani maintains effective control over his enterprise
much in the same way as Lauren (who holds the title of CEO) might.
Given that Armani is not a publicly traded corporation and that Armani
himself owns 100 percent of the business, he is a much more powerful
leader and can more decisively communicate the message he wants to
convey. Armani is critical of other luxury brands. Of Gucci after Fords
departure, Armani states:
Maybe Frida wanted to afrm her personality, or maybe, just maybe, in order to sell,
they have sacriced the glamor [sic] of Tom in favor of the GG symbol and the red
and green Gucci band. Tom had to power to burst onto a scene. He could take an
Armani jacket, put it on a bare chest, with some hair gel and a big spotlight. He was
very good at that. But bare chests dont last a lifetime (Galloni 4/10/03: B1).
Levy (2006) compares the Armani and Versace Italian fashion dynas-
ties in the 1980s, tapping into the essential elements which continue
to dene these brands to this day: The one represented crisp class,
the other louche glamour. Cold versus hot, old money versus new,
understated elegance versus over-the-top indulgence. The hard-party-
ing, coke-snorting, platinum blond Donatella was Giannis mascot and
muse, a necessary gure to round out the Versace fantasy (2006: 50).
Donatella Versace upholds the Versace image, never failing to provide
the appropriate theatrics:
She has a show to put on and a collection to edit and a photo to pose for. But the
makeup and hair take so much time, and they are so crucial, she knows. Nobody wants
to see just some person; she cannot appear before her subjects out of full regalia. So
she keeps the photographer waiting as someone works on the eyes and someone works
on the tresses, and she sends Joseph out with yet more cakes (2006: 53).
Levy comments that unlike at Prada or Armani, Versace fashion shows
run through a formal dress rehearsal so that the shows are without a
hitch and always have a special polish (2006: 54).
In a documentary about his career, Lagerfeld reinforces Chanels image
as an elite brand when asked to describe it: It is a symbol of modernity
and chic. Not at all bourgeois. Coco Chanel is widely credited with
creating modern fashion: clothing that was more wearable, yet at the
same time tasteful and sophisticated. While her designs trickled down
to the masses, Chanel herself designed nely constructed garments for
the elite woman. Rohwedder (2003) observes that while she wishes
to appeal to new and youthful customers, Chanel refuses to launch a
funkier, lower priced line comparable to Donna Karans DKNY label
or Marc by Marc Jacobs, both of which are under the LVMH umbrella
(10/13/03: B1). Lagerfeld positions the brand he designs for in refer-
ence to the legacy of Chanel. Lagerfeld commented, for example, that
his Spring 2003 ready-to-wear line was what Chanel was from the
beginning (Horyn 10/9/02: B9). As a leader in his own right, Lagerfeld
changed the brand to reect his own style. The world of Coco Chanel,
the woman, and the style is described on the companys website as
audacious, perfectionist, unique, passionate and visionary. Lagerfeld
is described as Chanels natural successor (chanel.com). Horyn states,
Like few designers who inherit a house Mr. Lagerfeld manages to keep
the light on for its creator, preserving her original ideal for freedom and
sophisticated comfort while, at the same time, constantly re-examining
it (10/9/02: B9). Michelle Leight (2005) describes Lagerfeld as mir-
roring Chanels distinctive de luxe, haute bohemian style but says
he adds edge to it. She states:
Karl Lagerfeld, who was passed the baton of the house of Chanel in 1983, has
masterfully scaled the heights of what for some might have been a daunting task by
staying rmly in his cutting-edge lane, mirroring Coco Chanels audacity, her irrever-
ence for fashion dogma and above all her ability to re-invent the important norms
of her dayas well as of the past. History is important, and both these designers
share a healthy respect for it, without ever allowing slavish reverence for the past to
wash away their inventiveness.
It can be said that Lagerfeld reinvigorated Chanel by making the
house more visible than it had been. After Chanels death in 1971 those
in the fashion world wondered what would become of the house. It might
have faded into history if Lagerfeld did not have the vision to move it
forward. We see a routinization of the charisma of Chanel. Certain
precepts of style become cornerstones of the brand and will inform
the activities of that rm. Lagerfeld, in his day-to-day presence in the
rm and the appearances he makes in public, exerts a live charisma.
Franoise Montenay, Chanels president and chief executive, says, ex-
clusively is very important at Chanel when asked about products that
may be more affordable. The least expensive purse, during the time she
was interviewed, was about $740; a suit was about $5200 (Rohwedder
10/13/03: B3).
At the other end of the fashion spectrum are affordable retailers such
as H&M and Express. They may be said to borrow the charisma of estab-
lished brands. H&M has been described as a synthesis between current
runway and street styles (La Ferla 4/11/00: B11). Its fashions are often
called cheap chic. Margareta van den Bosch, chief designer at H&M
for nineteen years, speaks of the importance of listening to customers
and, to some degree, allowing them to set the agenda. Kady Dalrymple,
executive vice president of womens design for Express, describes her
competition as retailers such as Gap and Banana Republic. She explains
that she wants to provide her consumer with the look of the moment
(Larson 2003: 8). As fashion journalist Ruth La Ferla and van den Bosch
have pointed out, the look consumers want is driven in part by what fa-
mous designers are showing on the runway. These seeming contradictions
between high and mass fashion are challenged by this reappropria-
tion and, at least for a time, by collaborations between couturiers such
as Lagerfeld and Mizrahi with retailers H&M and Target.
The charisma of the brand needs to be upheld. Rozhon described Liz
Claiborne as hot as a blowtorch in the 1980s and as having cooled
off in the early 1990s to the point of being downgraded by investors to
a has-been. Paul R. Charron, a former naval ofcer and MBA whose
motto is change or die, was chairman and CEO since 1995 (Agins
2/6/06, B1, B4, Rozhon 9/24/03: C1, C9). Recognizing that the brand
had matured, Charron acquired established apparel labels (Agins
2/6/06: B1, B4). Today Liz Claiborne Inc. has 46 brands and is a 4.85
billion dollar company (Greenberg 2006: 6). Having built a successful
brand, the company was able to acquire trendy brands (such as Juicy
Couture) and lower priced brands (such as Crazy Horse); this infused
the Company with capital and a renewed charisma (Rozhon 9/24/03: C1,
C9). Without such steps the Liz Claiborne name would have ceased to
hold any signicance in contemporary fashion let alone nd the capital
to continue to exist.
161
5
Organizational Culture in the
Fashion Industry
Knowledge of the formal structure alone is insufcient in understand-
ing an organization. The informal aspects of organizational life must also
be considered as they lead to certain commitments and strategies. While
some organizational scholars emphasize the structural features of orga-
nizations, such as size, technology, formalization, rules, or environment,
those who take a more interpretive approach tend to see communication
as a fundamental way in which organizational cultures are created and
sustained (Weick 1983: 14). Some of these theorists point to leaders, in
particular those who founded organizations, as instrumental in establish-
ing and guiding the organizations culture (e.g., Schein 1992, Schneider
1987). These leaders begin to realize a vision though the initiation of
guidelines, processes and procedures, promotion of an ideology, selection
of personnel, etc. In doing so they lay the foundation for the organizations
culture. The values that a leader imposes on an organization provide a
basis for an emerging and dynamic culture. Structure and culture can be
viewed as interdependentresponsive to one another and to variables
(both internal and external) in their midst.
The members who make up an organization are also important to the
organizations culture. People bring in unique talents and abilities, yet
they must mold these capacities to t within the organization. Charles A.
OReilly III and Jeffrey Pfeffer (2000) feel the popular management lit-
erature and organizations themselves have placed far too much emphasis
on recruiting and retaining the right people (2000: 1). High performing
companies, they say, have achieved an extraordinary level of success
with people who really arent that much different or smarter than those
working for the competition (2000: 2). What exemplary companies
do is provide a set of values that energize their people and unleash the
intellectual capital potentially available in all organizations (2000: 7).
The types of interactions people have, the context they work in, and how
the rm manages members are the main contributors to employees per-
formance (2000: 9). For this performance to be excellent, a companys
values and the alignment they achieve between their values, strategies,
and their people must be coordinated (2000: 11).
The common values members have and that the company wishes to
instill in members are revealed through the way various activities are
set up and play out, and by the way employees relate to one another, the
discussions they have, and the decisions they undertake. Organizational
culture is a collective achievementsometimes a strugglebetween
members at different levels in the hierarchy of a company. If we were
able to measure the organizational culture at any given timeto take
the temperature of the organization as one director of human resources
put itwhat we would nd is a reality specic to that moment in time
though some features may remain constant.
Surveying the eld of organizational culture, Harrison M. Trice and
Janice M. Beyer dene cultures as systems of abstract, unseen, emo-
tionally charged meaning that organize and maintain beliefs about how
to manage physical and social needs. Trice and Beyer stress the ideo-
logical aspects of culture, differentiating culture from social structure
(1993: 20). It is possible to look at culture itself as having both material
and nonmaterial aspects each informing the other and, in turn, shaping
the social structure of an organization. Material components of culture
include the physical artifacts of a people. In the workplace we might
nd ritual objects, awards, artwork, and of course furniture, supplies,
and other commonplace objects. Nonmaterial culture refers to abstract
phenomena such as ideals, values, beliefs, and practices. It is these non-
material aspects that are so hard to grasp. Artifacts provide clues about
the culture we are likely to nd.
Edgar H. Schein warns against trying to reduce culture to a few conve-
nient variables. The danger of the typology is that it seduces managers
into believing they now understand the culture when, in fact, they may
have only scratched the surface. He further states, in my experience
what gives organizations their unique character is not the existence of
the cultural dimensions but how these dimensions relate to one another
(1997: 174). People who inhabit organizations understand intuitively what
theorists may struggle to explain, let alone to quantify. George Porter,
an executive at Nike, offers some insight into the complexity of organi-
zational culture and how one must become acclimated to it. He states,
Ive made some major decisions, and could have made more, but Ill let
Organizational Culture in the Fashion Industry 163
Phil know what Im doing in case its contrary to any basic philosophies
he hassince it takes a while to learn them (Christensen and Ricket
1999: 8). We may deduce from Porters comment that there are serious
consequences should a member of an organization not have an adequate
feeling for the culture and therefore might take steps that are out of sync
with its demands and that of the leader. Rob Strasser, vice president of
marketing, states, This is a hard place to describe. You have to feel it.
Strassers words should be words of caution. After spending many months
in the company, the Harvard Business School researchers spoke of an
intuitive level of thinking and decision making that prevailed and the
companys distinctive and intangible qualities (1999: 19).
Just as a society like the U.S. has a distinctive culture that sets it apart
from another society, so too do organizations. Organizational culture,
like any other type of culture, must be lived and breathed. One does not
become Chinese simply by learning the language and spending time in
China. Schein (1992) discusses the broad sweep of culture in organiza-
tions. This may be more important than any particulars. Culture, in this
general sense, informs our beliefs about how things work, and it pro-
vides us with strategies that can be used to solve problems. People in a
particular rm draw on shared assumptions and experiences, and they
base decisions on these criteria. The leader or leadership in a rm will
no doubt see itself as responsible for dening and promoting the culture
of the organization in ways that will make the company more effective.
Individuals and groups within a rm will respond to the culture and also
shape the culture in important ways.
While each rm has an individual culture, it will share certain com-
monalities with other rms in a similar eld. Auto manufacturing plants
are engaged in the same type of pursuit. Their material and nonmaterial
culturesfor example, technology, managerial practicesconverge in
many ways. Moving from one company to another and from one industry
to another, however, one will nd differences in culture. Manufacturing
work is very different from work in information technology. People in
the manufacturing elds will manipulate very different types of cultural
forms and, like people of a particular culture, will differ in the statuses
they occupy, the roles they play, and the degree of autonomy they have
within their organizations. These variables will differ both between and
within organizations.
Since organizational cultures are comprised of belief systems and
practices and are the blueprint, so to say, for how people will manage their
interactions and experience and express emotions and sentiments within
the organization they are certainly worthy of careful analysis. The objec-
tive in creating, sustaining, and directing an organizations culture, from
the perspective of those who are committed to the organizations success,
is to bind people together by providing them with a common identity
and purpose. This solidarity helps not only to achieve the organizations
mission but provides individuals with the assurance that they are helping
to dene that mission. Former CEO of Levi Strauss and Company, Robert
D. Haas, states, You cant train anybody to do anything that he or she
doesnt fundamentally believe in (Howard 1990: 139). He advocates
getting people to take the initiative to do what is best for the company,
rather than being told to do so. Commonly held standards or values are
the means by which he believes this happens. He maintains, Values
provide a common language for aligning a companys leadership and
its people (1990: 136).
Organizational culture can act as a cohesive force. This is as impor-
tant for the employee as it is for the company. As the majority of most
employees time is spent within the workplace, an organizational culture
one feels comfortable in and identies with makes life that much more
rewarding. If ones organizational life is less than satisfying, or if it is
unpleasant, the general well-being of the person will be affected, apart
from his or her performance in the workplace. If members feel themselves
a part of something larger and believe that their activities are contributing
to something greater, they should be perform with more enthusiasm, and
also attain a degree of personal satisfaction.
In a study of the engineering division of a high technology corpora-
tion, Gideon Kunda (1992) nds that employees are willing to work
long hours and make personal sacrices because they are driven by an
internal commitment to the corporation via its culture (1992: 352, 356).
There is no question of force; goals have been sufciently internalized
so that employees are self-motivated and in tune with the direction the
company seeks to move. The same, of course, can be said of religious
cults where members are indoctrinated in ways that nonmembers may nd
objectionable. The individual should be cautioned to choose a workplace
that resonates well with his or her own value system whenever possible.
Not everyone has this luxury and many people nd themselves, at least
temporarily, in workplaces that seek to shape them in ways they do not
want to be shaped. In such cases members tend to create an alternative
culture or, on a more personal level, individuals may develop a cynicism
or even hostility. Laurie Graham outlines ways in which auto workers
cope with the corporations imposition of a Japanese value system and
particular practices that do not resonate well with them. Resistance ranges
from jokes about company philosophy and practices, to refusal to partici-
pate in rituals or sabotage on the assembly line (1993: 139-140). Michael
Burawoy, also studying factory workers, points to the common practice
of making out. While work is timed in a careful manner, workers are
able to evade the system and to create their own order by, for example,
accumulating extra product that is kept in a kitty. This reserve allows
them to take time off when they feel like it (1979: 171-174). George C.
Homans notes that the group of workers in the Bank Wiring Observation
Room of the Hawthorne Western Electric Company, studied many years
ago by the Industrial Research Department at Harvard University, was
not behaving as the logic of management assumed it would behave
(2003: 94). The work was being done, but not according to approved
specications. Workers would sometimes trade jobs, work faster, or slow
down depending upon agreements made between the men so as to suit
their particular social organization (2003: 93).
An organizational culture can create loyalty and commitment in mem-
bers, or it can distance members from goals. Ideally, the mission of a rm
should be a collective enterprise that minimizes status boundaries and
personal objectives. Of course it is not always experienced in this way.
Managements goals may work in direct opposition to that of the staff. If
a culture is forced on members and/or does not resonate with their own
aspirations it will, in fact, be an oppressive culture. This will lead to the
formation of informal cultures or, for that matter, individuals that may act
in opposition to the ofcial culture. At the very least it will result in a
situation where members dismiss or do not take seriously the ofcial
culturealthough they may go through the motions if required. Informal
cultures will always exist within the larger organization; the sales depart-
ments culture will differ from that of human resources. These informal
cultures can support or oppose the ofcial culture.
In a series of clinical observations and experiments in industry, re-
searchers, who came to be known as the human relations school, pro-
moted a type of administration sensitive to the social, interpersonal, and
psychological needs of its workers. In other words, they sought to foster
a synergy between the goals of a company and the needs of its members.
One of the founders of this movement, Mayo of the Industrial Research
Department at Harvard University, criticizes American society, industry,
and the modern world in general for its stress on material effectiveness
and oversight when it comes to creating solidarity (1945: 9). American
society sets a precedent for business in its focus on the individual (1945:
32). Employees, Mayo and others found, were attended to in terms of
technical training but were not taken account of as social beings. In a
series of studies Mayo points out the importance that social factors play
in the workplace. The later is fundamental both to companies and their
employees as the desire to stand well with ones fellows, he nds, eas-
ily outweighs the merely individual interest (1945: 43). Homans states,
The industrial worker develops his own ways of doing his job, his own
traditions of skill, his own satisfactions in living up to his standards
(2003: 95). These ways of being are a function of ones relation to oth-
ers. One of the most important ndings of the Western Electric Company
research, says Homans, is that groups are continually being formed
among industrial workers, and that the groups develop codes and loyal-
ties which govern the relations of the members to one another (2003:
95). Mayo discusses, for example, the reasons behind a mill workers
turnover rate of approximately 250 percent falling to 5 or 6 percent several
years later. A horde of solitaries was transformed into a social group
when rest periods were instituted and placed in the control of workers.
This interaction amongst workers led to solidarity which in turn made
the job more satisfactory, the workers more productive, and the turnover
rate far lower (1945: 59-67). Furthermore, the president giving control
to the workers secured an eager and spontaneous loyalty amongst the
workers (1945: 68).
The human relations school has been criticized for promoting the
interests of organizations rather than those of the worker. Organizational
consultants are, after all, brought in by management and not by individual
employees. It would be difcult to advocate a position that would, for
example, reduce company earnings but increase the well-being of em-
ployees. In a capitalist society it is taken for granted that prot is the rst
order of business. Clearly an organizations culture can be used as a tool
to undermine what might be in the best interest of employees. Graham
(1993) found, in her study of a Japanese auto transplant, that the team
culture was used to prevent employees from unionizing. Furthermore,
it was used as a tool to manipulate them so as to gain their cooperation.
Tactics in many companies can be far more coercive, even confrontational.
Wal-Mart, Americas largest employer, has been accused of preventing
unionization amongst its employees by ring, spying, intimidation, and
various forms of harassment. Jared Sandberg, who writes a column called
Cubicle Culture for the Wall Street Journal, comments that saying no
to a boss may result in one of corporate Americas most career limit-
ing charges: youre not a team player (2006: B1). The team in this case
becomes a cover for what is, in effect, old-fashioned subordination. At
some level each employee will have to deal with pressures to conform,
just as every person must in society and its institutions. One can say that
if an organization is operating in an optimal manner, people in different
positions and departments of the organization should feel a connection
to each other and to the goals of the organization; those goals should
not be experienced as objectionable. Ideally there should be a collective
consciousness, just as there should be for a society to operate effectively.
The content of this consciousness is, of course, open to question. Not
everyone would agree that furthering the Polo Ralph Lauren lifestyle is
a worthy enterprise, but for members of that rm it should be.
Ernest G. Bormann (1984) describes what he sees as the important
components of an organizations culture: shared norms, reminiscences,
stories, rites and rituals. Together these provide members with what
he calls a unique symbolic common ground (1984: 100). This state,
where members share common sentiments, emotional involvement, and
a commitment to symbols, he terms symbolic convergence (1984:
102). The material and nonmaterial aspects of culture that members
recognize as unique to their way of being provide the means for this
symbolic convergence. These symbolic mediaconversational styles,
the way meetings are conducted, the ofce Christmas party, company
newslettersprovide data for understanding the unique culture of a
particular organization.
Steven P. Feldman (1993) writes about an important function that
organizational culture serves which is particularly so in creative indus-
tries. The organizational culture, which he denes as a set of mean-
ings including norms, roles, plans, ideals, and ideas, can be used to
stimulate innovation (1993: 85). In an organization, Feldman argues,
members share a collective predisposition that leads them to under-
stand events, react to situations, and solve problems in certain ways.
Feldman discusses how John Smith, founder of Smith Electronics
and center of the work culture, in effect discouraged innovation
based on his self-motivated management style. Smith is described
as inner-directed. His strong sense of purpose in creating a secure
workplace for employees and dedication to producing high quality
products caused others around him to become followers (1993: 89).
Feldman describes Smiths idealism as leading to an internal focus
on product engineering and lack of attention to market dynamics and
customer needs (1993: 89-90). Such a mistake would not bode well in
the fashion industry.
The organizations culture is the core of the company. Strategic goals
will be formulated in response to the rms ideology, and small everyday
transactions between employees, both ofcial and informal, will reect
the culture in which they unfold. In a global sense, the organizations
culture will be shaped by its founders objectives and persona, and by
the tenor of current leadership. It will tend to remain somewhat constant
even as employees may change. This reality often creates an environment
where any individual, whether at the bottom or top of the hierarchy, is
potentially expendable. Of course if the external environment changes
considerably causing the organization to face new challenges or the
organization itself is changed through a reorganization of some type,
familiar ways of operating will be challenged. Just as norms and values
change in a society yet in other ways remain the same, so too do they
in organizations.
Members of an organization certainly have a role in creating the
organizations culture. Their purposes may well be different from those
of the organizational elite. Culture is not in the exclusive purview of the
leaders any more than it is in the hands of the elite in a society, however
much they may shape what can be referred to as the dominant discourse.
As culture is an instrument of control, there will be checks and balances
in place so that for the most part the ofcial culture will serve the interests
of the company and not those of individual employees who by deni-
tion are less powerful. The trick, so to say, from managements point
of view is sufciently incorporating the needs of members so that they
will be willing participants in organizational goalsthe organizations
objectives becoming their own objectives. Should a company be ethical
and truly interested in the well-being of its employees this unication
does not take on darker shades of exploitation.
The organizational culture becomes routinized to some extent. We nd
formal recurring structures in which ideals are transmitted and regulated.
There is, for example, in every company a dress code whether or not it
has been formalized. This requirement comes to be taken for granted
by most employees but nonetheless plays an important regulatory role.
There may be a different code for executives than for middle managers,
and yet another requirement for administrative personnel. This distinc-
tion may create and sustain hierarchical boundaries. Differences in dress,
whether they are formally directed or informally picked up by employees,
may dene the identity of one division in relation to all other divisions.
Each company will have certain events, such as picnics and Christmas
parties, which allow for informal socialization while at the same time
reinforcing the goals of the organization. Companies may be engaged
in fundraising or community service activities in which employees may
participate thereby reinforcing a collective identity. Perhaps there may
even be more overt ways of socializing employees, such as pep rallies
and intensive training boot camp programs. Other examples of formal
structures set up to instill the values of the organization are company
newsletters, meetings, and seminars.
Formal structures represent the ofcially sanctioned aspects of or-
ganizational culture while informal structures point to adaptations that
members make to the formal structure or elements they themselves may
incorporate into the culture. For example, certain aspects of the work
environment such as ofce furniture and ofce supplies are approved
and selected by the company or by individuals for themselves insofar
as they are given such authority by the company. The furniture one has
or the supplies one uses further dene that person in the organizational
hierarchy. The arrangement of certain items on ones desk and the addition
of personal items reects an informal aspect of the organizational mate-
rial culture. The boundaries are not xed between formal and informal,
material and abstract. The choice of a certain desk for a given category
of employee by the company reect structural arrangements as well as
abstract ideological phenomena even though it takes on a material form.
Similarly, the individuals choice of arrangement of ofcial and personal
items reects his or her understanding of the organizational culture and
conveys this to others.
An organizations culture has the potential to subsume the individual.
Robert Jackall (1988), in his study of corporate CEOs and executives,
demonstrates how modern American corporations are more apt to re-
semble patrimonial efdoms than the rational and efcient ideal type
bureaucracies that Weber spoke about. The corporate climate is set by
the CEO. He is king, his word is law, and his whims are taken as
commands, argues Jackall (1988: 21). The CEOs ideals and interests
become immensely important to those whose success rests on garner-
ing his favor. Jackall found that each major division of Weft, a textile
company, reected the personality of its leader: hard-driving, intense,
or cool (1988: 161). Jackall describes Skipper, the CEO of Covenant
Corporation. Skipper was known to choose favorites and to suddenly drop
them. The nautical interests of this CEO trickled down the hierarchy so
that nautical terms were used by employees in their daily conversations
even when he was not present (1988: 22). It was as if, to use a more
extreme and decidedly negative case involving the Nazi concentration
camp guard, the victims identied with their aggressors by imitating
their behavior and internalizing their values (Bettleheim 1943).
In a psychodynamic theory of organizations, Howard S. Schwartz
(1987) describes a common organization ideal in which individuals
unwilling to face their imperfect selves compensate by projecting
their hidden grandiosity onto the organization. They come to believe
that the organization and its leaders are perfect. In such a culture,
members hold one another in contempt, says Larry Hirschhorn com-
menting on Schwartzs work (1993: 75). The spontaneous, troublesome
self is repudiated and substituted for the organizationa situation that
can occur under conditions of totalitarianism (Schwartz 1993: 241). In
the totalitarian work environment there is no place for the self-conscious
individual. The organization is designed around the narcissism of a
guru. The function of employees is to serve the gurus fantasy; this
includes presenting the claim that the show that the guru was running
was one in which they were autonomous, self-determining agents (1993:
248). We need not necessarily go into a psychoanalytic explanation as to
why this may occur to recognize that back-stabbing and kowtowing
are fundamental features in many organizations. In organizational life,
emotions come into play and relationships are formed which in turn will
have an impact on even the most routine business.
Kunda (1992: 367-368) nds that even in cult-like environments, where
there is a blurring between self and organization, members nevertheless
claim the right to control the extent and degree to which they embrace
a role. This sense of autonomy is accomplished by strategies involving
distancing the self; by disputes, cynicism, and irony, for example. Gra-
ham (1993) identies such tactics in a Japanese auto transplant where
employees are faced with the imposition of Japanese cultural practices
that hold little or no meaning for them. Distancing the self becomes more
complicated in a rm where everything revolves around one individual,
however, many people manage to do so, if not all the time at least on
occasions.
In the fashion industry organizational effectiveness, or the success
of a company, is not necessarily correlated with a fair and democratic
work environment. The risk of a corporation turning into a efdom or
a totalitarian organization can be multiplied may times over when we
consider rms headed, as they often are, by a master or chief designer.
Often more so than the prototypical guru, the chief designers ego may
well be inated as a result of the rm and its product bearing his or her
name. Polo Ralph Lauren remains one of the most protable companies
despite Laurens purported harsh tactics with employees. The industry as
a whole carries a reputation of being tough and crude at its core, while at
the same time glamorous and elitist. Fashion rms, for the most part, are
not places one feels at home, relaxed, and accepted for the person he or she
truly is. If one does feel this way it is very likely to be short lived. Never-
theless, people are drawn to careers in fashion because of the excitement
and prestige that being associated with this eld brings. Many designers
speak of their work as a callingas one might describe a religious vocation.
Donna Karan states, You cant make a designer.... I think youre born to
design (Karimzadeh 2006: 13). Lesser known designer, Christy Fisher
(based in Jerome, Arizona), says: I think that being a designer is one of
those things you dont decide to do. Its in your soul. You are driven to
the creativity no matter what other occupations you may be doing along
the way (Coons). This enthusiasm seems to make members more sus-
ceptible to a leaders inuence and more willing to become immersed
in the organizations culture; it prepares one to cope with the hostilities
and stresses of many work environments. The concept of a satisfactory
work culture needs to be amended when considering the fashion industry.
Designer Joseph Abboud reects on the industry:
The design house is a cornucopia of ideas, the place from which all blessings ow, the
heart of the designers nameand a form of bedlam. There are many moving parts,
and much detritus, all of which get ltered into the meat grinder. Outsiders see a world
of beauty and glamour and lipstick and annel and cashmere and silk, but inside is a
world of stubby pencils, plastic bins, tweed in your tea, and skeins of raw emu yarn
that could tear your skin off. There are fabulous moments, unattractive moments,
tension, and time-frame issues. There are design meetings, strategic meetings, button
meetings, color meetings, and silhouette meetings. Theres no beautiful fountain pen on
the polished art deco desk where someones quietly sketching, and theres no gorgeous
view of some far-off horizon, but there are books lled with raggedly cut swatches
and identifying labels in the House of the Designer that resemble the book of secret
formulas in the House of Frankenstein. Its not all attractive, but its very exciting.
This is where we spend the most intense part of our daily lives, so were dramatically
bound by various dynamics and relationships. People connect, irt and dally, form
cliques, turn savage (2004: 18).
He says that designers are rivals all vying for the attention of the head
designer, his touch on the shoulder, his blessing. He compares the en-
vironment to Lord of the Flies:
Its a turf war, but because this is a business of image, the shots are subtle. Nobody
attacks anybodys integrity. Its more common to hear, His taste isnt that good,
or Armani did that two years agofeline snips about someone but never to
someones face. Then, at the rst sign of favoritism, it becomes the group versus the
individualWho does he think he is? What does she think she is doing?and the
favorite becomes the outcast (2004: 19).
A satised employee replies to several postings on the fashion careers
discussion board of the website Vault that discourage a young person
who writes for advice on getting into the fashion industry. Her advice
expresses an optimism that is hard for an outsider to comprehend and
an attempt to balance a love of fashion and a drive to be in this industry
with the difculties such a choice may present:
Nikki...as rhetorical as it sounds, you can DO anything if you really want it enough.
Its great that these girls are giving you a candid view about how they view the
industry, and true, its not as glamourous [sic] as it always sounds, but at the same
time I couldnt be happier about my career in the industry. I have been with Lanvin
in Paris for the past three years, and in the industry myself for eight years. As much
bullshit as I took when I rst started out (and still now!), I couldnt see myself doing
anything else in the world. Like in any career you have to be passionate, persistent
as well as PATIENT in order to get to where you want to be. Theres [sic] low points
in ANY career, and thats just a part of life. Either you suck it up, or you get out. Its
your dedication and perseverance to it that keeps you fueling. My best advice to you
is to use any connection you may have had back in your past experiences. And if that
fails, charisma will take you a long way. You may have to start out doing something
incredibly degrading to your ego, but if youve got personality, it doesnt mater how
low you start, that will take you as far as you will allow it to. Take if from someone
who graduated from school with no training or inkling of experience in the industry.
If you know that this is the industry you want to be in, and you can ride the ups and
downs, I wish you all the luck. Good luck! (Vault 2/7/01).
The leaders personality, the rms ideology, and the identity a rm
takes on is especially important in an industry where these features may
well be reected in the image the brand projects. The charisma of the
leader and other executives, and the particular form that this takes, is
instrumental in setting a cultural tone. Advertising executive Lois says
in an interview: Its not only important to develop great advertising to
reach new customers, but its equally important to reach existing cus-
tomers and employees. They need to be reassured theyre dealing with
a winner (Lamons 1996).
Employees in fashion rms are engaged in the larger task of promot-
ing the brand. To be effective in their work they must, to some degree,
believe in the product. This is less so (from the point of view of neces-
sity but often not in practice) for those engaged in routine administrative
work (for example, bookkeeping) than it is for those engaged in creative
endeavors or work that involves meeting clients or customers. Such work
truly requires conveying the spirit of the company. However, it is in the
interest of the company to motivate each and every employee so that the
goals and ideology of the company become personally meaningful, even
if the environment is not especially comforting.
In fashion design rms the culture of the organization is likely to be
closely tied to the personality of its founder in instances where he or
she heads the rm. When the designer is no longer there, as in the case
of Calvin Klein, the designer who has assumed his or her place is said
to be carrying the torch while at the same time adding his or her own
aesthetic. Firms that do not have a designer heading them will respond to
the aesthetic of the brand and will charge various leaders with conveying
the spirit of the brand to the members of the rm. Despite structural differ-
ences there will be commonalities that designers and others face in fashion
rms given the creative and entrepreneurial nature of the business.
Each leader has his or her own leadership style that will help to shape
and dene the organizational culture. The comments and observations
that follow give us limited access to the cultures at different rms. At
best they represent a moment in time from someones perspective.
Sometimes a certain theme is repeated, and these allow us to perhaps
form an impression. Some of the sources, books on Ralph Lauren and
Calvin Klein in particular, are unauthorized and sources are for the most
part anonymous. Other sources represent the views of insiders. Many
other voices are not heard; satised employees who may not have any
reason to visit the Vault website, for example, and people who cant be
reached or dont wish to comment. Most of my calls and letters to rms
went unanswered.
In the chapter on leadership, we had an example of a culture at Gu-
cci Group NV where a power struggle occurred between designer Tom
Ford (and those loyal to him) and the CEO of the parent company. It
was only resolved by Ford and De Soles departure and the promotion
of four designers who worked for Ford to his position (Womens Wear
Daily 6/5/06: 6). Management demanded too dominant a voice and set
protability goals that impinged on Fords creative autonomy. Each
designer was given a division formerly led by Ford: womens apparel,
accessories, menswear, and Yves Saint Laurent. Only two designers
remained (Womens Wear Daily 6/5/06, 6). Alessandra Facchinetti
resigned after presenting two womens collections that were not well
received by the fashion press. Frida Gianni, who had been designing
accessories after Fords departure, was named as her successor in March
2005. While we know nothing of Facchinettis ability as a leader within
Gucci, many industry insiders and journalists say stepping into Fords
shoes was a difcult task. David Graham (2004: E04) compares Ford and
Facchinetti, While Ford is known for his controlled cool stance as he
takes his bow at the end of each show, Facchinetti peeked out from the
wings red faced and crying, perhaps from exhaustion, many people
speculated. The Gucci company has a long history of problems. Before
1993 it was run by the Gucci family which became embroiled in many
disputes and power struggles which drove some members to commit
criminal actions including murder. This eventually led the rm to bank-
ruptcy (Womens Wear Daily 6/5/06: 4).
Other rms are able to attain a less tumultuous culture. At Diesel,
Rosso, both chief designer and chairman, seems able to balance creative
and business matters in a way that allows for a democratic workplace
for designers and provides various opportunities for reection. Even at
a multibrand, publicly owned rm such opportunities are put into place,
though they may not occur in as spontaneous a manner as they do at a
smaller company like Diesel. I attended a talk given by Ruth P. Rubinstein
at Liz Claiborne. All designers were present. This was one of many in an
afternoon lecture series the company sponsored as a means of enriching
designers and providing them with some time away from their work. Liz
Claiborne has an extensive library with a variety of books of interest to
designers. In addition to the library there is a creative room with vintage
clothing, objects, textiles, pictures, etc. which can be used as a reference
and as a source of inspiration.
Designers at Liz Claiborne doubtless experience tensions between
their own objectives and those carved out by management. Former CEO
Paul Charron discusses the quarterly review on each of the companys
brands with corporate management heads down one side of the table
and the division management or brand management down the other.
Pointing to Sigrid Olsen he says she is not just designing product. She
is the steward of that business. When asked if designers understand the
nuts and bolts of nance he says: The larger issue here, and this gets
to the professionalism in the business, we are running this like a business,
not like an art form. We are enabling Sigrids artistry, but for Sigrid to
be that artist that she wants to bewhich is a commercial artshe is
not doing stuff for the Smithsonian. Charron, formerly of Proctor and
Gamble, says:
Take a look at the P&G experience and contrast it with Liz. Whats the difference?
Well you could point to the obvious differences in product. But you know what,
some of the most passionate people Ive ever found are the creators who invented
products like Dawn dishwashing detergent. OK. Every bit as passionate as a food
technologist at General Foods who used to work on different formulations of Shake
N Bake. They are every bit as passionate as the creators who design Ellen Tracy
and Dana Buchman.
These words undoubtedly would not be received well by the companys
designers. When asked how he preserves creativity in the face of con-
temporary management tactics, he replies:
I have created an environment where [Juicy Couture designers] Pamela Skaist-Levy
and Gela Nash-Taylor can feel they think all these out-of-the-box thoughts, many
of which resonate. They certainly resonate with me. For the new Couture-Couture
line, I listened to them talk for ve minutes and I said, OK, we will do it. There are
two restrictions. One, I want you to restrict yourself to 20 styles. And I want you to
restrict yourself to a loss of $1 million. Pam and Gela have adhered to those constraints
(Agins 2/6/06: B1, B4).
We see how the corporate structure of Liz Claiborne both provides an
organizational culture with opportunities for designers to develop their
talents, yet reigns them in, not letting them forget that they are there to
develop a product that sells. Designers go into their work, if they should
work in such companies, with this expectation.
There are many different types of charismatic leadership in fashion,
ranging from the tyrannical to the collegial. These styles of leadership
will set the tone of the rms culture and will create different types of
aspirations among members of the rm; this will result in particular
types of anxiety. Some employees at Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein, for
instance, have described their work environments in ways some people,
particularly those on the outside, may dene as hostile. Jeffrey Banks, a
designer that Lauren took under his wing, is described by Gross as des-
perate to please. In Lauren, he is said to have found a father gure.
Gross quotes Banks. When it works he says:
Ralph has a great sense of humor, a great laugh, hes effusive and you feel like the sun
shines on you. The ip side is that when hes displeased, he can make you feel this
big by the way he denigrates you. Its the most brutal, awful thing to make a mistake.
Hes not spiteful, he doesnt realize hes doing it, but youre devastated. Its about
control, denitely. Its about having that vision and not letting anyone or anything
get in your way (2003: 132).
If we accept Banks denition of Laurens personality, we see the need
for Banks complementary role in the organizationand how working
with Lauren is nevertheless compelling. Competition between people
vying for the attention and favor of this type of leader tends to become
erce and even pathological. A designer from a competing rm describes
the environment at Ralph Lauren as all backstabbing and catghting.
Discussing a former t model and favorite of Laurens who disappeared
overnight, and for whom a high prole job was created, Shari Sant says,
It was really weird; none of us really knew why. She continues: Hed
get paranoiac about people who were close to him. People would plant
seeds in his mind. Gross contends that Lauren encouraged employees
to be critical of one another. What do you think of so and so? one
executive recalls him asking. He might then reply, I dont think she
shares our taste level, thus creating an alliance by excluding the other
person (2003: 262).
Abboud started out as a salesman at Polo Ralph Lauren and worked
closely with Lauren as associate director of design from 1981 to 1984.
He says of himself: I dont hire designers for the way they look or the
design house they come from. I dont dictate how they dress or part their
hair, and I dont need to own their souls. He continues: But when I
worked for Ralph Lauren, I was surrounded by Ralph: the right green
and the right navy and the right wood and the right tweeds and the right
M&Ms in the right bowls. Eloquently, he tells how intoxicating this
can be: Beauty is a danger, though, like a siren luring sailors to their
death upon the rocks. The Polo mystique possessed me. The aura there
was so seductive, so addictive, that it was like being on drugs (2004:
20). Abboud expresses his desperation to please Lauren, I wanted so
badly to please Ralph, to justify the faith he had in me, to impress a man
Id worshiped since 1967 (2004: 110). In a similar vein to Banks, he
describes how devastating disappointing Lauren could be:
When he didnt agree, he never pooh-poohed my ideas. But in his gen-
teel, soft-spoken manner he could knock the legs right out from under me.
This isnt Polo, was all hed have to say, and Id feel it like a punch (2004: 94).
Abboud says he was dying to go to Ralph directly, and prove myself.
However, Abboud worked directly with Jerry Lauren, Ralphs brother
and head of mens design. He speaks highly of Jerry Lauren, there were
times hed edit me out early. But other times hed say, Joey likes these
colors or Joey likes these patterns for sport coats. Abboud speaks of
round-the-clock work hours but says: Nothing was too much. What-
ever time we have to start, whatever time we have to nish, just bring it
on! (2004: 105, 107). Speaking of the mens design team he says:
In or out of the ofce, we were in his thrall. We worked long and hard, and competed
to work longer and harder. If you can do it, I can do it. You need to get there early? I
can get there earlier than you. You need to stay late? I can stay later (2004: 108).
Abboud admits to having days where he was so tired he could barely
function. But he never showed it. Unable to get home to his wife most
nights, he was installed during the week at the Parker Meridien.
If my schedule was full, Ralphs was fuller, so design meetings usually
didnt start until eight oclock at night. Thats crazy, because with the cre-
ative process you need to be fresh. It was inefcient and often unproductive.
We worked so late and got so giddy we didnt know what the hell we were doing.
Wed walk out of there like zombiessometimes frustrated, sometimes not sure we
had it, sometimes going, This is unbelievable! and taking those concepts to the
meeting next morning when we would develop them and bring them to Ralph for his
approval. His approval was everything (2004: 109).
Abboud was so identied with Ralph that he even ate what Ralph ate,
and he liked it because Ralph liked it:
When we had lunch in New York, it wasnt at the 21 or The Four Seasons. It was
at a conference table or desk in the ofce. And it wasnt rabbit terrine or lacquered
quail. It was peaches and cottage cheese. I dont think it had anything to do with
dieting. This was a cultural thing, a throwback to childhood in the Bronx. Jerry liked
it because Ralph liked it, so I liked it because Jerry liked it because Ralph liked it. It
was messy, and sticky, but you know what? It wasnt bad (2004: 108).
Abboud describes the overall organizational culture in which Lauren
was so formidable a force during the 1980s. We can imagine Ralph
entering the rm:
Ralph himself had no problem cutting a swath. He was unremittingly motif-driven.
Whether he was the country squire or the cowboy, he was the star of his own movie.
On Monday, he might show up in a very tted, double-breasted, dark gray chalk-stripe
annel suit. Tuesday, he might wear fatigues with an olive Porsche watch and a days
scruff. Wednesday, a black-and-white herringbone sport coat, white shirt (with a soft,
hand washed collar), and silver tie (2004: 104).
Lauren wanted his staff to look like his staff, says Abboud (2004:104).
Appearance is a key factor in the Polo Ralph Lauren rm, inseparable
from the culture as a whole. While Abboud discusses the less than glam-
orous underside of the fashion industry, it is worth noting how certain
rms (notably Polo Ralph Lauren) manage to keep up appearances and
how instrumental this may be in drawing employees in to the aura of the
company and of the brand.
There was enormous energy in the place. We projected an uptight, crested imagewith
Clotilde the model in her beautiful tartan, looking as if she had just own in from
Scotland, and Buzzy the all-American JFK facsimile in his wholesome Shetlandsbut
in truth the tweedy hormones were ripe and raging. The girls (all the Buffys and
Muffys and Miffys) would prance around in their chinos and jodhpurs, with their hair
all wispy and big hoop earrings and Polod to the hilt, and the guys would be trying
to get their tweeds straightened out, you know.
The salesmen were the Polo elite, almost like rock stars to the girls
(2004: 102).
John, in the New York ofce, was Ralphs idea of clothes reincarnate. He was very
WASPyhandsome, blond, perfectbut with humor. There was nobody who could
do what we called Old Polo the way John could. Hed take an old seersucker suit,
because he knew Ralph loved that, and vintage it up with a tie from ve years ago, a
frayed button-down, and white bucks (2004: 102).
Abboud continues, after describing more members in this cast of char-
acters:
Everybody came early, worked late, and wanted to play. We had breakfast together,
sales meetings together. When the day was over, the girls in merchandising and design
would bring the samples into the showroom, the guys would say, Sit down and have
a drink. Lets go out to dinner, and the next thing you knew everybody was with
somebody (2004: 103).
Ali Lapinsky (2006) on a college website discusses her internship at
the Polo Ralph Lauren corporate ofce in New York. Her experience
provides insight into how someone gets drawn in and begins to identify
with a designer and brand. Lapinsky describes her glamorous sur-
roundings: antique oil paintings, supple tufted leather chairs, and green
annel wallpaper and how she feels in these surroundings. When I
walk through the burled maple doors with my Polo security pass, no one
needs to know that Im not a full employee or that Im living in a dorm
room the size of a closet for the summer. They just need to know that I
am here to do whatever I can for [the] company and smile every second
that Im doing it. The reader gets the impression that Lapinsky has suc-
cumbed to the special allure that this type of rm holds. She describes
the highlight of her internship: It was an exciting day indeed when, four
weeks into my internship, I nally saw the man behind the polo player,
Mr. Lauren himself. Lauren was literally behind a horse, and Lapinsky
only got a glimpse but we sense it was an exhilarating experience. It
was only for a momenthe was getting out of the elevator I was getting
into and I almost didnt see the miniature mogul behind the giant brass
horse sculpture bolted to the oor of the vestibule.
Despite his important role in the Polo empire, eventually Abboud felt
he had to get out. Life in the cocoon actually started to limit my think-
ing (2004: 20). While other designers may prefer working under the
cover of a big name (2004: 15), Abboud started to feel he wanted to do
something different:
Logic would have said, Joe, you are with a great company, youre right next to the
king, dont be a jerk. But logic had nothing to do with it. Our visions were diverging,
and it wasnt just color coming between us. It was also shape, t, and the positioning of
a collection. Tradition was the essence of Ralph Lauren, and I liked edge. The clothes
I wanted to design werent right for him. But they were right for me (2004: 112).
Trachtenberg presents the reader with remarks from Lauren and others
that show him to be an independent and determined visionarynot one
to be directed by others. Lauren states, for example:
If I am working with a fabric I like I will say, okay, put this in all the accessories,
put it into wallpaper, put it into this or that. I know where I want to see it. Theres an
overall picture. Do this, this, this. Thats how I work (1988: 217).
Trachtenberg says when Lauren rst started his business, his door was
open to any employee. Lauren explains that as a company grows it
becomes necessary to relate to employees differently:
What happens is you develop teams. You have layers of people under them and they
are afraid to go to me without talking to their boss. You dont want to call someone
because youre afraid somebody else is going to say, Why didnt you talk to me
rst? Its politics. Its how companies work.
Lauren assures Trachtenberg that he is different:
But I dont like that. I dont feel that way. I like to talk to people. Thats how I operate.
Its very straight. I say what I feel (1988: 230).
He continues, painting a very different picture than we have heard from
employees: If I have a bad idea they laugh.
I have to battle for my ideas. I want to ght. I could say Thats it, well do it my way.
But I dont. I want everybody to walk out believing in what were doing. Sometimes
they have an idea and I say, Great, lets build on that. That happens. Absolutely
(1988: 230-231).
Vault, the career website, posts a Polo Employment Snapshot based
on employees they have surveyed. Citing fairly generous perks and
complimentary breakfast for New York employees, the job seeker is
told:
Despite the glitter and glamour of the fashion industry, one Polo insider reports,
Polo does not have a lot of the glitter inside. Employees say long, hard hours
are expected, and tight deadlines are frequent. The environment is very fast-paced,
and we are always under pressure to complete deadlines by certain dates, one notes.
However, many report that the rewards are worth it, when we see our labors walking
down the streets on people. Polo is a good company to work for (Vault 2006).
An employee who does visual merchandising states in a comment posted
on Vault, that until recent years Polo Ralph Lauren was an exciting
company to work for. In her comment dated March 16, 2004 she blames
executives for what she sees as a decline, saying: it is an operationally
run environment with little emphasis on its people, product or customer.
Unless culture changes at the company perhaps Ralph will nd himself
in a similar predicament as his rival Calvin Klein? (Vault 3/16/04). A
posting by a distribution analyst seems to paint a picture of the kind of
corporation Lauren didnt want to haveone in which Lauren is ex-
tremely distant from the rank and le:
In the planning organization, the vice president is in charge. All decisions are made
by her. She has a 60-person organization and each decisions [sic] has to be approved
by her. Her direct subordinates will delay any decisions unless its been run by her.
There is no empowerment to make your own thoughtful decisions here. Delays are
inevitable. There is no meritocracy unless your work is aligned to that vice presidents
agenda.
This person goes on to say that opportunities for advancement are depen-
dent on the vice presidents desire to have you remain in the organization
(Vault 5/9/06). A senior analyst highlights the good and the bad points
of working at Polo Ralph Lauren. The good aspects, from this persons
perspective, have to do with clothing discounts, clothing allowances (if
you deal with clients), leaving at noon before a holiday (but that all
depends on your boss of course), getting free samples, and (if you work
in the showrooms) seeing famous people. Negatives include tremendous
hours, ridiculous deadlines, and raises of 2-3% being tied to being
an outstanding and PERFECT employee who will work ridiculous
hours. This employee states that working until 8:00 each night as she
does is not enough (Vault 7/29/04). A technical designer, giving us
further insight into the ideal type Polo employee, states:
Long hours are expected and not necessarily rewarded. Some departments compensate.
If employees work 8 full weekends in a row proceeding fashion week, they can add
these days to their vacations in the summer. Other departments expect late nights and
weekends, no compensation. Dedicated employees are often working on the weekends,
staying late at night, ordering dinner together. They seem to like it (Vault 6/5/03).
Ideal employees, we have seen, are dedicated and do indeed enjoy being
there; they do not experience this devotion as a sacrice. These employees
feel connected to the Polo lifestyle and its charismatic founder.
As discussed earlier, designers that Gross (2003) interviewed and
observations Abboud (2004) provided seemed to characterize the work-
place culture as difcult, yet intriguing because of Laurens presence.
Designers and others I spoke to who had worked at Polo Ralph Lauren but
were currently working at Tommy Hilger USA, Inc. tended to describe
the former environment as competitive and elitist in comparison to their
current more collegial situation. Ralph was often referred to as king
and the company as hostile. A senior analyst sums up her prole of
Polo Ralph Lauren: The company as a whole is extremely cut throat.
I saw people get red on the spot all the time. Yet, it also seems to be
a culture where people enjoy being togethereven if it means at some
level they will be competitors (Vault 7/29/06).
Polo Ralph Lauren employees report that both appearance and ability
to t into the culture are essential; some say this may even be more im-
portant than actual abilities. Although, we can assume that the company
is hiring from a very talented pool of candidates so that the choice is
not between good looks and ability or cultural t and ability. A designer
states, If you look the part and are a good stylist (can put together looks
from vintage and existing product) you will succeed (Vault 6/5/03). A
distribution analyst, offering advice on the job interview process, states:
They are looking for t into the culture. Friendliness and not knowledge
helps. They want to know why you want to work here and why in this
particular position (Vault 5/9/06). A technical designer offers a detailed
analysis of the importance of appearance to readers interested in being
employed by the company:
It is possible to be hired if you do not look the Polo part. However, it was very easy
seeing people waiting outside HR for their interviews who would be hired. For women:
tall, WASPY, little or no make up with a tan and long, rumpled hair. Short ngernails,
bare or subtle polish. A lot of people dress as though they stepped out of a Polo rig.
She goes on to offer more specic information based on the different
divisions within the company:
If youre working for a brand with more vintage inspiration (from the 50s or earlier,
Ralph doesnt like the 60s), the look is: vintage belts, shoes, jewelry and watches.
Anything military is good. Anything from the RRL store, especially jeans is good. If
you work for a cleaner brand, like golf: wear the clothes. Cashmere cable sweaters
around the shoulders, blazers with crests, high heeled sandals for women all year
round (Vault 6/5/03).
Anticipating exactly what Calvin Klein wants is key to doing well
in the rm, according to Marsh (2003: 112). Marsh tells the story of
Kelly Rector, former design assistant at Ralph Lauren, who angered the
design staff (particularly Zack Carr, favored design assistant to Calvin
Klein) when she rose rapidly as a result of her romantic relationship
with Klein. Rector became the most trusted assistant to Klein and the
designer who made all the decisions (2003: 76). She was given the
title design director, and Carr left to start his own line (2003: 77). Ab-
boud describes Carr as having been Kleins trusty right hand and as
more Calvin than Calvin (2004: 15). Shortly after Carr left, Klein and
Rector married. Marsh says that after the marriage Klein took off the
kid gloves with Rector, and for a time she decided to leave the rm.
Later she returned as vice president of special projects. Carr returned to
his original position and the two reportedly formed an alliance against
the mercurial Klein (2003: 82). Later they divorced, and in 2002 Klein
sold the rm to Phillips-Van Heusen.
Calvin Klein, known for its minimalist style, has a reputation for hav-
ing a very disciplined organizational culture. A designer I met at Tommy
Hilger USA, Inc. while showing me his very decorated ofce spoke
of how he could never have personalized his workspace in such a way
had he worked at Calvin Klein. The Vault Calvin Klein Employment
Snapshot starts out by saying: Calvin Klein is as spare and elegant on
the inside as it appears on the pages of Vogue. We are told of the rule in
the corporate handbook: no owers in the ofce, except for white calla
lilies that grace the reception area on every oor. The site reports that
insiders agree that there is a cool uniformity throughout the company.
Although designers are allowed to deviate we are told that Black pants,
white dress top, black blazer is what 95 of the company wears.
Marsh suggests that Klein not only issued edicts on etiquette and
self-presentation but used security cameras to track employees in every
last nook and cranny of the buildings 15 oors. In the early 1990s in
response to an act of fashion vandalism during market week, Klein is
said to have employed a round-the-clock armed staff of New York City
police ofcers in addition to installing ber optic surveillance cameras.
Klein created an ofce environment that reected the pure image of
the brand: From the ofces dcor of concrete oors, white walls, and
black furniture to the dress code of mainly black, gray, and white collec-
tion or cK clothes, the image was consistent. Marsh says Klein sent out
a memo specifying the color of paper clips that could be used (black).
He sent out a memo that trash cans had to be hidden says a former
executive (2003: 112). And she says:
Other edicts that came down from him included such strange standards as allowing
only white calla lilies in reception areas, only white orchids in ofces, and no talking
in the elevators. Personal items like photos or postcards were forbidden to grace your
desk, and no eating was allowed at your desk. Kleins strict standards applied to his
coffee as well. To ensure that hed get just the right mix of coffee and milk every
time, there was a Pantone color swatch on the wall of the kitchen so that whoever
was making it would get the ratio right (2003: 113-114).
In 1994 Klein brought in Gabriella Forte (from Armani) as CEO hoping
to expand the company into a global force. Lauren Goldstein (2003) of
Time Europe describes her as a tough manager, with no particular respect
for the status quo. Forte took charge not only of the business aspects, ac-
cording to Marsh, but began to enforce Kleins rules with a new intensity.
While Klein was a stickler for details, Forte was even more so. Staffers lived in fear
of spot checks, where she would swoop into a department and reprimand them for
dust, loose papers, or a messy desk.
We were constantly using Fantastik and paper towels to wipe everything down, an
ex-employee said.
The white calla lily/orchid rule was enforced even more strictly, with one of Fortes
three assistants assigned the task of walking the oor after hours and leaving Post-it
notes on the desks of offenders (2003: 116).
The dress code was intensied, and when Forte became enraged when an
assistant wore the same collection suit she did, all assistants were limited
to cK, says Marsh (2003: 117). Forte left in 1999 for Dolce & Gabbana.
A designer who worked in the company from 2002-2004 gives a
synopsis of the culture, which appears much milder than that described
by Marsh some years earlier:
Dress code was more relaxed for designers but you had to be conscious of what you
were wearing if there was a meeting where youd be seen by others. Most people
looked like they stepped out of a cK ad or were trying too hard to be in one. Each
division has a particular culturecollection, sportswear, jeans and to t in you have
to be that kind of a personality. If youre interviewing for a job look the part for
whatever brand you are going into (Vault 8/1/06).
Similar to other companies, designers at Calvin Klein devote long
hours to the company. A typical day lasts from 9:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Calvin Klein is denitely not the place to go for a nine-to-ve lifestyle,
and when deadlines come, weekends become work days (Vault 2006). A
designer states: The culture is hard driving, long hours. Expect to work
until 8:30 at night so dont work here if you dont love it (Vault 8/1/06).
Designers report that they work in teams and enjoy each others compan-
ionship. We are carefree but serious about our work, says one designer.
The long hours and the rules seem to be counteracted by the excitement
of working for the company. Vault sums up employee sentiment on the
company Christmas party by saying that it is stellar. Employees speak
well of benets though salaries are not so terric (Vault 2006). The
designer commenting on the culture notes, however, As Calvin had less
to do with the company it became less thrilling (Vault 8/1/06).
A designer I spoke to recalls her rst job at Nicole Miller. It was a
harsh environment, she said. She literally marked off each day on the
calendar, intending to stay six months before looking for another job. She
explained that the gossiping was constant. People gained satisfaction from
tormenting others, she said. She added, I would get blamed for things
that were not my fault because someone above me who made a mistake
said that I did it. She said that her supervisor often would delay doing
something; shed just let things go. Because various deadlines were
not met, samples would not be ready on time, and when Miller found out
she would be furious. I was the one to get blamed even though I did my
part. She continued saying, what could I do when she yelled at me, say
my supervisor was lying? She agreed that the general climate was one
in which people were competing to get recognition from Miller and were
willing to use others as scapegoats in order to stay in her favor.
A senior designer at Tommy Hilger USA, Inc. who began her career
at Ralph Lauren states without further elaboration when asked if she
liked working there: If you were a socialite type youd get along very
well there. She continues to say that she is at ease at Tommy Hilger
USA, Inc. At Tommy Hilger USA, Inc. this type of competitiveness
and exclusivity is largely avoided as Hilger projects an egalitarian im-
age and promotes the ideal of the workplace as a community. Therefore,
he is not searching for favorites who will bolster his self-concept and
further his ideals at the expense of others. He conveys an expectation
that all will work together to achieve goals. Employees are not rewarded
solely on individual merit, they are evaluated based on the work they
do as part of a team or division. Certainly one can be red, but it will
not be because one relies too much on others, or because one slighted
or fell out of favor with Hilger, rather it will be for restructuring or
reasons related to the divisions politics.
Owens, former LOral CEO, says that companies must create a work
environment where employees want to be. His secret at LOral has
been to create small groups so that younger people can have a chance to
make choices and feel empowered. He says, if you want people to take
risks, youve got to create a culture in which errors are allowed. The right
to be wrong is a very fundamental part of the LOral constitution, and
which Ive made into a very personal thing between me and a lot of our
managers. This is different, he says, from most corporate cultures which
are based on accountability, responsibility and re-ability (Womens
Wear Daily, 5/5/06: 5).
Employees at many companies mention the importance of having the
look that resonates with the brands identity, particularly those who are
highly visible. A sales representative at retailer Abercrombie and Fitch
says: They didnt ask me anything. They said you look clean cut and
American and I had the job (I have blond hair and blue eyes) (Vault
11/5/04). The comments of a brand representative at the same company
echo charges made in a recent law suit against the company:
If you did not t a certain look, you wouldnt [sic] get the job. There were mostly
white girls working there. Very pretty people worked more in the front rooms and out
on the oor, then [sic] the harder working, not so pretty people worked in the back
stock room. This was rather upsetting to me. The dress code was very strict. If you did
not ear their clothes, you would not be allowed to work. They would cut your hours
even send you home if you did not t the dress code. You had to wear their clothing
no excuses. I felt like I had to always wear new clothing because we couldnt [sic]
wear things that went on sale. We were models for the new clothes so we had to
look up to date with the styles. If we did not, there was [sic] consequences. It was
very hard to get a raise. You would most likely make min. wage until you moved up
into a manager position and that would take years apon [sic] years. Not worth the
time. You had to spend your whole paycheck on clothes otherwise you might lose
your hours and that ment [sic] no money at all! (Vault 12/22/05).
An FIT professor recalls that Abercrombie interviewed the entire
menswear design graduating class at FIT (there are typically ve gradu-
ates per year). Students were directed on appearance, for instance, that
they should be clean shaven and that tattoos should not be visible. One-
third were offered jobs and this professor said he could have predicted
who theyd be.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Part II
Tommy Hilger USA, Inc.:
A Case Study
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Charisma, Culture, and Representation at Tommy Hilger 189
6
Charisma, Culture, and Representation
at Tommy Hilger
The Tommy Hilger Group is a major force in shaping and promoting
popular culture, not only in American society, but also in many other parts
of the world. Areas outside of the West become sites for consumption of
products bespeaking an American identity; some of these products are
purveyed by Tommy Hilger. The charisma of Hilger is a carefully
cultivated power that extends not only to his persona and interpersonal
interactions but to the rm and its products.
At the New York ofces of the Tommy Hilger Group, formerly
Tommy Hilger USA, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as TH), we nd an or-
ganizational culture where a vision, shared values, collegiality, creativity,
and innovation exist within a rational bureaucratic structure. For instance,
there are ve key steps that are taken each season: (1) concept meeting;
(2) design and business strategy meeting; (3) line presentation; (4) line
nalization; and (5) market. Objectives are dened, responsibilities as-
signed, and a plan of action with targeted results are formulated for each
task to be performed. An example from a company document entitled
Functional Success Factors outlines how each division must combine
creativity and innovation with technical ability and commercial viability.
A designer, for instance: Identies big ideas and emerging trends to be
represented in the line in pattern, fabric, color and silhouette. He or she,
develops a unique product/solution/idea into a marketable solution and
demonstrates thorough product knowledge (for example: t, garment
construction, garment production, as appropriate).
Alongside these mechanisms of formal control we nd an informal
and collegial work environment and an emphasis on Hilgers personal
characteristics as leader. Hilger, it can be said, enacts a live form of
charisma similar to that found in the prophet or seer. Structurally we have
a bureaucracycertainly on paper we see a typical corporationyet for
189
the most part it doesnt feel like a bureaucratic environment. There is an
excitement and energy created by Hilgers actual presence in the rm
and in the kind of work that is being done.
Constructing Charisma: Tommy Hilger
In organizations in the business of creating a form of enchantment
with actual products, there needs to be a continuous charismatic ele-
ment. A leader must embody the spirit of the brand, dene it, and make
it accessible to all. At TH that person is Hilger, as well as those execu-
tives and department leaders charged with carrying out his vision. The
organization is structured hierarchically, but participation is encouraged
at every level, and ideas therefore ow in various directions. There are
quarterly meetings in which all employees participate, and there are op-
portunities to make suggestions directly to executives in the company as
well as within ones division. As so many people are involved in creative
decisionsabout what items will be created, how products are to be pre-
sented, and about Hilgers own self-presentationthe achievement of
the Tommy Hilger persona is in effect a collective endeavor. As in every
corporation, those whose decisions carry the most weight are concentrated
at the top of the hierarchy. The company has been successful, however,
in making everyone feel that they are in some way contributing to the
success of the rm. Nevertheless, there is a clear leader who takes credit
for the accomplishments of the rm (although not as often for its fail-
ings). Thus, one can discuss the ways in which Hilger cultivates his own
charismatic leadership style, how he uses a pure form of charisma, how
this charisma is routinized in administrative structures, and, nally, how
it becomes routinized in the brand itself. Hilger and those surrounding
him use various means to construct and promote his charismatic identity.
The activities he chooses to participate in or that the company sponsors,
be they charitable or marketing related, and the ways these activities are
documented are all part of Hilgers charismatic construction.
Hilger began his career in the fashion industry with the intent of build-
ing a marketable identity. Hilger provides information on his entry into
the world of fashion in a videotaped talk he gave at the Fashion Institute
of Technology in New York in 1996. In the narrative, which highlights key
moments, disappointments, and fortuitous mistakesall of which made
his success possiblewe nd evidence of a charismatic construction.
Hilger could have told his story in any number of ways, but he tells it
as a heroic tale leaving out extraneous and boring details. The listener
is engaged by the narratives twists and turns. Listening to him one can
not imagine him not succeedinghowever much the odds were stacked
against him. For every one such success, we know that countless others
failed. The audience wants him to succeed as they listen to his skillful,
heroic narrative of a simple man who makes it big.
Elmira, New York is obviously not the place to start out in fashion.
Hilger nevertheless found his niche in this unlikely locale. The area
surrounding Elmira was home to many colleges. With his initial prots
from the sale of bell bottom jeans he opened boutiques on several college
campuses. Hilger was able to accurately read the culture. He knew his
audience and started out by providing them with something that generated
interest. As he describes it, after the 1960s, informality became the rule,
and sportswear was very marketable. The college campus provided an
audience eager for the latest fashions. Hilger created an ambiance in his
boutiques that appealed to young people. Hilger increased his prestige
and generated an interest in his merchandise by dressing rising rock stars
Mick Jagger, David Bowie, and others. He realized that to create a name
for himself he had to draw others into build his charisma.
Early success propelled Hilger toward more lofty goals. He became
interested in designing clothing for stores. Hilger sold the boutiques,
and in 1977 he developed his own collection called Tommy Hill. Hilger
came to Bloomingdales with shirts that he designed that were made
by a manufacturer. At the time, Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren were
amongst the important designers that Bloomingdales stocked. The buyer
decided to buy Hilgers entire inventory. One year later Hilger had
merchandise in Macys, Saks Fifth Avenue, and other stores. For about
ten years Hilger continued to concentrate on retail. Hilger put in his
time; this was not an overnight success story. The quality of Hilgers
designs was the initial factor in their being adopted by the department
stores. Moving the business to the next level required a certain ability on
Hilgers part to draw people in and to convince them that his products
would be favorably received.
Hilgers rst full-time position in the industry was with Jordache. He
was hired to do a collection in Hong Kong. This is quite an unusual way
to begin a rst job. Hilger had, by this time though, amassed impres-
sive credentials. His products were sold in major department stores and
the sales gures bore out the desirability of his clothing. This enabled
Hilger to approach Jordache, something he could not have done prior to
his retail experience, having no formal design credentials. Hilger made
a mistake which was to be fortuitous. Perhaps only someone who was
extremely driven could make such a mistake. He went beyond what he
was asked to do at Jordache, or to put it another way, didnt do what he
was asked. He designed not only jeans but a whole collection. He was
red. And the Peoples Place stores went bankrupt.
The next chapter in Hilgers career involved freelance work. Before
embarking on this path he tried to start something on his own. Hilger
hired some FIT graduates to make patterns and samples of his designs.
Working on his own without sufcient capital to set up a business proved
too difcult. Hilger decided to design for established rms within the
industry. Hilger describes becoming known in the inner circle of the
industry. It is at this point in his career that we clearly see a systematic
and active construction of charisma. Hilger insisted on having his
name attached to the label of the clothing he designed. His freelancing
consisted of working for rms that had facilities in place (factories/pro-
duction, sales, distribution, accounting), all they lacked was, as he puts
it, good design. He explains to his audience of aspiring fashion design
students that there are many companies like this, and that they are in
need of help on the design front at all times. Hilger said many design-
ers insisted on being paid for designing a collection before they showed
their designs. This strategy didnt work for Hilger. He says he spent a
lot of time walking around in the city, from one rm to another, and his
designs remained unseen. He knew he had to change direction. Hilger
explains that he was condent that his designs were good, and was aware
that established companies were always interested in seeing (perhaps
stealing) new designs. As a means of getting his foot in the door, he was
willing to show his designs before having signed a contract. Hilger
tells us that he was offered a certain amount of money for designing a
line of clothing, $5,000. He right away countered the offer, asking for
$3,000. This reduced fee was in exchange for his name being put on the
clothing label. Happy to save a substantial amount of money for designs
they already wanted to buy, this rm and others agreed to his terms. As
such, Hilger was designing the kinds of clothes he wanted to design
and was achieving some recognition for himselfsomething he could
not have afforded to do on his own. He identied a goal and found the
most parsimonious solution. Hilger states in this regard, that had more
value to me than money. Indeed, it was a way into a world to which he
had no means of access and an investment in his future.
During his freelance period Hilger mentions becoming friends with
Perry Ellis. Ellis wanted him to be his right arm, Hilger says. The
same was to happen with Calvin Klein. Hilger describes being ready
to sign a contract which would make him the designer for what was to
become CK Sport. He declined Perry Ellis offer in favor of Kleins.
Before signing with Klein, Hilger was toldhe does not disclose by
whomnot to take the job. That person encouraged him to do it on his
own. How, Hilger asked, without money and facilities? Hilger
was introduced by this unnamed person to Mohan Murjani, who had
been producing Gloria Vanderbilt Jeans. Hilger joked about not want-
ing to work for Gloria Vanderbilt; he said hed rather work for Calvin,
insinuating that he thought Klein was cooler than Vanderbilt. Hilger
appears to want to downplay any strategic involvement in this deal. Mur-
jani surprised him, he says, by saying he wanted to back a new young
American male designer and had selected him. Hilger says he thought
it was a dream come true. In exchange for backing him in his own work,
Murjani wanted him to design Coca-Cola clothes, a line primarily of jeans
and T-shirts bearing the Coca-Cola logo. Hilger expressed not being
thrilled about the Coca-Cola aspect but accepted the offer. The terms
Murjani offered, which included nancial backing, were more satisfactory
in the long run than they would have been working for Klein. Hilger
says he decided to put all his effort into the project, designing the kinds
of updated sportswear he liked and not thinking of the line as Coca-Cola
clothing. He designed rugby shirts and other casual wear. Again, we see
Hilger turning a disadvantage into an advantage that would pay off in
the future. Overnight, he says, the business was a 250 million dollar
business. Hilger was learning on the job, he said; later he could apply
what he learned from Coca-Cola, an American icon, to his own brand.
Meanwhile, in 1984 Hilger shipped his own rst collection to depart-
ment stores where he says it did well.
In order for the Tommy Hilger name to hold any signicance for
the publiclet alone to convey a particular lifestyleHilger had to
gain a certain degree of prestige in the eyes of those who confer status:
fashion editors, industry insiders, celebrities. This is a lengthy process,
one which Hilger chose to largely bypass at this early stage of his ca-
reer. Here we nd another instance of Hilgers constructing personal
charisma, though he attributes the idea to Murjani. Lois, the pioneering
advertising executive and creative director of Hilgers rst advertising
campaign, was asked to develop gutsy and unique ads. As Hilger
describes it, Lois asked Murjani to describe Hilger, someone unknown
to the public. Murjani, having full condence in Hilger, said, First there
was Oscar de la Renta . . . next Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren, Perry Ellis,
next is Tommy Hilger. Hilger says that Lois used this verbatim in an
ad which was to appear on billboards and in magazines. Hilger states
that he felt running the ad was too embarrassing, but Murjani insisted.
Lois assured Hilger that this was the way to go, and so he agreed. Lois
explains in a videotaped interview in the Hilger library archives that
he didnt believe Murjani wanted to build a great brand, he just got the
impression that Murjani wanted to do something to get Hilger to stay
with him as he knew both Klein and Lauren wanted to hire him. Lois says
he came up with an ad that put both Murjani and Hilger into shock.
Tommy went catatonic and Murjani thought I was nuts, he says (Lois
1999). The ad stated that there were four great American designers. The
rst letter of the designers rst and last names were given with spaces
for the remaining letters. Ralph Lauren was the rst designer and Tommy
Hilger the last. Of course no one could nish the dashes after the T
and H or recognize the red, white and blue logo. After the rst ads
ran Womens Wear Daily, Daily News Record, The Tonight Show, Good
Morning America and others weighed in wanting to know more about
this unknown Tommy Hilger. Hilger was widely criticized, and ridi-
culed. Some said he was not a designer because he hadnt been to design
school; others said his designs were not original. Hilger was invited
on a variety of news and entertainment shows where he had the chance
to clearly explain his design philosophy to millions of viewers: classic
clothes with a twist (Hilger 1996; Woodward and Stansell 2003: 331).
The objective was met. An unknown had created the conditionsvia a
short cutthat enabled him to become known.
Hilger has always been forthcoming about how much his success
depended on other people. Getting started, Hilger says that he sur-
rounded himself with great people in fashion on the one hand, plus
accountants, lawyers and great business people on the other. Having no
formal design training, he said he learned the technical aspects of fash-
ion as he went along from those who had specialized training (Hilger
1996). Hilger continues to say, in interviews and within the company,
that fashion design is a collaborative process.
The story of Hilgers initial success, as described in the videotape,
is condensed in the 2004 company newsletter (in an article detailing
Hilgers India trip to open two stores). This basic story is retold many
times at company events and in documents:
The year was 1985 when Mohan Murjani, owner of many well-known brands such
as Gloria Vanderbilt and Coca-Cola Clothing Company, had a meeting with a young
man to discuss fashion. After meeting for one hour, having not yet seen any of the
young mans designs or sketches, Mohan decided to fully invest in the mans creative
vision and start a line of clothing under his unusual name.... Tommy Hilger. Nineteen
years later, Tommy returned the favor by helping Mohan and his son Vijay launch the
Tommy Hilger brand in India with a seven-day tour across the country.
Here we see a triumphant Hilger rising over the years to the point at
which he could help his former mentor and benefactor. In this narrative
the reader is left with the impression that Hilger appealed to Murjani
solely on the basis of his charisma (the latter having never even seen his
work) within the course of a one hour meeting. Stories such as these that
are retold by employees, allow members of an organization to share a
common history, culture, and consciousness. Murjani explains events
in a more matter of fact way in a New York Times article leading us to
believe that a certain amount of rational planning led up to his decision.
However, Murjani highlights the importance of Hilgers charisma as
being the determining factor in his choice:
Mr. Murjani had decided to start a mens jeans business but wanted the company to
have a different name, a mans name. I was looking for a mens designer he said
recently, and one day someone called and said he wanted me to meet Tommy Hilger,
a freelance designer looking for a job. At the time, in 1984, Mr. Hilger was working
for a company that was making jeans in India, and he would ride on a bicycle,
just like a local Indian when he was there, said Mr. Murjani who is Indian. They
bonded and Mr. Murjani said he immediately offered him the joband insisted on
using Hilgers name for the label (Rozhon 12/26/04: 4).
Knowing Hilger for many years, Murjani comments on his charac-
ter: Hes like my brother, he said last week, just as he left for India.
I adore him. He is one of the nicest human beings I know (Rozhon
12/26/04: 4). The same inuence seems to have been at play when
Marvin Traub, former chairman and chief executive at Bloomingdales,
decided to carry Tommy Hilgers line: When Tommy rst started,
he was struggling, he was with Mohan Murjani, but he couldnt get
into Magic, a major mens trade show, so he had to show in a motel
room, Mr. Traub recalled. I went upand it was a shabby motel, with
the springs poking up out of the sofaand after meeting him, we cre-
ated a whole shop for him at Bloomingdales. Traub adds, Tommy
had a certain amount of personal charm and a lot of drive and energy
(12/26/04: 4). Underlying this decision must have been a belief that
the product would sell, yet Traub too chooses to highlight Hilgers
personality. Perhaps Hilgers charisma was the ingredient necessary
to cement the dealcompensating for whatever doubt Traub may have
initially felt.
The company newsletter is an important means of building and man-
aging Hilgers charisma amongst employees by providing carefully
constructed details of his activities to which most may not have had direct
access. For instance, one is told about Hilgers New Delhi experience:
As Tommy came out to take his nal bow he was welcomed with a
standing ovation from more than 400 people, all incredibly enthusiastic
to greet the rst American designer to launch in India. After the show,
the runway turned into a dance oor where guests celebrated the launch
into the wee hours of the morning. Hilgers achievements are often
recounted in a heroic way. Hilger is referred to as a hero and star
in this same article. Hilgers reception in Bangalore is described in this
way:
Welcomed by Indian dancers with drums and a full red carpet treatment, it was a truly
rock star worthy entrance. Energy rose as photographers competed for a glimpse
of the man behind the famous label. The press was eager to get the rst look at the
new fashions only heard about, but not yet seen. That evening, a festive Indian crowd
gathered to celebrate and toast Tommy at the ultra-cool F-Bar. Guests danced through
the night in honor of Tommys collection.... Tommy received a heros welcome into a
country he loves so much! He stayed until he signed autographs for all 50 members
of the staff and took pictures with each and every one of them (TH Spring 2004).
Tommy Marketing Monthly is an important instrument in building
and maintaining Hilgers charisma within the company. Employees
receive a memo with an attached document, complete with color photos,
that can be printed out. Usually a page or two, it shows a broad range
of celebrities wearing Tommy Hilger clothing and/or interacting with
Hilger. Celebrities are shown at various venues (a Knicks game, the
Sundance Film Festival, a party for Ford Models) and are described as
fans of Tommy or as aunting Tommy (January 2004). Rapper Ahmir
Questlove of Roots is described as showing his love for Tommy by
wearing his clothing (February 2004). The June 2005 issue is devoted to
the Fifth Annual American Golf Classic sponsored by the Tommy Hil-
ger Foundation. Hilger is pictured with various celebrities. Employees
can be observed chatting about the latest issue and discussing Hilgers
activities in an enthusiastic manner.
On December 22, 2005, employees were told of the new Tommy
Hilger Intranet, a website specically for employees. Employees also
receive news ashes on the bottom of their computer screens. The intranet
provides practical information about company holidays, events, and the
cafeteria menu. The intranet features an item entitled 10 questions for
Tommy with some questions practical and others more revealing. For
example, question 6 asks: Do you believe humanity is evolving in the
right direction? This is the kind of question Barbara Walters asked the
Dalai Lama in a recent interview. Asking such a question of Hilger
may seem odd to outsiders but it attests to his being seen, at least by
some employees, as one whose expertise goes beyond issues of style in
clothing. Hilger, by the way, does believe humanity is evolving in the
right direction. As a leader, this optimism is important and is reassuring.
Charisma is by nature transitory, and one must maintain ones cha-
risma. Charismatic leaders sometimes may take steps which damage their
image in the eyes of followers; this creates negative or counter-charisma
(Perinbanayagam 1971: 395-396). Hilger starred in the reality TV show,
The Cut, which aired during the summer of 2005. In this show, contes-
tants, not all of whom are fashion designers by training, compete for a
$200,000 a year job and the right to design their own line of clothing for
Tommy Hilger. While the show may be a good strategic move in getting
attention for the brand and recognition for Hilger himself, at least some
employees see it in a negative light. One designer commented:
I dont think they gave Tommy enough control. Some of these people are pathetic. I
guess he didnt have any say over the people that were initially selected. He would
have never hired people like that. I dont like that he doesnt have the ability to make
his own choices.
Someone else in the rm expressed that she didnt think Tommy was
coming across well on the show. She says:
Hes not like that in real life. He comes across as cruel. Punishing people in a style
forum for admitting that they were a part of something that failed is not the way he
operates. Here, if a person were honest and put forward his or her best effort Tommy
would be understanding. He wouldnt re you. I dont think this show is creating the
right image for Tommy.
These comments, though critical of the show and its direction, display
the speakers identication with Hilger. Another designer, however,
expresses a degree of resentment toward Hilger: The people on the
show are not as talented as people here in the rm, and yet he is fussing
over them. She continued:
The person who wins will be paid $200,000 per year. There are designers here who
are doing so much more, and are so much more talented, and yet they are not being
paid that much. Some people really feel uncomfortable about that.
A receptionist in the company had been watching the latest episode
of the show all day and had on other days watched prior episodes as The
Cut plays constantly in the waiting area. Not knowing her personally
and wearing my employee identication card, I commented in passing
that she had been watching the same thing all day. She said shed rather
watch each episode back to back but added that she doesnt mind see-
ing a single episode several times. I asked her what she thought of the
show. She stated, and I will have to summarize as I did not write it down
immediately:
I like to watch Tommy, and I think what he tells them in the style forum is really
interesting. He tells it like it is. I like that. Hes teaching people what to do, what
he knows, and what he is so good at doing. I feel like Ive learned a lot from this
show about fashion design and about business, in fact, Im becoming an expert on
this show.
There were two other events that had the potential to damage Hilgers
charisma. One involved a reorganization in the rm several months
before the sale of the company was announced. Almost three hundred
employees were red. Although some regret was expressed by the
CEO for this necessary step, employees began to feel a general sense
of instability and sympathy for those who had been let go. Although I
was not in the rm very often at this time, those negative comments I
did hear tended to blame corporate, and as such exonerated Hilger.
Similarly, in the summer of 2005 the company caused damage to its
organizational culture and the charisma bestowed on it by Hilger
by cutting the discount of employees from 50 percent to 35 percent.
Many employees were dismayed about this and felt necessary funds
could have been acquired in other ways. Hilger himself did not get
direct blame though he was seen as at fault because he was out of
the ofce too much. Had he been there more often and had he taken
more of an interest in what was going on, presumably he would never
have allowed this to happen.
In December 2004 the company announced that it had acquired
Lagerfeld Gallery, encompassing the Karl Lagerfeld trademark and
Lagerfeld brand womens, mens, and accessories lines. In acquiring
Karl Lagerfelds trademarks, Karl Lagerfeld, Lagerfeld Gallery, KL,
and Lagerfeld, Hilger has embarked on another opportunity not
only to build his charisma and that of his brand but to increase the
scope of the brand and bring in additional revenue. The Lagerfeld
association was contracted to expand the scope of the brand and
its revenues while adding prestige to the Tommy Hilger name.
Lagerfelds interest in this partnership is to develop his brand
through licensing on a global level. Lagerfeld is described in this
way in Womens Wear Daily: Arguably one of the most prolic and
talented designers in the world, Lagerfeld designs eight collections
a year for Chanel, Fendi and his own Lagerfeld Gallery, and how
he does it remains one of fashions biggest mysteries. The mystery
in part refers to Lagerfelds secrecy in business dealings and his
desire to remain personally in control of matters. Lisa Lockwood
goes on to say:
The Hilger deal is unrelated to Lagerfelds contacts with Chanel and Fendi. Lager-
felds employment contract with Chanelwhere hes been designing for 21 yearsis
said to be indenite and for millions of dollar a year. Chanels fashions and fragrances
are believed to generate revenues of more than $2 billion per year (12/14/04: 1).
Whether or not the deal is actually related to Lagerfelds contacts
with Chanel and Fendi, the Hilger name will be related to these enti-
ties and what they represent in the eyes of the public. Lagerfeld brings
a cultural capitalan afliation with high fashion and European so-
phisticationto Hilgers American brand. It remains to be seen how
much the Tommy Hilger Group will make of this association. It is
possible that it intends to remain largely behind the scenes, however, the
possibility for associating the Hilger name with Lagerfeld in various
ways exists. The December 13, 2004, press release clearly states the
companys recognition of the symbolic value the partnership represents.
Their union is expected to draw upon the reputation of Mr. Lagerfeld
as one of the worlds most successful and visible fashion designers.
The former CEO states: The Karl Lagerfeld name has tremendous
cachet. We believe this opportunity will provide an exciting, new
growth platform within the upscale apparel segment and compliment
our existing business. Tommy Hilger adds: Karl is a true inspiration.
Designing for the worlds most prestigious collections he has continu-
ously set the benchmark for style, creativity and sophistication (PR
Newswire 12/13/04). Hilger expresses in his column entitled A Note
From Tommy, in the Spring 2005 company newsletter, how Lagerfelds
prestige will elevate the brand:
Karls name is synonymous with creativity and high fashion. He is arguably the most
prolic fashion, art and design icon today, and his creative genius is apparent in his
enormous body of workfrom couture collections to photography, to collaborations
with H&M. Working with him to develop the Karl Lagerfeld brands will be a great
opportunity for us and put us in an entirely new category. We want to be a multibrand,
multichannel company, and we are one step closer to achieving that goal.
In an interview Hilger makes clear that the Tommy Hilger brand will
nevertheless retain its own identity:
Its the opposite of Tommy Hilgers preppy, all-American. Karls style is chic and
French. Its very different, so well never compete. Its a great compliment (Marsh
2005: 41).
Hilger, who in the past had promoted jeans and rugby shirts, decided
to focus on a more dressy look. The timing is perfect, notes Meenal
Mistry. Jay-Z is rapping in his hit song, What More Can I Say, about
trading up his own wardrobe (2004: 52). Hilger, as cultural arbiter,
needed to recognize that consumers were receptive to dressing up a bit
more than they had been in the past. He had to gure out how his own
brand could be adapted to meet this emerging desire and how to use
elements of the popular culture (for example, David Bowie and his wife
Iman) to promote the new H Hilger line. A budget of $10 million was
allocated for marketing, and Hilger embarked on a fashion show tour
of six Federated Department Stores to build awareness of the new line
(Clark 2/3/05: 3). A year earlier, Thomas Cunnningham of the Daily
News Record says that Tommy Hilger is the rst big brand to make
a serious run at the rapidly developing premium sportswear category.
The president of menswear, David McTague, states: Theres nothing in
this segment in department stores right now. There are people at higher
price points, but theres nobody where were going (2003: 1). Launched
in the Spring of 2004 and sold in about 120 department stores, the line
did not do as well in department stores as in its own stores. Revenues in
the companys own retail stores increased 21.8 percent, and wholesale
sales in Europe increased by 33.2 percent in the third quarter ending
December 31, 2004. Yet in the U.S. they dropped by 19 percent. Gerry,
the former CEO, decided that H Hilger for now would only be sold in
its own stores and be tested it in a variety of other types of stores. It
was decided that the number one priority be improvement of the U.S.
wholesale business (Clark 2/3/05: 3).
A charismatic leader must be ready to face failure as well as
success and to change direction accordingly. Mistry followed Hilger
on his dizzying tour observing that out among the shopping public,
hes a star. Midway through the nine day tour Mistry says the cities and
faces are becoming a blur to her. Yet for Hilger, although tour dates
are scheduled to the hilt with interviews, store visits, fashion shows and
personal appearances, he shows few signs of weariness at the end of
a day that began at 4:30 a.m. She describes him as remarkably natural
in front of the camera, saying that he has perfected the sound bite. His
remarks ow easily without sounding studied. Hilger says to a CNN
interviewer, Once youve got the right product, everything just clicks
into place. He speaks of the H Hilger line triggering a rebirth at the
Company (2004: 52). What happens to the charismatic leader and cultural
arbiter when his prophecy fails or does not meet expectations? The H
Hilger launch has been excised from the online company timeline (and
the sale of the Company has not yet been noted as of December 2006),
and Hilger has gone on, without skipping a beat, to launch many more
products, win new honors and awards, and reposition the brand. When
the headquarters moved to Amsterdam, 230 New York and New Jersey
employees were let go; Kurt, who ran the European operations, became
the new global CEO. Kurt describes his primary focus as repositioning
the brand in the U.S. and is said to plan to elevate U.S. product to the
same premium level as its successful European counterpart (Socha
7/26/06: 1).
Charisma is a carefully cultivated power which may be found not only
in a leaders persona, interpersonal interactions, self-presentation, and
leadership style, but in the administrative practices and procedures of
the organization and in the brand itself. Hilger constructs his charisma
within the rm at meetings, events, through personal interaction, and via
correspondence; as well as outside the rm in ways that can be described
as pure and routinized.
Pure Charisma: Normative Inuence of Tommy Hilger
At TH charisma has not been entirely routinized. Hilger heads the
rm, and he continues to exert a pure, achieved form of personal
charisma. In a dynamic image-based business, a visionary leader who
can direct and inspire a large workforce is needed. This live form of
charisma transmitted interpersonally by Hilger occurs in a variety of
ways.
Certain types of employees are selected at THthose who are thought
to be receptive to Tommy and who have his value system. A previous
employee, a fashion designer, notes that Hilger plays an important role in
the process of employee selection. He praises the quality of the designers
he worked with. They were phenomenal people, he says.
We had ghetto girls, New England preppies, there was a guy from Guyana. A diversity
of people, yet we had a lot in common. We had the same values.
He further states: Tommy has an instinct for selecting good people.
He sets the tone. You cant last there if you are not a certain type of person. Ralph
has very different people.
This designer explains that Tommy gave him his start. He loved fashion
but he didnt even know a knit from a woven, and thats not something
you can just casually ask someone, he explains. His bachelors degree
was in physics. He fondly recalled that, had it not been for Hilger, he
would have not have been able to get his foot in the door in the fashion
industry. Hilger does not have a hand in selecting every designer, and
as the company grows he is involved even less in this process. Instead,
Human Resources is charged with this responsibility.
Hilger is present at many meetings and ofcial occasions where some
or in certain cases all employees are present, at least in the New York
ofce. Susan, an administrative assistant, discussed an event referred to
as a pep rally held in Cranbury, New Jersey in the summer of 2002.
She stated:
Tommy and Saul [the chairman] got up and spoke. Then we had a fashion show done
by coworkers. Kristen [the president of licensing] was in it last year. After that there
was a barbeque. It was a lot of fun and motivational. Id walk away feeling proud to
work for Tommy.
Clearly, Hilger and Saul, the former chairman, use this occasion to
build unity amongst employees. The purpose of the event is not in any
way hidden; it is openly referred to as a pep rally by employees. Susan
enthusiastically describes the Christmas party:
Last year it was a 70s theme. Tommy walked around and did his peace sign. He was
wearing tie dye. There was a cocktail hour. Joel walked around, was very personable.
Then there was dinner, and later dancing. Afterwards they car-serviced everyone
home. Its a really nice event.
The moves of Hilger and Saul are carefully taken in by Susan and are
recounted some months later in an appreciative tone. There is a feeling
that Hilger and the rm in general have extended themselves to employ-
ees and through these gestures (being friendly and sending people home
by car) express an appreciation for the employees as individuals.
Hilgers charisma is supported by those executives with whom he
closely works. The CEO and COO introduced Hilger at the 2004 pep
rally with comments such as we are all a part of Tommy. The charisma
of Tommy Hilger extends to those who are members of the corpora-
tion by someone who is able to do so on Hilgers behalf. It was said
of Hilger, without him we are all just comma Inc. These comments
attest to the need for a continuous, live form of charisma. The products
that everyone is charged with creating and promoting refer back to Hil-
ger and need to be infused with his spirit. Others may be important,
but Hilger is essential.
Hilger is referred to as Tommy, and he addresses employees on a
rst name basis. This practice sets the tone for the collegial environment
that many employees describe. He maintains casual, informal contact with
designers and others at the company, often stopping by someones ofce
unexpectedly to see how things are going. On one occasion during my
observation, Hilger walked into the mens sweaters designers ofce and
stood there for a minute or two while on his cell phone. He smiled at those
in the room and walked away. This action was a casual communication
which served as a reinforcement of Hilgers presence. It required little
effort on Hilgers part but appeared signicant to the designers. Wow,
you got to see Tommy, one person commented. Another stated, I wish
I had a refrigerator so I could offer him something to drink. Carl, a de-
sign director, compared Hilger to his previous employer, Ralph Lauren.
Carls description tells us how different two charismatic leaders both of
whom command respect, albeit of a different kind, can be. Tommy is
very un-Ralph, he states. He continued to say that he was not knock-
ing Ralph. He thought Lauren was a very intelligent man but elitist
and snobby. He explains that he expected everyone to treat him like the
King of England. When he walked in a room everything stopped.
He continued to say that This goes right throughhis employees act
as he does. On the other hand, he said, Tommy comes in and sits on
the oor with his hand made suit and talks shop. Carl says: Tommy
knows what he is doing. He knows fabric, design. Hes a brilliant guy
who just happens to be a normal guy.
Carl recounted the experience he had on his rst day. He met Hilger
and described him as seeming to pay attention to what he was saying.
And the next time he saw me he remembered my name. This seemed
to make quite an impression on Carl; the emotion was evident in his
voice and facial expression. The implication here is that there is more to
Tommy than his handmade suit, whereas for Ralph, perhaps the charm
resides on the surface and compensates for a lack of genuine character
or at least genuine concern. Many employees conceive of Hilger as the
polar opposite of Ralph Lauren. One employee speculates, At Polo you
probably have to have these white names like Miffy. And if you dont have
one they legally change your name! She goes on to say that Hilger has
a more friendly, laid-back atmosphere. Although she never worked at
Ralph Lauren she said she knew employees at TH who did. She stated:
Ralph seems uptight. Too caught up in this Hamptons lifestyle, either
WASP or JAP, all the way. It is no doubt the case that employees who
currently work for Ralph Lauren, as did one former Tommy Hilger
designer I spoke to, do not see him in a negative light.
The company norm of calling Hilger Tommy creates amongst
employees, perhaps principally those who rarely if ever have con-
tact with him, the feeling that they know him. In my conversations
with some employees I detected a distinct enjoyment in the saying of
Tommy. Instead of saying him after saying Tommy two or three
times, a very new employee, for example, repeated his name every single
time she spoke of him.
Charismatic authority of a normative type must be upheld in day-to-day
encounters and in interpersonal transactions. Hilgers ability to interface
with leaders in the rm, who in turn are charged with charismatic author-
ity in their divisions, establishes a common purpose. Hilgers knowledge
of all facets of the business provides a linkage between various divisions.
Hilgers charisma must be supported by those who work in the rm. By
relating to him in a certain way they contribute to the legitimacy of his
leadership. There is an understanding that a certain type of deference is
expected. This will differ from rm to rm, and one must learn through
example and experience how to relate to Hilger and others within this
particular rm. A person who worked in public relations for both Donna
Karan and Oscar de la Renta said that she could not speak to Karan un-
less Karan initiated the conversationsilence was expected when she
entered the ofce. At Oscar de la Renta she was surprised to nd that de
la Renta enjoyed and expected casual conversation. While riding in the
elevator with de la Renta she remained silent, pretending not to notice
him as she had always done with Karan. He asked her name and inquired
about what she did in the company. She nervously responded. The next
time she saw him she initiated a conversation. He seemed very happy to
chat as they walked down the hall together. This took some getting used
to, she said, as his attitude was so different from her previous employers.
Eventually, she said, it became very normal to talk to him in an informal
manner when their paths crossed.
Fashion rms more than other enterprises may require an active and
ongoing form of charisma, in this case mainly provided by a master
designer, to initiate the creative process and to maintain a sense of co-
herence. The nature of the work and its connection to popular culture
goes far in creating charismaa luxury the senior partner in a law rm
does not enjoy. It also attracts a certain kind of person (at least in many
positions within the rm); one who wants to be engaged in the world of
fashion and is therefore susceptible to its enticements.
Hilgers selection of a theme becomes a catalyst around which
designers and others begin to organize their activities. His continual in-
volvement in the design process, and his editing the work of designers
allows him to sustain his charisma. Carl describes the level of Hilgers
involvement and the depth of his knowledge. Hilger is involved in all
aspects of the business, and possesses a depth of knowledge that other
designers do not. He states, Tommy works on the inside and outside so
he goes back and forth, returning after hes had talks to make changes.
Carl says that the production world has to be exible.
A designer may have a month and a half to create something. If theres a change
the cushion is lost. It still has to be ready in a month and a half. One would have to
make adjustments.
Hilgers charisma must in part be attributed to the power he holds
in the organization. He is, after all, the boss and derives a certain
respect based on the ofce he holds. However, we can detect a respect
or regard that extends beyond this. Designers and others in the rm are
not representing themselves as people who are just working for a pay
check might. Carl seems willing to accept the stresses and strains he is
put through by attributing them to Hilgers greater knowledge of what
is required. It is possible to be resentful, to take it personally when
one is asked to start all over again. Rather, Carl believes that Hilgers
decision is right and proceeds accordingly. Of course, there may in fact
be no other option, but one could at least express a feeling of pressure,
disappointment, or disguised resentment which was not the case in this
conversation. For example, one could say: At the end of the day I have
such a headache. And then your work just ends up in the trash. This
would convey resentment, a feeling of being put upon. This generally
did not occur.
This carefully constructed charisma of Hilger was converted into
routine administrative structures and cultural forms so as to carry forward
the innovative vision of Hilger in a rationalized, orderly way. Hilgers
charisma within the rm is based on communication, interaction, and
visibility. Much of this is routinized or happens in a planned man-
ner. Hilger himself maintains contact with employees if not always
directly, then through announcements in the company newsletter and
memoranda. A regular calendar of meetings has been established so
that design, marketing, and production happen according to a set time
line. In this way inspiration happens at a particular time, at a denite
pace, within a variety of predetermined boundaries. Concepts must
turn into prototypes, and prototypes must be nalized and produced in
certain quantities within the parameters of a schedule which remains
relatively constant from season to season. During these meetings in-
dividual designers, design teams, and individuals representing various
divisions have a chance to present their ideas to Hilger and to each
other. Ultimately it is Hilgers determination that will shape the direc-
tion designs take.
Tommy Hilger as Cultural Arbiter
A cultural arbiter can be dened (to repeat what was said earlier)
as an individual who has the ability to dene and therefore determine
tastes for others. Such persons need not be highly visible or necessarily
charismatic. A poet or writer, for instance, may through his or her work
set a particular agenda without any direct contact with the readership.
This is very different from the celebrity, another type of cultural arbiter.
A fashion designer is a particular kind of cultural arbiter. He or she is,
on the one hand, an authority on matters of self-presentation, lifestyle,
and social/cultural trends. On the other hand, he or she uses cultural
knowledge and creative abilities to create a direction others will want
to follow.
The average customer may not have a clear picture in mind of the
designers he or she prefers. Instead he or she may gravitate toward a
certain range of clothing. And many fashion rms like Bebe or Diesel do
not have single designers representing their brand. Put simply, the task
of the designer or brand is to create an association between the brand
and a certain style and orientation so that peopledrawing on their own
cultural associationswill pair the two, thus selecting one product over
another. The more a designer or brand can be seen in ways that cause one
to make these positive associations in line with their own preferences, the
stronger the identity becomes. Much effort and detailed planning goes
behind transforming a brand from something meaningful to those who
are marketing it, to an object signicant in the world of consumers.
Consumption, as Robert Pennington (2000) puts it, results from
consumers interpretation of what is necessary to maintain a cultural
identity. As we have seen, Hilger relied much less on winning the favor
of those who could confer formal status on his brand and much more
on creating his own publicity and starting to win over the public in this
way, all the while gaining media exposure.
Hilger, as master designer, imparts a persona on the products the
company produces and is seen as the creator. Hilgers persona grows
out of his own interests, commitments, and talents. He decides to em-
brace certain motifs and in doing so rejects others. Hilger states: We
started out being classic and it suited my tastes. But I also like music,
I like sports (Underwood & Abbott, 1996: 22). As a designer attains
more prestige, he or she comes to be seen as a cultural arbiter, one who
is able to impart his or her sense of style to a broad range of issues. The
lifestyle concept requires the vision of a person who can interpret cultural
trends and then shape them within a certain framework. For Hilger this
framework has been Americanism. He draws on themes both traditional
and contemporarythe frontier, sports, music, lmthat have resonance
with not only an American audience but those abroad who aspire to the
ideals that these themes bespeak. Individuals, compelled as they are to
announce a certain identity, look for direction, and those who wish to be
cultural arbiters position themselves to provide such direction.
Tommy Hilger is asked by Brandweek: Some men wear Tommy
head-to-toe. Why do people buy into brand lifestyles?
He responds:
I think it has a lot to do with the condence they have in either the designer or the
product line. I think it has to do with price point. Some people view themselves as
being in a certain price area. Climate has a lot to do with it. Certain people think that
certain clothes are more suitable for where they live.
Also, we started out being very preppy, so a lot of men throughout the U.S. feel
comfortable wearing that look. Its something they were brought up with . . . from
the grandfather, to the father, to the son.
People get locked into these styles and they dont want to change. But maybe they
feel that oxford shirt and those chino pants are a little bit cumbersome and theyll try
something else. The same chino pants, but they want something new, fresh, relaxed
(Underwood and Abbott 1996: 22).
Hilger points out, quite pragmatically, the importance of price. One
is not likely to develop a condence in Giorgio Armani if his nances
cannot support such a dedication. Ones location is also important, points
out Hilger. Winter fashions in Miami, Florida, call for a different style
than would be worn in the mid-West. Hilger is sensitive to the differ-
ences in various markets and adjusts the clothing line and the ways in
which he promotes it accordingly. Finally, Hilger mentions tradition
as a reason that some men select his brand. His preppy look appealed
to many men whose fathers and grandfathers dressed in a similar way,
he tells us. Hilger builds on this American tradition, updating it and
offering it as something new for the contemporary man. Above all, the
designer as cultural arbiter must understand the audience he or she hopes
to captivate. Hilger provides a level of comfort and security to men, for
instance, who want to remain within the acceptable mainstream but he
turns these basic items into fashionable clothing.
Being a cultural arbiter requires remaining in the public eyeat least
in sight of those one hopes to inuence. Hilger has been skilled at this
and has often taken an active role in a variety of ways, such as starring in
The Cut and being involved in a number of charities and causes like the
Washington DC Martin Luther King Junior Memorial Project Founda-
tion. In November of 2006, Hilgers participation as a major sponsor
and his presence at the groundbreaking ceremony alongside President
Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and several corporate leaders, politicians, and
celebrities generated much press and even a mention on the Comedy
Centrals The Colbert Report.
Positions in the fashion industry, fashion design, marketing, licensing,
and related areas require a full investment of ones creative energies and
a level of dedication that entails sacrices in ones personal life. To bring
success to the company, employees working in such capacities must
have a deep commitment to the visions and goals of the company. In a
large designer fashion rm all products that employees are involved in
creating, particularly those who work in fashion design, bear the name
of one individual or in some cases a company name. Employees must
be in touch with the meaning of the brandoften closely tied to the
persona of its principal designerand must identify with the brand. A
special type of leader is required; one who not only sells himself or
herself to the public through the brands representation, but who can,
in effect, sell himself or herself to their own employees. Heading a
major corporation with a global reach (in a highly competitive and
seasonal industry) requires a bureaucratic form of administration. Yet
it is not possible to contain fashion design, a dynamic enterprise built
on innovation, into rigid bureaucratic boundaries. To foster creativity
on an ongoing basis, Hilger must inspire and draw designers and
others into his visiona vision that is itself created through a col-
laborative process. In the end the product lines that result appear to
be designed by only one personTommy Hilger. Many others in
the rm will take what the designers have created and will present
these garments, accessories, and other products as a coherent pack-
age. In order for Hilger to operate effectively on so many fronts,
various techniques are used to create a live form of charisma in
his leadership in the rm (such as making impromptu appearances,
chatting with employees, etc.). Hilger also carefully orchestrates
events and processes where his charisma, both routinized and pure,
may be transmitted (for example at pep rallies or company events and
through the company newsletter or other interofce documents). It is
also necessary that Hilger transfer his charisma to leaders of various
divisions within the company so that these individuals are accepted as
legitimately embodying his ideals and as capable of making decisions
in line with his vision.
Charisma of the Tommy Hilger Brand
Pennington states that brands are meaningless except in consumers
perceptions. Brand success, he goes on to say, depends upon signi-
cance to consumers and how they use brands. These conditions, which
together anchor the brands success, require that the brand be dened in
such a way that consumers will be receptive to its message. Hilger has
imparted an image to the Tommy Hilger brand which stems from his
own lifestyle and charisma. Where the lifestyle ends and the marketing
begins is difcult to discern; one must say there is a certain degree of
overlap. Robert Lohrer (1999) states, just as Calvin has made his name
synonymous with sex and Ralph has positioned himself as the brand of
the aspirational lifestyle, Tommy, through his advertising and aggressive
concert sponsorship, has taken ownership of the music-fashion category.
Hilger has been described by his brother, Andy, and others who know
him well as a groupie,someone who loves music and has made it
a part of his life. Andy points to his early and continued involvement
in dressing musicians. Hilger states, I knew using great-looking
models and great photographers would only be just that. It would be
nice advertising. But we wouldnt have a point of difference. Lohrer
concludes, Hence Hilgers full-on cannonball into musicland. This
year alone, the designers company has sponsored the Rolling Stones
No Security tour, Britney Spears summer tour, Jewels Spirit tour,
Kravitzs Freedom tour and the 50-city tour of emerging artist Michael
Fredo. All told, Hilger is sponsoring about 250 nights of music this
year (9/10/99). Hilger lls those remaining daysand can be said to
cover more than one basewith celebrities and sports gures. The former
president of global marketing and communications says, Its always
been about pop culture and whats important to people. Lockwood
names some of the people Hilger has signed, Jewel, Lenny Kravitz,
the Rolling Stones, Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson, Kate Hudson,
Lauren Bush, David Bowie and Iman ... Beyonc Knowles and Enrique
Iglesias (7/13/05: 2). French soccer player Thierry Henry was named
international brand ambassador for the Tommy Hilger Group on De-
cember 5, 2006. Each of these individuals appeals to a certain consumer
segment and serves, through their connection to Hilger, to reinforce the
charisma of the brand.
In the next section we will look at TH. The data comes from my
observations and interviews within the rm. I was in the rm for the last
time in December of 2005 just as the announcement was made that the
company was being sold. I was asked to work for Gerry, the CEO, by
his executive assistant while she was on vacation. My data captures the
rm at certain points in time. Were I to return today, I would no doubt
nd a somewhat different place.
Setting the Stage: The Work Environment at TH
A sign hangs above the door to the design studio at Chanels head-
quarters in Paris that reads: Creation is not a democratic process. Karl
Lagerfeld, Chanels designer, maintains an almost complete control over
the designs. Singlehandedly, he creates eight or nine collections a year
for Chanel and personally photographs its fashion ads, while participat-
ing in a range of commercial decisions (Rohwedder 10/13/03: B1).
Those designers who do assist Lagerfeld, do so only according to his
strict specications and do not take any initiative on their own. Should
anyone forget the hierarchical arrangements at Chanel, the hanging sign
is literally there to remind them. There are no such denite pronounce-
ments at Tommy Hilger, but one can in more subtle ways get a sense
that this is an unusually democratic environment, certainly so far as
corporate fashion houses are concerned. On December 13, 2004, the
company announced that it had bought Lagerfeld Gallery and the rights
to the Lagerfeld name. Hilger comments that his design team will work
under Lagerfelds direction, and Lagerfeld stresses that he will retain
creative control while Hilger will manage the business aspect (Rozhon
12/26/04: 4, Lockwood 12/14/04: 2). This unlikely collaboration may be
short lived. After the Tommy Hilger Group was sold to Apax Partners
roughly a year later Kurt, who became CEO in May 2006, decided to
discontinue work on the Karl Lagerfeld brand so as to focus on repo-
sitioning the Hilger brand in the U.S. The line was discontinued after
the Fall 2006 debut of Karl Lagerfelds brand, though Kurt says that they
may return to it at a later date. Lagerfeld, thought to receive $30 million in
the sale of the Lagerfeld trademarks, says he agrees with Kurts decision.
This organization couldnt work, he says (Socha 7/25/06: 5). Yet the
brand will continue to be under the auspices of the Tommy Hilger Group
and will operate from a Paris headquarters (Lockwood 6/9/06). Lagerfeld,
who had envisioned his name being on jeans and T-shirts and spoke of
becoming a big volume brand on par with Gap, Zara, and H&M, will
now design a much smaller Lagerfeld Collection from Paris.
Before the company moved to its new location, at 601 West Twenty-
sixth Street in the Chelsea section of Manhattan, the company resided
in several buildings. When one exited the elevator on any oor in any
of the buildings there was a lobby area where a visitor could pick up a
phone to call the person he or she wanted to see. Employees enter with
the use of a key card. The listing is alphabetical by rst name, with the
rst letter of the name printed in a bold red letter (one of the Tommy
Hilger signature colors). The same rst name system is followed in the
company directory used by employees. One has to get used to looking
up Bob, and looking through the many Bobs, before nding Bob
Reynolds. It is not the most efcient way to set up a directory but it does
convey a clear message. The company pointedly goes against conventions
of formality. This doesnt mean that there isnt a hierarchy. Certainly
some people are recognized to be more important than others: their
calls to others in the company are put through right away, meetings are
arranged and rearranged at their convenience, and (quite signicantly)
they are compensated for their time more handsomely than others. The
rst name basis, however, serves as a reminder that everyone is involved
in a common enterprise, and that the mode of operation is collegiality
and inclusiveness.
There were four buildings in New York City, three on West Thirty-
ninth Street and one across from the New York Research Library on
Fifth Avenue between Fortieth and Forty-rst Street. On May 14, 2004,
employees moved from the two leased buildings at 32 and 42 West Thirty-
ninth Street, into the building at 485 Fifth Avenue. Shortly thereafter most
employees moved to the Starrett Lehigh Building on West Twenty-sixth
Street, while some remained in the 25 West Thirty-ninth Street Tommy
Hilger Building where the showrooms are located.
The space that designers worked in was congured differently than
those who work in other divisions such as licensing or marketing, with the
exception of those designers holding executive vice president positions.
Designers supervising a division have ofces that are much like the of-
ces of other division heads: a large well appointed corner ofce with
a conference table. One such ofce, housing the executive vice president
of a licensed design division, located at 485 Fifth Avenue, features large
windows on one wall overlooking the New York Public Library building.
The ofce is large, with a conference table for six people. The walls of
the ofce along two sides are covered in a white bulletin board material
and have items such as pictures and clothing tacked up. In one corner
hangs a tank top shirt.
Designers in a particular division share an ofce. I will describe the
conguration of one such place as it was on October 9, 2003, during a
day I spent observing the designers at work. Then, I will describe how it
is congured differently in June of 2004 and later in that year at the new
building. Three designers share this ofce, Carl, a director of a sports-
wear division, and senior designers Loretta and Karina, both of whom
design a particular type of clothing in this division. Desks wrap around
two walls of the room. There is a large, tall work table in the center
of the ofce with stools. The walls, shelves, desks, tables, chairs, tops
of cabinets, and the oor are completely covered with objects. There
are clothes on the chairs, on the center work table, and stacked on the
oor. Above the cabinets there are about one hundred large spools of
yarn lined up. Perhaps more interesting than all the work-related items
are the multitude of personal items on view. Karinas area is the most
decorated section of the ofce. A jeweled princess crown tops her com-
puter. Family photos, a strip of photos taken in a photo booth, computer
art, and funny news clippings are among the items displayed on the white
cabinets that stretch the length of the wall. Just above her work areas
are numerous kitsch items: a plastic sh mounted on a wooden block,
a Jesus action gure near an ad of a guy in underwear, some stuffed
animals, and a variety of trinkets. Carl and Lorettas areas were a lot
less animated but also displayed many personal items such as photos,
decorative objects, and books. Marlene, a CAD designer in the same
division, has an interesting collection of toys and assorted items on
her workspace at the new Chelsea location, including an instant afro
packet of tablets.
The ofce atmosphere was very casual. While each person worked at
his or her computer, they chatted on and off. The conversation ranged
from Krispy Kreme donuts (now at Harrods someone observed) to
the Immaculate Conception. Everyone weighed in on how to improve
sewing machines so that material wouldnt bunch up on one side. The
talk was meant to pass the time and to keep communication going
as each person worked independently. At one point, after some com-
ments were made about wayward priests, a voice could be heard that
said in an ominous tone, you are all going to burn in hell. It was
Mark from the next ofce. There is a foot long opening just below the
ceiling between this and the adjoining ofce which allows for such
conversations to occur. Several times during the afternoon there were
humorous exchanges between Mark and Carl. Mark seemed to be alone
in his adjacent ofce and would every so often say something to which
others would respond.
I had a chance to speak to Karina about her work area. She said their
ofce was a lot more fun than most, and thats why people enjoyed
coming by. They like to hang out here because they feel comfortable
she said, never taking individual credit for her own area. Indeed, she had
a visitor stop by during the time I was there.
Carl showed me the design boards on the opposite wall from Karina.
This was the serious wall (except for one or two postings in the far cor-
ner near his desk). The design boards had computer generated images
of sweaters. Across the top of each of these the month and season was
written.
The designers spoke about how different other companies were in
terms of ofce arrangement issues. I mentioned Lisa Marshs book on
Calvin Klein which Carl had not read. I mentioned that in the book I had
read there were very strict regulations at Calvin Klein concerning what
employees could have on their desks. He said he had heard the same
type of thing from other designers and knew that the general atmosphere
was restrictive. All agreed that the atmosphere at TH was just the op-
posite. We are allowed to be who we are, Carl stated. Loretta added
that Hugo Boss was very much like Calvin Klein. Only white owers
were allowed in the ofces. Employees, depending on their level, had to
wear certain kinds of clothes from his line, and they had to drive black
cars. Everything was black and white. No one could say anything unless
spoken to rst, she said.
Some months later Karina left the company. An assistant designer
was hired in her place. The ofce decor became much more moderate,
her workspace remaining pretty much empty of decoration. In March
2004, Carl was red based on a restructuring of that department. The
division seemed a lot less lively as work had been consolidated. No
one was hired to take his place, and his work area remained completely
bare. Once the move was made to Chelsea designers no longer had
separate ofces by group, all resided in cubicles or ofces (depending on
position) in a relatively open space where various divisions were within
easy proximity to one another. The new space is huge and in some ways
feels like a maze since you have to walk through some areas to get to oth-
ers. Each division is marked by signs hanging overhead and/or mounted
on the cubicles.
Some people in the buildings and in the newer space in Chelsea have
their own ofces, sometimes with a separate conference or meeting
area within the ofce. Some ofces are more expensively furnished
than others. Those employees without private ofces are located close
to the ofces of those they work for, in cubicles of varying sizes. This
indicates hierarchical arrangements but is also related to the type of work
individuals perform. For example, those with offices have greater
responsibilities and must have a private space in order to meet people
from inside and outside the organization. These ofces are decorated
with framed photos from various ad campaigns, as are the reception
areas and the outer walls on each oor. Much of the artwork depicts
people engaged in some amusing activity at the beach, outdoors, etc.
Even though these advertisements were created for a different purpose,
placing them in the ofce leads one to expect a somewhat pleasant,
relaxed work environment.
In addition to company binders, assorted les and papers, and whatever
may be necessary for that individual to perform his or her work-related
roleitems of clothing, swatches of material, bottles of fragrance, maga-
zines, reference booksone is likely to nd family photos, decorative
objects, and reading material of personal interest in individual ofces/cu-
bicles. The cubicles do not feature any decorative photographs supplied
by the company. Each individual cubicle is decorated by the individual
working in that space, often personal photos, calendars, greeting cards/
postcards, and the like are displayed. Many employees display the Fresh
American Style poster that was distributed to all employees in 2005. Each
person has a telephone and a computer at his or her desk, some have their
own printers (and perhaps a fax machine) and others share these items
with those in their department. The ofce furniture differs somewhat
from oor to oor and in different ofces and buildings but tends to be
white. The carpeting is gray and, for example, in the older location at 42
West Thirty-ninth Street, the ceilings are high with track lighting. Desks
are not uniformly neat. Some people have very few things on their desks
and keep them very tidy, others tend to have stacks of papers and folders,
perhaps even disarray. There are no regulations one must follow.
Employees can often be seen eating at their desk. The new Chel-
sea location features a company caf named The Peoples Caf,
after Hilgers rst retail store. Many employees eat in the cafeteria.
Employees were asked to think of a name for the caf, and Hilger
selected the winner. It is difcult to go out to eat as the ofce is located
on the far west side of Manhattan, a few blocks away from restaurants.
In the summer of 2004, I observed Hilger in the cafeteria eating
with several employees in what seemed like an impromptu situation.
Tommys long time executive assistant spoke of it not being unusual
for Tommy to join a group of people when he had some extra time.
Employees are often seen stopping by coworkers desks for a few
minutes of informal talk, mostly in the context of conducting business.
Just before the move from 42 West Thirty-ninth Street, two employees
expressed that they were disappointed about the new space. One said she
expected it to be more open but instead it was too boxed in. Another
said, I thought it would be a pit, where wed all be together in one
space. She continued to say, instead it was a lot of small cubicles.
Trice and Beyer point to studies of ofce space where it was found
that open settings are indicative to employees of egalitarianism and
are for this reason more favored by those who would like to diminish
status differences, namely, lower level employees; while higher status
employees view such arrangements as a loss of privacy and of symbolic
status (1993: 88-89). I added that maybe the space could be rearranged
somewhat. She shrugged and said, I dont know as she walked away.
Other employees expressed a wait and see attitude. They didnt seem to
know what to expect and didnt seem particularly concerned. Clearly,
many things that happen in organizations are decided by those in higher
positions and are not seen as negotiable. These responses indicated a
resignation and, in other cases, simply a willingness to adjust to the
conditions provided.
Each oor in the prior locations had a kitchen with refrigerator and
microwave. A dispenser which makes coffee and hot chocolate, and has
hot water, is provided for employees, as is a juice and soda dispenser.
There are kitchens and stations with complimentary beverage dispensers
in the new location as well, in addition to some vending machines. The
womens bathroom provides complimentary feminine hygiene products
for women. The choice by a company to provide some complimentary
items beyond the requisite coffee maker and water cooler conveys a
sense of hospitality. Some environments, of course, dont even have
these basics.
The executive ofces were located in the main building at 25 West
Thirty-ninth Street before the move. Companies where hierarchy
is strictly followed may have separate dining areas and bathrooms
for executives. Some people have parking privileges. One employee
mentioned that when she rst started nine years ago she could park
her car in the garagethere was no division between executives and
others, she explained. As the company grew the garage became a place
reserved only for higher-level employees. When I asked her how she
felt about this she said, not seeming very concerned, I understand.
She went on, There were a lot less people then, and so there was room
for all of us. An employee who had a friend who worked at the rm
twelve years ago stated:
It used to be much more congenial than it is. Dont get me wrong, it still is ne. But
we cant ride the elevator with Tommy. He has his own elevator, and he is always
with a bodyguard. We see him and all but before he was hanging out with people all
the time. Designers used to be in on all the meetings, now only the design VPs are
in on the meetings.
Another designer noted: Ten years ago, before I was here, things were
very different in terms of design. After the designers presented their
ideas everyone at the meeting would stand up and clap, including
Tommy. Now, he said, They are ready to hammer us down. This is
due to a change in the economy. When the economy was better, de-
signers were stars, celebrities in the company. Here, we see a desire
to explain what may be a relatively less congenial atmosphere with an
external cause and not a lack of good will on the part of Hilger or the
upper-management.
The former executive ofces (located in the building which now
houses only showrooms) required one to have security clearance to enter.
On several occasions, before I had such permission because I had not
worked in this area, I had to use the telephone to have someone come
out and meet me. The new executive area, though set apart from what
is otherwise an open design, is not off limits to employees. Anyone in
the rm can use his or her card to enter. Of course, the closed door and
the need to use ones key pass to get in sends a certain message. The
previous executive area featured dark wood paneling and was richly
appointed. The assistants work areas were similarly distinguished and
did not compare to the plainer workspaces in other areas. Trophies,
awards, and other memorabilia were displayed in glass and wooden
display cases.
With the move to 601 West Twenty-sixth Street, a new more relaxed
ambiance was achieved in terms of the decor. The new ofce space lo-
cated on oors ve and six of 601 West Twenty-sixth Street is modern
with high, unnished ceilings. There is much more open space than there
was in prior locations. Hilgers ofce is located on the sixth oor, and
along with other executives in the corporate division, it is set apart from
everyone else. One has to go through two additional levels of security
to enter. Employee key passes need to be used to get into the legal area
and then again to get into corporate. One would not especially know how
to get there once in legal. I had to ask for directions the rst time I was
working in that area. The former CEO, Gerry, states in the rst company
newsletter since the move that nally all ofces are together under
one roof. He continues:
I am eager for everyone in the 601 ofces to have the chance to develop new relation-
ships with their co-workers and get to know one another face to face. I encourage
you to reach out to one another, ask questions, learn about each other and spend time
together. There is no better way to build a strong unied team then to understand who
you are working with and what their strengths and skills are.
Hilgers ofce remains a place apart from all other ofces. Like the
CEOs ofce it features a private bathroom, but unlike Gerrys ofce it
was decorated by an interior designer. Gerry, a very pragmatic person, I
imagine would not have decorated his ofce any more than it was when
he moved into the new space. The workspace of the assistants in the
executive ofce was slightly larger than the workspaces of most others
in the general area but was not distinguished in any way. Hilger has
an art collection, memorabilia, and an extensive collection of books in
his ofce; there are so many grooming products in his bathroom that
one would think he spent the night at the company quite often. On one
occasion when I lled in for his assistant in the summer of 2005 while
Hilger was away, the director of human resources asked if I could open
up his ofce so that his family could have a tour. He proudly escorted his
family through the large ofce while lecturing them on Hilgers tastes
and his qualities as a person.
Socialization into the Organizational Culture
The maintenance and transmission of the corporate culture at TH
begins with the orientation seminar given to new employees. The orien-
tation session can be seen as an initiation ritual. The ofcial documents
given to employees, such as the employee manual, reect the aspirations
of the organization. From such documents newcomers begin to encode
meanings and expectations as they are understood by the organization
(Putnam and Pacanowsky 1987: 66, 68). I was surprised to nd that the
orientation took on a bureaucratic tone. Since I had already spent some
time in the rm I expected it to include an enthusiastic endorsement of
the rm. Instead, employees learned about the general details of employ-
mentwhat is required of him or her and what TH provides in return.
More specic information on how an employee is to perform his or her
role is left to the department that he or she will be joining. Most people
have commented that this information is learned informally; you are
thrown in to a department and into your new role where you learn as
you go. I was told by a long time employee that, in the past, employees
who dealt with the public (such as merchandisers) would undergo an
intensive orientation known as Tommy University. This practice was
discontinued and I was never able to get more information.
The orientation session is led by a person in human resources and
covers topics such as employee benets. These sessions are held every
Monday at 11:00 a.m. And then its hands-on, says Lori, the manager of
human resources. If there is a need for specialized training, for example
computer training, that person will be sent for appropriate training.
I attended an employee orientation on June 23, 2003. Three new em-
ployees were present, and some new employees who were scheduled to
attend did not appear. The session was conducted by Cynthia. During
the orientation session employees are given an employee manual, in the
form of a large binder, as well as information specic to benets. The
company provides a generous benets package comprised principally of
medical, dental, short term and long term disability, and life insurance
for the employee and his or her family.
Cynthia began by saying that employee medical coverage provided by
United Health Care starts on day one. She informed the new employees
that, if they needed to, they could go to the doctor or ll a prescription
today. Many companies require a period of three months before benets
are awarded. The new employees seemed very impressed with these
benets, as did Cynthia who conveyed in her offhand remark about
receiving medical care today that TH was a caring place to work. The
medical benets were followed by mention of the companys 401(k) plan.
After one year employees may enroll in a 401(k) plan, the contribution
of which TH will match at fty cents to the dollar.
The area that drew the most interest was not the medical or other
benets but the employee shopping discount. All three candidates (one
much more than the other two) asked questions. Each employee was
entitled to a 50 percent discount by showing his or her company issued
identication card at Tommy Hilger retail and specialty stores. Cynthia
claried that this was on both regular and sale merchandise. Employees
receive a 70 percent discount (from the retail price) at the Employee Store,
then located in the Tommy Hilger ofces on 32 West Thirty-ninth Street.
This store was open from 12:00-6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, the
employees were told. All purchases must be made by credit card or check.
The items in this store are intended only for the employee. One cannot
bring family or friends, and one is not supposed to buy items for others.
However, one can buy merchandise of any kind (i.e., for the other gender)
if it has been marked down. Employees were told that they could also shop
on the website, with all merchandise available for 70 percent off the retail
price. There were no restrictions on these purchases. One of the new
employees asked how the website was setup. She wanted to know if she
could search by style number so that she could get 70 percent off an
item she was only entitled to get 50 percent off of if she bought it
in a store. Items that were listed according to their wholesale price
would be 35 percent off and licensed items received a 50 percent dis-
count. Someone asked about the outlet stores and was told that the
discount would be 35 percent off of the retail price. Cynthia seemed
content discussing these issues and did not in any way seem motivated
to move on to more important topics. Being able to shop for Tommy
Hilger items at discount prices is no doubt one of the important perks
that employees may have in mind when deciding to seek employ-
ment in this rm. Unfortunately, as mentioned, in the summer of 2005
employees were informed that their 50 percent discount was being slashed
to 35 percent. Not surprisingly, this generated a negative response from
employees as expressed by some of their comments to one another.
After discussing shopping benets and asking if there were any more
questions, Cynthia returned to a discussion of more traditional benets.
Employees receive three weeks of vacation, accrued at 1.25 days per
month. This year employees were told theyd have 7.5 vacation days and
next year fteen days. The rst vacation day could be taken after work-
ing 90 days. Employees have three personal days each year. Summer
Fridays begin after Memorial Day. Employees work half days but are
told to contact their individual departments for specic details. Almost
everyone does leave early on summer Fridays.
Cynthia mentioned a new benet, the exible spending account. It is
a tax deferred savings plan that employees can use for expenses such
as day care or summer camp for their children. Money saved in this ac-
count needs to be used by the end of the year. She said, Tommy is very
happy about this. Employees invariably refer to Hilger as Tommy.
In referring to him in this way Cynthia transmitted this norm to the new
members, while at the same time associating him personally with a
program that might be looked upon favorably by them. Cynthia referred
to the parking and mass transit benet as a exible spending account as
well. Money is taken out before taxes so you end up saving quite a bit
on transportation costs, she explained.
TH provides emergency day care for employees. This service is
provided by the Lipton Corporation. Each employee is entitled to ten
days of free service. Infants and children through sixteen years of age
are covered. According to the age of the child, activities such as arts and
crafts and outings are provided. A new employee comments, We had
this same program at Liz Claiborne but we had to pay $15 per day. If an
employee decides to adopt a child, $5,000 is contributed by the company
toward the expenses.
Employees who refer someone else who is hired at Hilger receive a
bonus paid in two installments. The bonus for someone hired at the associ-
ate level is $750, for a managerial employee one receives $1,250, and for
a director, $2,000. Cynthia nished the presentation with a discussion of
security issues, for example: how and where one was to get their access
card. I asked the question of whether or not there was a dress code. This
had not been mentioned. Cynthia said that the dress code was business
casual. For sales people she said, Tommy Hilger is required. The
design people can dress more funky, she said.
Formal and Informal Dress Code
The employee manual is vague as to any specic standard:
Dress, grooming, and personal cleanliness standards contribute to the morale of all
employees and affect the business image Tommy Hilger U.S.A., Inc. presents to
customers and visitors.
During business hours, employees are expected to present a clean and neat appearance
and to dress according to the requirements of their position.
Consult your supervisor or department head if you have any questions as to what
constitutes appropriate attire.
Employees at TH tend to wear Tommy Hilger clothing or clothing
that is Tommy Hilger-like in appearance. Nothing that is obviously
from another designer is worn, several employees note. For example one
wouldnt wear clothing bearing the logo of another designer or brand.
This unwritten rule does not seem to be enforced in any way, and I found,
doesnt seem to be taken seriously. I have noticed people in clothing
and certainly with accessories that could be identied as belonging to
another designer or company. People are not in any way afraid, whereas
some employees have said at other rms they would be taken to task for
wearing an inappropriate garment. One woman in licensing stated: At
Ralph Lauren you wouldnt dare wear something from Tommy Hilger,
God forbid! Youd be sent home, or red. When asked about Tommy
Hilger she stated, Well I wouldnt wear something from Ralph Lauren
but if I did I dont think that anyone would say anything. Self-regulation
versus an authoritarian regime seems to characterize the atmosphere at
TH. Designers are least likely to be dressed from head to toe in Tommy
and some dont even wear Tommy-like clothing. Designers seem to
be totally exempt from any dress standard, though designers in higher
positions, especially men, seemed more apt to wear Tommy Hilger.
It is unlikely that someone whose style of dress was noticeably out of
sync with the Tommy Hilger style would be hired. If such a person were
hired, there would be indirect pressures and eventually actual dictates
from their division that would no doubt compel them to change their
appearance. Janou Pakter, an executive recruiter for various rms in New
York, describes why one of her candidates, a frontrunner for a $500,000
plus position, didnt get the offer. The president of the company wore
khakis and sneakers to the ofce everyday, and other executives were
similarly dressed down. The candidate, for each interview and visit,
persisted in wearing clothes suitable for a Wall Street rm. Based on his
self-presentation, the company doubted the candidates ability to success-
fully handle marketing matters for the company (Maher 2003: D6).
The mode of dress tends to be more on the casual than on the
business side for most employees. This varies depending on the
position and whether or not the employee has contact with clients or
formal meetings with other colleagues. Fridays are dress down days, the
one day employees are allowed to wear jeans. Tommy Hilger, however,
can be seen on most days in a tailored European suit. Robin Finn, who
interviewed Tommy Hilger for the New York Times, states:
His career threads are bespoke and imported: all of his suits, like this dapper number
with a vertical white stripe that matches his Oxford shirt, are made by a London tailor.
He may dress the masses, but you wont ever (outside of photo ops) catch the designer
wearing a rugby jersey with his rst or last name emblazoned on it (2001: D2).
The level of formality in dress may be an informal means of separa-
tion between certain executives and other employees who follow a more
relaxed dress code. Executives, predominantly male, tend to wear suits
while other male employees are more likely to be seen in slacks and a
woven shirt. Clothing tends to change based on the activities the indi-
vidual has that day. For those who work in marketing, public relations,
and merchandising it is more dressy. There is, too, individual variation
with some administrative assistants who are always stylishly dressed.
As mentioned, designers tend to be the most creative dressers, display-
ing a more individual style. Many follow new emerging designers and
talk about the clothing they wear with others. Designers in licensing tend
to dress more conservatively when compared to designers in sportswear
who are more likely to be seen in the clothing of upcoming young de-
signers or in clothing that conveys a much bolder message. In sportswear
different forms of expression are encouraged, while in licensed design
innovative expression is somewhat more tempered as designers interact
with licensees and operate in a more corporate environment. Designers in
sportswear are actively working to infuse new ideas into Tommy Hilger
designs and, as such, probably feel more leeway in terms of dress.
Personal Appearance
There is no shortage of attractive people at Tommy Hilger; some
employees look like they could step into a Tommy Hilger ad if need
be. Although personal appearance, style, and demeanor are related to
success in many very different industries, they are especially signicant
factors in the fashion world.
According to the chair of menswear at FIT, when levels of talent and
experience are relatively equal, the person with the appearance and back-
ground most in line with the image the company is trying to convey is
the one to get the job. Blackman goes on to say that in certain jobs where
technical skills are not essential, a person with a certain appearance, and
often someone from a certain race and/or ethnicity, may be sought. He
explains that racism is usually tempered by class. As far as certain com-
panies are concerned, if you are African American but went to boarding
school or have an Ivy League education and/or you vacation in the right
places, you will be acceptable. Sometimes there may be more blatant
discrimination. Former managers substantiated that Abercrombie and
Fitch practiced discrimination based on race at its retail establishments.
African-American and Asian employees were placed in backstage
positions, while white employees, who also tended to be attractive, oc-
cupied highly visible positions on the sales oor.
An African American woman who interned at TH some years ago
mentioned seeing the trailer to the remake of the Stepford Wives lm.
She stated, It seemed to me that they could walk right out of the lm
and into the workplace. She continued, I felt the women I worked
with were blond, blue eyed clones or something who all shared the same
ideology. When I asked her what this ideology was she didnt answer.
She said, This includes just about everyone in the workplace from mer-
chandisers to marketing. Since you are there you should be able to judge
the accuracy. She mentioned that TH was a member of the Black Retail
Action Group, which supports and encourages the hiring of minorities
in the fashion industry, yet she didnt know why Hilger was a member
when he hired so few minorities. When I asked her if this was the case
at other rms she said it was industry-wide.
My own visits to Tommy Hilger retail stores revealed that there was
a diversity of race and ethnicity amongst employees one encountered;
sometimes a majority of the retail employees were African American.
Not surprisingly, no one was heavy or unattractive in appearance. This
is not an industry which looks favorably on larger-sized people or looks
that fall outside the norm of general attractiveness. Perhaps there is also
a self-selection process in play so that companies are most often not put
into the position of rejecting someone on these grounds. At the company
pep rally one gets to peruse the entire staff, both from New York and
New Jersey. I noticed a number of African-American employees. Several
upper-level and executive employees are African-American, including
the director of human resources, the director of the Tommy Hilger
Corporate Foundation, and two members of the board.
The comment about some employees being clones and the comparison
to the Stepford Wives is of interest as this person is not the rst to have brought
it up. Designers at Tommy Hilger tend to see their relationship to fashion
as critical and professional. Sometimes they tend to view a few of the other
employees as groupies. As one designer puts it, these are young women
crazy over having the right purse or shoes and who think this is heaven.
This designer tended to see little substance in such employees, comparing
them to the Stepford Wives. Some people are totally concerned with their
appearance and being a Tommy person, there is no interest outside of that.
Kind of like the Stepford Wives scenario. Im really proud of working here
and I wear the clothes and all but it is not the only thing in my life. Another
designer mentioned, on a similar note, dont be surprised if some people
you speak to dont understand multi-syllable words.
The Company Store
For several years TH employees could shop in the Tommy Hil-
ger Company Store. Its last day of operation was December 31, 2003.
Located on the ninth oor of the 32 West Thirty-ninth Street building, the
store occupied a relatively large space and was complete with dressing
rooms. This store, reserved solely for Tommy Hilger employees, carried
merchandise that could be purchased for 70 percent less than the re-
tail price. Members needed a key pass to enter and had to give the last
four digits of their social security number to the cashier upon making
a purchase. As mentioned, members were only allowed to buy cloth-
ing corresponding to their gender, as the purpose of the store was to
pr ovi de cl ot hi ng f or t hem. Cl ot hi ng t hat had been mar ked
down could be purchased for anyone. In this case the more im-
portant objective was to move merchandise out of the store. Since
the hours were Monday through Friday from 12:00-6:00 p.m.
and given that most employees seem to still be working at 6:00
p.m., a visit to the store appears to constitute an acceptable break. The
busiest time was about 3:00 p.m. on a Friday. Members, more often than
not female, were often seen shopping together in pairs. The shopping trip
was both a social and a work-related occasion. People often discussed
business while chatting about the items on display. Sometimes people
from other departments were encountered and a discussion about some
pending issue was undertaken, a follow-up talk arranged, or a decision
taken right then and there. Sometimes employees who didnt know one
another would casually ask for fashion advice never moving beyond this
level of conversation.
The company store, then, was a shared space where people could
interact freely and leave their ofcial statuses behind. It also served as a
place where they could share a collective sense of belonging to the same
company, and, indeed, a sense of privilege as this merchandise was ac-
cessible only to these individuals.
In mid-December 2003, two employees were observed discussing the
closing of the store. Im so used to coming here to wind down, I dont
know what Ill do when it closes, said one. I asked an employee why it
would be closing and she explained that it was because the lease in the
building was expiring and all ofces would be moving out. She didnt
think a new employee store would be opening, commenting that there
probably was not enough space for it. Did anyone say anything about
it? I asked. No, we heard about it and then just got a notice that it was
closing, period. Several weeks after the store closed I asked an employee
how she felt about the store closing. There was some resentment in her
reply: Its terrible. Well, now I just go shopping in other stores when I
have some time during the week. Im not buying as much of our stuff as
I used to. Her response revealed a feeling that the company had taken
something away from her, and now she, via her purchasing power, was
being less loyal to the company.
Company Events
If we accept that organizational life is constituted through communi-
cation as Putnam and Pacanowsky (1987: 59) argue, events organized
by the company to achieve a certain objective should be key ways in
which such objectives can be achieved. They bring people together in
a structured manner, and, as they are planned in advance, they can be
highly orchestrated.
Human Resources amongst its many other responsibilities organizes
company events. The yearly events consist of a Christmas party and a
company outing taking the form of a pep rally. It was traditionally held
in Cranberry, New Jersey. This later event which usually takes place in the
summer is accompanied by a picnic. The Christmas party and company
outing did not take place in December 2002 or during the summer of
2003 as the company has been experiencing hard times. The manager
of human resources explained that a decision was made to give people
their bonuses and to forego the parties. The party and outing schedule
resumed in 2003. The pep rally did not occur in the summer of 2005 or
2006 once the sale of the company began to be negotiated.
Pep Rally
A pep rally was held on September 5, 2003. An employee of several
years described the pep rally as boring. She explained that shed been
to a few and it was pretty much the same thing every year. She contin-
ued: It was really, really fun at the beginning, when I rst started, but
eventually you know exactly what to expect. Whats the fun of that?
For this person at least, something that is supposed to be reinvigorating
has deteriorated into something routine. Another employee expressed
quite a very different view: Oh, I love the pep rally. You go and hear
Tommy, and you learn so much from him. It is always a lot of fun, and
you get to be with all the people in the company that you dont see too
much otherwise.
The 2004 pep rally, a company activity where employees are
entertained and encouraged to do more for the company, featured a
company fashion show. Three people from each division could
participate in the show. Employees rehearsed for the show and during the
show walked down the runway in Madison Square Garden, complete with
professional lighting, two giant screens featuring the models, and the mu-
sic of a live band performing on stage. It gave a chance for some people to
live out a fantasy (judging by the enthusiasm with which many employees
played the role of a Tommy Hilger model). Sitting behind me were three
young women who seemed to cheer the loudest of anyone in the audience,
screaming out the name of employees they knew (which were plentiful)
as they walked the runway. After the show I asked what department they
were from. Were from the Dayton ofce, they said. The Dayton, New
Jersey ofce houses accounting, nance, and other such administrative
ofces. According to one New York employee, the Dayton ofce has a
strong, genuine team spirit. She explained that they are extremely proud
of working for Tommy Hilger. She recounted an experience she had at
Dayton while at the company cafeteria. Employees wanted to hear about
the New York ofce and to know if she personally knew or had recently
seen Tommy. Another employee mentions in an email sent in response
to my asking if she agreed with the above observation that her fellow
employee made about the Dayton employees:
I agree on the NJ comment, last year I did that walk for the Susan Komen Foundation
in Central Park, and we all had to walk with a big group (with big logo t-shirts on)
and I met a bunch of NJ employees, and they were very eager to hear about the NY
ofce and how often we see Tommy and stuff, it was kinda weird. They enjoyed that
people knew they worked for TH and wanted everyone to see the t-shirts. Theyre
surely dedicated and very proud to work here. Some people do treat this place as a
lifestyle and not just a job and that is good Id say.
Regarding the June 15, 2004, pep rally held at Madison Square Gar-
den, a new employee who had been looking forward to her rst pep rally
summed it up this way in an email:
That was my rst Pep Rally, though, and it was so much fun! First of all, food equals
good and free food equals better, so I was a pretty happy customer from the get-up.
But then all those performances! The music. Fashion show. How cool was that?!!! It
made me want to be a rock-star. Or, at least, dress like one.
Someone else commented, more critically:
I saw some giddy ladies on the elevator talking about Tommy. They were delighted.
Theres some propaganda to this, the way we kept hearing about our bonuses, and
how we must do more now. Every company has this at some level but no where else
did I have an actual pep rally devoted to it.
At the pep rally itself I must have been standing next to the most
disgruntled employee in the entire company. He was waiting ahead of
me on the concession line. He complained about the air conditioning
not being strong enough. He thought this was really cheap, referring
to having to wait on line for food. I bet theres not anything left by the
time we get up there, he said to anyone who would listen. Why does
it have to be done this way? He went on and on about what a waste of
time this event was. Ive got work to do, I dont need this. So Ill have
to work later. Thanks a lot. Eventually he said to me, Im happy about
the bonus though, thats the only good thing. Did you see yours yet? I
told him I didnt get one. He seemed shocked. I continued to say that I
was not really an employee. I explained to him that I was working on a
study of the rm. He said something to the effect of: Get away from me.
You dont know me, youve never seen me. Employees that were around
him did not respond in any way but seemed mildly annoyed as they tried
not to pay attention to him. I heard two people say later: Who else does
this? This is so nice. Some people are just miserable. The general agree-
ment was that he was cranky, unreasonable, and out of line. Although
the space was recongured after the move, and perhaps he still may be
there, but I never saw him again once the move took place.
A sense of hierarchy was conveyed at the pep rally with the rst few
rows on the left-hand side reserved for the companys executives. Other
people seemed to arrange themselves in seats without any direction.
It was somehow known that all the executives would be sitting there.
Directly across, in the right front, seats appeared to be available to any-
one. One designer I knew came in late and simply found an empty seat
in that rst row.
The pep rally began at 12:45 p.m. The concession stands were
serving theater snacks to employees: hotdogs, nachos, chips, pop-
corn, candy, and beverages. After having snacks employees were asked
to enter the arena. The host was Sam, the former president of global
marketing and communications. Employees were shown a video,
introduced by Sam, highlighting all the accomplishments of the rm
over the year. The rst title to ash was Tommy Hilger Storms the
World, written as a newspaper headline. Excerpts from interviews,
magazine covers, and stories ashed. Looking through the dimly lit
area I could see lots of employees smiling. At various times people
cheered or clapped.
The CEO spoke about the company and about the employee bonus.
He joked about being the last one to know about the bonus. He made
some comments about all the activities at area ATM machines today.
The bonus was the result of a goal, set forth last year, being reached.
Every full-time employee got a bonus. The bonus amounted to about
10 percent of an employees yearly salary, but varied slightly based on
departmental accomplishment. This year, we were told, we will have to
work very hard in each and every division to get to the whole bonus. So
far about 50 percent of the bonus has been achieved.
Hilger was introduced with statements such as: without Tommy
Hilger wed be just comma Inc., we are all a part of Tommy, this
is the man responsible for all the good things we have, and he is the
creative design genius whose name we all go by. Hilger spoke of the
bonus and of how each and every employee deserved the bonus for
their contribution to the rm. He also asked people to do all that they
could to sell the product, to keep expenses at a minimum, and to meet
goals set forth that had been outlined at the pep rally. He spoke of the
successes and what needed to be done to improve various areas. The
European people were singled out for their work. Tommy Hilger
Europe grew impressively over the year, he stated. Hilger said, If
you see a Tommy Hilger Europe person, I want you to go up to that
person and personally thank him or her because they are doing a ter-
ric job for us.
Hilger spoke of the Employee Satisfaction Survey; this is my
favorite topic, he said. He assured employees that we have heard you
and he said that we will do what needs to be done to make this an even
better place to work. Hilger said a rather curious thing as he spoke
of the Employee Satisfaction Survey. He said he would like to brand
all of the employees with the Tommy Hilger philosophy. For a mo-
ment he seemed a little unsure as he was saying this. There was a slight
hesitation in his voice.
Hilger spoke of upcoming events and initiatives. Beyonc chose us
because she believes in us, he stated. He explained that she remem-
bers us, that we gave her a start when she was sixteen years old and
in Destinys Child. They performed for the Tommy Hilger show at
Macysand overshadowed the fashion show. I never heard of them but
my brother told me they were great and the 3 girls were very pretty and
looked like the Supremes. He explained that he was always interested
in the connection between fashion and music. He recalled winning the
VH1 and Vogue fashion designer awards. Ten years ago on this very
stage, he noted.
After he spoke he exited the stage to screams of Tommy, cheers, and
a long standing ovation by employees (it was so long that my hands grew
very tired but I felt I had to keep clapping). He did not return. The nale
was the Tommy Hilger employee fashion show, and the reappearance
of the two employees who had won the Lloyd Boston beauty and fashion
makeover. A band and a new rapper that Hilger described as up and
coming provided the entertainment.
There was no pep rally in 2005. Nor was there any announcement
as to why not. One designer lamented: Tommy has been less and less
involved in the pep rallies. He used to stay the whole time, I heard, but
now it is in and out, and this year nothing at all. In 2006 Tommy was
absent all summer from the rm, and again there was no pep rally. An
administrative assistant commented, I guess he has a lot on his mind
now with the sale of the company but I think hell put things back on
course pretty soon.
Christmas Party
The 2003 Christmas party was held at a New York City nightclub in
early December. One employee said that the best thing about the party
was meeting so many people youve never met before. She described
it as a hot, club-like atmosphere. An employee commented:
Its the highlight of the year, seeing what Tommy will do. We get to enjoy ourselves
and not think about work. I talk to people I havent really talked to all year. And you
get say hello to Tommy and lots of important people in the company.
Another employee states: Were so lucky to have this. Tommy puts so
much into it. I wish they would have it twice every year. One designer
stated: Well everyone gets drunk so its like other ofce parties in that
way. But since Tommy does it, it is over the top, something to really enjoy
and be glad you are here. Another employee described it this way: You
have Christmas parties at every company and then you have the kind of
parties Tommy gives. Theres something special, very exciting because
that is just the way he is. An administrative assistant commented about
the 2002 Christmas party and the actions of Hilger and an executive
at the rm:
Last year it was a 70s theme. Tommy walked around and did his peace sign. He was
wearing tie dye. There was a cocktail hour. Saul walked around, was very person-
able. Then there was dinner, and later dancing. Afterwards they car serviced everyone
home. Its a really nice event.
The 2004 Christmas party was described as less spectacular but em-
ployees seemed to understand that it had to do with revenues not being
what they were in years before. The 2005 Christmas party took the form
of a Christmas lunch in the new Peoples Place Caf. One employee
described it as very nice and more personal. I heard other parties were
crazy but Im just happy to have some time with people I care about.
You cant ask for more than that.
Divisional Holiday Parties
Each division has, if it so decides, its own parties. I was invited to at-
tend one of the divisional parties held in the showroom on the fteenth
oor of 25 West Thirty-ninth Street in December 2003, one week after
the Christmas party. It was attended by all those working in licensing.
The executive assistant to the president of the division organized the event
and ordered several trays of assorted Italian dishes. He spent most of the
morning shopping for Christmas decorations, sorting through old items,
and decorating the room. I helped him with the decoration. He was very
conscientious about what did and did not look Tommy-like. A few of
the decorations I suggested were immediately rejected: Kristen would
hate this. That is so not Tommy. I decided to simply wait and see what
he wanted to do. When the decoration was nished he took pride in how
his supervisor would view the result, explaining several times that she
was very particular and only would be satised with the best quality. For
desert there were cupcakes and cookies from an upscale bakery. Some
employees talked at the buffet and others were seated in an adjoining
conference room. It was an informal event with no speeches. The event
lasted a little more than one hour. Employees generally could be heard
discussing work matters but in a light, causal way.
Organizational Discourse
Language is the medium through which ideas, policies, directives, ac-
tions, and communication in general is achieved. David Grant, Tom Kee-
noy, and Cliff Oswick state, Language, talk, stories and conversations
are the very stuff of organizational interaction and, of course, discourse
is an inevitable feature of social life in general (Saltzer-Mrling 1998:
2) . Dennis K. Mumby and Robin P. Clair go further perhaps and say that
organizations exist only insofar as their members create them through
discourse (1997: 181). Whatever forms of discourse a researcher may
study adds to an understanding of how an organization is structured, and
the composition of its underlying culture.
Loretta, a designer, in the course of discussing her adaptation to the
culture of TH, mentioned that there were certain words that were particu-
lar to Tommy Hilger, such as dotting and adoption. She mentioned
that a friend who now worked at the Gap and used to work for Tommy
Hilger, started to talk very differently. Her way of speaking totally
changed, she observed. At a gathering the group started to laugh at her,
she said, because of the new Gap terms she was using. Loretta pointed
out that each organization had its own distinctive culture. She mentioned
Abercrombie & Fitch and, in particular, Nike. She knew designers who
work or had worked at both places.
The Nike complex is located in Oregon. They are the only ones out there so people
who work for Nike do everything together. There is a school for their kids. There is
a state of the art gym and everyone goes there, all the time.
What people at Tommy Hilger call the concept board is elsewhere
called a mood or inspiration board. At some companies, designers
collect their ideas and inspirations for designs in scrapbooks (La Ferla
2004: 1, 6).
Yiannis Gabriel discusses various ways in which stories have been
studied in organizations: as elements of symbolism and culture, as expres-
sions of unconscious wishes and fantasies, as vehicles for organizational
communication and learning, as expressions of political domination
and opposition, as dramatic performances, as occasions for emotional
discharge, or as narrative structures. It is widely agreed, he says, that
stories create, sustain, fashion and test meanings and are part of the
sense making process in organizations (1998: 85). Gabriel argues that
organizations possess a living folklore which gives us valuable insights
on the nature of organizations, the power relations within them and the
experiences of their members. In a study Gabriel asked interviewees to
tell him stories about the organization rather than using what he calls a
y-on-the-wall approach of collecting data. He found that individuals
immediately understood this as a separate type of discourse, some said
their organizations were story freeall about work and nothing else. Oth-
ers told rich narratives lled with symbolism (1998: 97). Gabriel sees
organizational stories as folklorestories with a plot, a central hero,
characters, and a storyline. Slang, jokes, and idiosyncrasies are often a
part of folklore. Such stories rarely have the depth and complexity of
myths, says Gabriel.
Bormann elaborates on how members of an organization come to share
a common consciousness through different types of communication.
Members share what he terms group fantasies. Events are dramatized
and word play is used (1984: 103). This type of communication can be
observed amongst designers at TH as they collectively try to envision
the next collection; they draw on a common theme and recall ideas
that resonated well in the past. Scripts that members return to can
be categorized according to type. For instance, Bormann speaks of the
Horatio Alger story used to describe the ability members have to rise
in a company (1984: 110). A fantasy type at TH is Tommy Hilger is
one of us. It is not a fantasy in the sense of having no truth; it becomes
a means of ordering information. Members interpret events according
to some schema. When Tommy Hilger passes by and says a few words
it is likely to be interpreted by employees as an indication that he is in
touch with and identies with employees. This ts in with the kinds of
impressions members share. In another company such behavior might
be interpreted as disingenuous: The boss looking for a favor. Many
fantasies together can form a rhetorical vision or master analogy
(1984: 114). For example, the overall feeling about the company, formed
from fantasy types like Tommy Hilger is one of us and we all
work together as a team, is our company is a big family. Belief in this
fantasy type could be found in the employee who had never attended
the over the top parties but seemed content with the Christmas party
being held in the cafeteria because what really matter was that she was
with people she cared about. That is the essence of what the Tommy
experience is about.
An organizational saga is comprised from shared fantasies, rhetori-
cal visions, narratives of achievement, events, goals, [and] ideal states
(1984: 115). It answers the questions:
What kind of an organization are we? What kind of people are members of our orga-
nization? What do we do? What is our purpose? What exploits are we proud of? Why
are we admirable? What great things do we plan to do in the future? (1984: 116)
Since the saga emphasizes common symbolic ground it is often found in
company statements, brochures, or bulletins. Some sagas, such as these,
are meant for public consumption, others may only be used internally.
Bormann points out that if different divisions have contradictory sagas
one can anticipate battles (1984: 116-117).
Some formal communications are controlled by upper-management,
explains Bormann, such as messages found in quarterly reports, mis-
sion statements, and other formal documents. Members develop their
own forms of communication. Members may accept fantasy themes
originating from management, or these ideas may also be ignored,
rejected, ridiculed (1984: 113). Miriam Salzer-Mrling, referring to
managerial attempts to overpower other voices with a dominant saga,
(1998: 115) states, pre-dened meanings from the top are interpreted,
rejected or adopted (1998: 117). The fact that they can be rejected or
in some way challenged points to the existence of a master narrative to
which employees are expected to subscribe and to a degree of agency
remaining on the part of the employee. Countering a master narrative or
participating in a counterhegemonic discourse involves careful balancing.
One must know when and to whom to reveal oppositional convictions
and when to conceal them. In small ways, members do this all the time
while still maintaining a belief in the overall myth of the organization.
The one person I encountered at the pep rally who did not believe in this
myth was thought by others to have acted inappropriately.
Core Norms and Values
Employees in various divisions have discussed what is like to
work at TH often by comparing it to other places. By looking at
their descriptions it is possible to uncover core norms and values
dening the TH organization culture as well as differences between
divisions.
As mentioned, there was a desire amongst many employees to up-
hold the idea that TH is a community or a family. This was the norm.
Expressions of criticism or resentment of the entire organization were
not the norm as they may well be at many workplaces. Members may
well complain about a bosss conduct or be dissatised with a co-worker.
These are the kinds of complaints one would encounter. Care is taken to
explain information that would contradict that the workplace is collegial
so as not to disrupt the overall belief system. Hierarchy is often not expe-
rienced or spoken about as an indication of inequality or as antithetical
to the interests of employees. One designer expressed no longer being
included in creative meetings with Hilger as a benevolence on the part
of the leadership. He explained to me that Tommy had trouble critiqu-
ing the work of designers while they were there, so only his supervisor
attended meetings now.
Members, on the whole, seem committed to maintaining a heroic
image of Hilger. Hilgers handmade clothing, the exquisite shoes he
wore one day that some young women commented on, his ofce, etc. are
points of interest. One employee commented: You have to see Tommys
ofce, it is so big and beautifully set up. I got to take a peak in there
once. A designer commented: His ofce tastefully mixes dark wood
paneling with Americana. Its very impressive. Theres Mick Jaggers
guitar in one corner, an Andy Warhol in the next. A designer said of
Tommys vacation home in Mustique: Tommys got to have it. He came
from nowhere and built all this. Executive privileges: being able to leave
early at times, vacations associated with business, and so on tended to be
met with an expression of happiness for that person, he/she deserves it,
he/she works so hard, does so much here/for us. Comments of this type
were overheard many times in conversation.
Certainly some of this discourse can be attributed to decorum. There is
an expectation between fellow employees that a certain level of politeness
be upheld. Even if one hates ones boss it is not considered appropriate,
nor is it considered wise, to publicize this. In the last analysis it is likely
to reect badly on the individual more so than the negative comments
might on ones supervisor or co-worker. Between people who hold each
other in condence, such feelings may be exchanged without fear. The
one notable exception to this decorum occurred at the pep rally with the
disgruntled employee. Some comments from employees did point to
some resentment of the hierarchyparticularly in relation to creative
decisions imposed from above on designers, to employees being red
due to restructuring, and to certain benets being cut. I have never heard
Hilger blamed except to say that he was not paying enough attention
to decisions that were made.
Lori, the manager of human resources, worked for Polo Ralph Lauren
for four years and compares the two environments. Here, the atmosphere
is collegial, and familial; Polo Ralph Lauren was much more Madison
Avenue. She described it as very internally competitive, the game being
trying to get closer to Ralph. The environment at TH is cooperative
and team oriented, she says. This is across the board, she notes. You
never could be secure at Polo Ralph Lauren. Im so comfortable here.
Unfortunately, for reasons unknown to me, she was red. When I spoke
to one of the designers about this, she said she felt truly sorry for her.
She was so completely Tommy. This was her whole life. I cant imagine
her being anywhere else.
In many fashion rms a familial atmosphere would not describe the
organizational culture. The fashion industry tends to have a cutthroat
reputation. By contrast, according to several employees there is a con-
certed effort to create a warm, supportive atmosphere. Hilgers very
long acknowledgment page for his book All American: A Style Book by
Tommy Hilger mentions people who have helped him since the begin-
ning of his career and even earlier. As for the employees, he says that they
have become part of my family. This sentiment has been expressed by
the employees at the rm and is evident in many interactions that have
been observed.
Kimberly, an administrative assistant, says in reference to Hilger: It
is a good sign that so many of his family members work here. When I
asked about this she mentioned, in addition to his sister Ginny; Joseph,
who manages the corporate closet (a room that houses fabric, books,
vintage objects, and other sources of inspiration); and Sue, who works
with Ginny. She said there are a lot of other people whose names she
couldnt remember offhand. Sometimes Id meet someone and think
how nice that person was, later someone would say oh thats Tommys
cousin and Id think wow, he was nice. She continued: All of them
are very nice and they dont act as if they are special. She concluded
by saying: This makes the company feel more familyish. People want
to contribute to the company because of this. She expected that the
atmosphere was very different at other fashion rms although she had
never worked at another such organization. Other people tell me this all
the time, she insisted. She describes the working atmosphere at Tommy
Hilger, where a typical work day for her is 10.5 hours. I dont feel
drained. I dont feel like lifes being sucked away from me. At my last
job at Us Weekly no one stayed more than one year. When she is not
busy she logs onto the fashion website TH subscribes to. Ive looked
at every fashion show for Fall 2004 in New York, Milan, [and] Paris,
she states. She printed out what she thought would be interesting and
gave this information to the designers. She stated that she knows what
Tommy things are but she is not sure how far she can stretch it.
Sometimes she will give something to a designer and he or she will tell
her why this is not Tommy or why Tommy wouldnt do this. Im
learning all the time, she says. Kimberly gives jewelry and handbag
designs to the appropriate designers, and they give her feedback. In
this way she is learning about the kind of work designers do; design is
a eld she herself is interested in. Sometimes she will like a design, but
a designer will say that thats not something we could do. I love to
spend my time learning about Tommy, and fashion, when I am not busy
doing work for someone. I met her in the cafeteria two years after I
interviewed her, and she still seemed enthusiastic about her work. She
told me how delighted she was about her bosss promotion and says
that it has opened incredible new doors for her.
This attitude found in many employees, fostered by Hilger, seems
to reect the way executives and others in leadership positions relate to
those in their division, as well as the way in which people at all levels
seem to relate to each other. This, of course, occurs in a very high pres-
sure environment which demands complete dedication. It points to the
particular appeal that working at a fashion rm has for people who are
interested in this industry. Kimberly is not a designer, she is what one
might call a secretary. Yet, she feels she can partake in the creative activi-
ties of the companyat least in her free time. No doubt this feeling of
being involved in a glamorous enterprise adds a greater sense of purpose
to all the work that she does.
Carl, a design director in mens sportswear, compared the work
environments of Tommy Hilger with Perry Ellis. He said that Perry
Ellis was especially concerned with and protective of designfor fear
that things might be copied. Even those who worked in the company in
other divisions could not gain access or know what was happening in
the design department. You had to be buzzed in. No one got in and out
without permission. He added:
It is so not like that here. You got in, for example. That couldnt happen at Perry Ellis.
He continued: We all share things. Everyone is working together. Thats the feeling.
Otherwise, it was fun to work at Perry Ellis. It was like a circus.
Most employees, when talking about the rm, told stories or used
scripts or fantasy types that together can be taken to form a master
analogy of collegiality, teamwork, and a sense of belonging and being
cared about.
The organizational culture is not only an internal, self-generating
phenomenon but is shaped by external forces. All rms are subject to
market factors whether they be changes in technology, consumer tastes,
the activities of competitors, the economy, etc. Firms in a particular in-
dustry will share similar structures, practices, and perhaps even cultural
types as they adapt to similar external conditions. We see in the comments
of the TH employees that they see their own situation in relation to what
happens in the larger industry.
Many organizations, from institutions of higher learning to manu-
facturers of paper products, are no longer offering lifelong careers to
their employees. Peter Cappelli argues that the once familiar Ameri-
can employment system where one could count on a career for life
has been replaced with temporary stafng, short-term contracts, and
outsourcing (1999: viii). Where once employees were buffered from
market pressures, they are now beholden to the markets logic (1999:
ix-1). Cappelli doesnt investigate the impact this has on organizational
culture, per se, but from the structural and management changes he
outlines, one can make inferences about how an organizations culture
will be effected.
The model of the past, Cappelli tells us, as discussed in William Foote
Whytes The Organization Man, was one in which employees entered
into a psychological contract, exchanging loyalty and commitment
for career security and upward mobility (1999: 66). He illustrates the
situation at IBM, the U.S. company most associated with lifetime employ-
ment (starting in the 1950s). Employees were provided with a training
regime that never ended. This investment in an employee occurred at a
time when there were few competitors in the mainframe computer mar-
ket (1999: 70). Promotion occurred from within, and employees were
moved from one position to another (for which they were trained), rather
than a knowledgeable outsider being brought in (1999: 72). At IBM all
this changed quite dramatically in 1985-86 with personal computers
beginning to displace the mainframe systems. The rst layoffs occurred
in 1994 (1999: 73). With the pace at which new technology was being
introduced and the rapidity with which IBM had to respond, it was no
longer possible to develop skills over time within the company. It was
necessary to bring in and dispense with new talent on an as needed basis
(1999: 74). This fracture in loyalty paralleled a great demand for IBM
trained employees by the new competing rms.
Cappelli provides us with a picture of the employee side as well. The
lifetime job security and other human resource investments designed to
build commitment and retain employees apparently mattered little once
headhunters arrived and the pull of the market took over (1999: 73).
And when IBMs stock price fell, reducing the value of employee stock
incentives, employee attachment to the company evaporated (1999:
73-74). This points to a little investigated area: the impermanence, and
perhaps the superciality, of the strength of an organizations culture. At
least in some cases, once someone is away from its grip or has begun to
look in another direction, its ties are easily loosened. For many employees
it may never be fully absorbed. Individuals may play a role without ever
having actually internalized the cultures imperatives.
The new model of employer-employee relations is market driven. Yet,
organizations still demand high levels of performance and commitment.
Cappelli explains how this still occurs. Employees may still be motivated
to perform well in their jobs because of the immediate rewards they may
receive, and because they see their accomplishments as a means to obtain
a better job elsewhere.
The reality that one may be replaced or eliminated, no matter how de-
voted to Tommy, challenges the dominant discourse of teamwork upheld
at TH. Evidence of this was found amongst the designers at THthose
most likely to be red. One designer, who very much likes her work and
said she hopes to be here for at least a few more years, stated:
I dont know how long Im going to be here. Anything could happen. One thing I
know is that I will bring what I learned here wherever I go. So even if it doesnt work
out for me here, Im not lost.
A designer who has been at TH for 1.5 years and had an art oriented
education says:
Here it is very commercial. I came in with a portfolio that many people thought was
over the top. But Ive proven I can do both kinds of work. I could always go back
to more edgy work if I need to or I could continue to do what I am doing at a place
like J. Crew.
Another designer states the transferability of Tommy skills:
I know from here I can go many places. Tommy is respected and known all over the
world. To be hired by Tommy is a honor, and designers whove been at Tommy have
doors opening for them.
She mentions that she frequently gets calls from headhunters offering her
good jobs. In the context of this conversation she mentions that Hilger
is very fair with designers. Of course, they make decisions based on the
bottom line, she says, but they also provide three months severance
pay for those designers who are red. During this time you are asked in
return, as part of a non-compete agreement, to not begin working with
another rm.
Several designers owe their current jobs to friends whove brought
them into the corporation. Designers speak of the fashion design world
as being a small world where everyone knows everyone else.
Everything happens through connections. Even if you get the job through an ad its
because someone knows you through someone else. Thats how it works. Most of
the time it is all very informal.
A designer spoke of someone who was red:
We all liked her and knew her work. Even if she didnt get a good recommendation
she didnt need one, all of us knew people who we could refer her to. Its not like
they are that way here but even if someone leaves on bad terms it doesnt mean their
career is over.
The designers seem to have created their own informal professional
culture which buffers them against the contingencies of an industry that
can be harsh. Perhaps because they see themselves as professionals and
feel in demand by other rms, they display less of what they may see as
the starry-eyed idealism of employees in other lines of work at the rm.
Nevertheless, they tend to see TH as a kind of oasis, a place they favorably
speak of. Designers compare it favorably to much less egalitarian fashion
rms theyve heard about or worked for in the past. Having a certain amount
of control in their own futures, recognizing that many rms provide an
environment that is not only insecure but unpleasant on a daily basis, and
beneting from but not being entirely dependent on TH seems to allow
the designers to come to terms with what otherwise might be seen as a
contradiction to the narrative of collegiality and supportiveness.
The Fashion Design Process
Although the end result must look as if it were the creative work of
one person, as one designer puts it, Hilger certainly does not design the
entire collection single-handedly. Hilger is the master designer and the
public face of the rm; as such he oversees, to varying degrees, all its
operations. Other designers supervise divisions (such as mens design)
and subdivisions (such as mens knits or mens sweaters) which each have
their own supervisory structure. These units must communicate with other
departments in the company. Each will have particular specializations and
functions. Given the interconnection between departments, the design
process in its very essence encompasses both artistic and commercial
emphases. Creativity, we might say, occurs within bureaucratic boundar-
ies and will to varying degrees feel the weight of those constraints.
Design at TH, if we consider its practice, is modeled on the studio
system, where the nal artistic product is the result of a collaborative
process. Each designer can be seen as a cultural arbiter, taking account
of inuences and ideas from the outside and of their own and recasting
them in terms of the Tommy Hilger vision. This recasting or editing
process, as designers at TH refer to it, is carried out in conjunction with
ones supervisors and sometimes with Hilger himself.
The creative process at TH encompasses the following general phases,
which differ somewhat depending on the division. Every phase runs ac-
cording to a strict schedule or calendar, corresponding to ve seasons.
The rst phase is the concept phase. Division heads from each depart-
ment come together for a corporate concept meeting where they will
hear Hilgers loose idea. Sometimes the division heads themselves
will present ideas and bring along boards with pictures. At other times
division heads may decide in advance to present a unied idea. It can
be a simple idea or theme driven, for example, related to the island of
Mustique where Hilger has a vacation home. Ultimately, all divisions
decide on a common theme. This theme can be seen as a very general
organizing premise that will inform many specic products. The next
phase, development, involves going back to the respective departments
and working on designs. It is at this time that designers who did not
fully participate in the decision-making process are consulted and have
a chance to make their own suggestions on how the process should pro-
ceed. Actual garments are not made at this point, rather, color, fabrics,
shapes, and silhouettes are considered, and Hilger gives his approval.
Once overall styles are decided on, more specic decisions are made
about linings and other details. At a given time everyone included in this
process comes together again and presents the sketches, fabrics, design
boards, and sometimes samples to Hilger. Meetings with merchandisers
come next. A line plan is developed according to merchandisers orders.
In the licensed divisions, licensees are also shown designs from which
they make selections. This is called dotting. Prototypes are made and
a proto review is scheduled. Next, the visual people come in to talk
about presentation of the clothing in the showroom and in retail stores.
Marketing people are also called in, although they may rst participate
as early as the concept phase. At this point marketing begins to write
stories to pitch products to editors. Specic xtures and signage are
developed for stores that will carry the products. At the proto review
any nal changes are made by Hilger. During Market Week retailers
come in, pick out what they like, and place orders. Bulk orders take four
months to produce in overseas factories.
Designers are at the front lines of the creative process. Without their
skilled and inspired work there would be little for others in the company
to do. In the following section the creative process will be described,
based on interviews with designers and others in various departments in
the rm. Two divisions will be considered: one in licensed design and
the other in sportswear.
Lori, manager of human resources, explains the educational back-
ground of a designer hired to work at TH: For an entry level person
we look for a Parsons, FIT, Cincinnati, or European design school
graduate. In Europe, most designers come from Central Saint Martins.
When asked if some designers have non-traditional backgrounds she
replied, In Juniors some people interned in design and we hired them
because they had an appropriate eye, even though they had a liberal arts
background. For already established designers educational background
becomes less important. He or she is judged on prior employment ex-
perience. Loretta, a designer at TH, explained her frustration with the
interview process at most companies. The rst difculty is that you
must interview with people who are not themselves designers. While
the human resources person may be familiar with the job description
they do not really understand the work in which designers are engaged.
She explains this:
For example, before I worked at Tommy I was interviewing at the Gap. The woman
looked through my portfolio, all the while talking about her new baby. She went
through it really quickly and said You would be really great in our baby boys divi-
sion. I explained that I dont know anything about baby clothes. I mean, I could do it
but I wouldnt want to. I told her I do mens. For her it was probably the same thing.
She really ignored anything I had to say and said if something opened up in babys
shed consider me. The problem is you have to get past this person in order to meet the
person youll be working with, who is a designer, and who can judge your work.
At TH this process seemed to work smoothly as Loretta was called
back to interview with the person who would eventually be her direct
supervisor.
The promotion structure for a designer begins with assistant designer,
the level at which most new, young designers enter. The next designation
is associate designer, followed by designer, senior designer, design direc-
tor, senior design director, and vice president. Here is how one designer
explained the promotion structure in an email correspondence when I
mistakenly referred to her as an assistant designer.
Not to be a stickler.... My position is senior designer (not assistant). In most companies
you have either associate or senior designers ... so title-wise they kind of overdo it
here. Even the girl who is the sweater assistant is called an associate (which normally
is a title you get after 2-3 years).
Lori explained that as each design team has its own culture, a newly hired
designer has to learn everything on the job. It may be more accurate to
say that a designer has to recast his or her previous skills to t the new
situation. Lori describes that a typical day for a new designer involves a
general design meeting, sketching, shopping the market in the afternoon,
working with ones manager, looking at swatches of material; and for
an entry level person cataloguing the swatches, putting together spec
packages (specications for factories on how clothing is to be made), a
lot of emailing back and forth to Production regarding fabric orders, and
the like. An assistant designer commented that much of her day is spent
emailing and trying to provide answers about small details concerning
trim and button holes to people managing production in Hong Kong.
The people and atmosphere is what makes it fun, she explains. But this
is not what I imagined in school.
The time a designer spends at TH is generally three to four years.
When asked to explain Lori mentioned that there are some lifetime
people. As these people at higher levels tend to stay a long time, people
who come in at levels under them typically dont have anywhere to go
for 5 years or more and so they leave, she states. Two of the upper-
level designers interviewed, one a vice president of a design division
and the other a senior designer in the same division, were each there for
more than eight years when I interviewed them in 2002 and 2003. One
designer stated:
Designers are easily replaceable and for us it is easy to nd employment elsewhere.
You never really have designers stay at any ofce for too long, it makes us less desir-
able for other employers. You kind of become a one trick pony. It was never said that
Tommy was the be all and end all, it was implied though. When you get hired you
get the sense of joining a family, and when someone leaves they worry what drove
them to leave. Its funny, at Tommy quite a few people leave, take another job, then
go back to Tommy.
The creative process is inuenced by factors outside the rm as well as
by those within. Hilgers innovations and successes in fashion are based
largely on redening the American style in sportswear initiated by other
designers and by continuing to build on and reinterpret emerging trends.
Hilger has often taken a general idea, for example preppy fashions such
as those designed by Ralph Lauren, and adapted it for new segments
of the market. Hilger seems very comfortable with admitting that he
borrows from others and blends these ideas with his own inspirations. A
New York Magazine reporter notes the crumpled bright red Polo jacket
in a room lled with countless pieces of clothes during a tour of TH.
An ex-Lauren employee is quoted as dismissively saying, Ralph has an
entire room devoted to Tommys clothes. Tommy Hilger, introducing
a junior sportswear designer, winks saying, She used to work for Gap.
Before she came along, we used to steal her designs. Designer Nicole
Miller is reported to commend Tommy Hilger for his candor. She says:
Tommy is the only designer whos come clean and said that he doesnt
design everything that carries his label. Designers want you to think they
do everything, but its impossible to design everything yourself (Chun
2001).Hilger is at once admitting to the inuence of other rms and be-
ing receptive to the styles his own designers come up with based on their
insights. Hilger has also acknowledged the importance of listening to
the consumer and adapting designs to what customers want. This is done
both informally and strategically through marketing research. Timothy
Gunn, Associate Dean of Parsons Department of Fashion Design, says
Tommy Hilgers method changed the way fashion design is taught at
Parsons. Business and marketing are being added to traditional design
curriculum. As discussed, Hilgers role as cultural arbiter also encom-
passes an ability to assess the cultural mood and to provide fashions that
people will not necessarily know they want but will be receptive to.
Licensed design encompasses the following design divisions: mens,
womens, underwear/sleepwear, and home. Kristen, formerly president
of licensing, later headed licensing operations, international licensing,
retail services, visual communications, nance, and e-commerce. As of
December 1, 2004, her new title was group president for U.S. wholesale.
She left after the rm was acquired by Apax. Given the relatively stable
structure of the licensed design division, the environment for designers
is more predictable and therefore less stressful than that of sportswear.
There are fewer designers, and they have been with TH considerably
longer than those in the sportswear division. Mens design has eleven
full-time designers on average; and womens, ten.
The licensed design division I studied is led by Brad, senior vice presi-
dent. Shara, reporting directly to Kristen, is the executive vice president
of licensing encompassing both licensing, design, and operations. She
oversees all of domestic licensing and has bi weekly status meetings with
the senior vice presidents of mens and womens licensing, the controller
of licensing, and the vice presidents of the following divisions: footwear
and handbags, home, watches and jewelry, intimate apparel, womens
robes/sleepwear, socks, mens and boys tailored clothing, dress shirts
and neckwear, sun and opthomic, golf, swim, jewelry, mens leather
outerwear, belts and small leather goods.
Brad participates in and supervises all design in his division. Margot,
an administrative assistant, worked both with Brad and Sarah, senior
vice president of womens design, as well as with the individual design
directors and designers. Since April 2004, Sarah has had her own admin-
istrative assistant, Kimberly. She is responsible for scheduling meetings
and coordinating other division activities. There are four senior design
directors: Scott, Samantha, Barbara, and Jon. Scott designs underwear,
belts, watches, robes, and sleepwear. Sam works with him on socks,
sleepwear, underwear, and swim wear. Grace is assistant designer. Sa-
mantha designs tailored clothing and jewelry. She works with associate
designer Millie. Barbara designs golf clothing with assistance from
designers Tsu and Max. Jon designs mens footwear and is assisted by a
design associate, Toby. All the designers in Brads division are considered
a team, he says, and are themselves divided into four teams of roughly
ve designers each based on area of specialization.
Margot, the administrative assistant, concurred with the human re-
sources manager; there is no special training process for designers, they are
expected to just jump in. If a new designer in not Tommyized, that is,
if he or she came from an environment very different in orientation then
the initial adjustment could be a problem, she says. Brad also matter-of-
factly mentions the Tommyized person as having an easier time.
According to several designers, industry-wide most designers tend
to move from one company to another every four years, if not sooner.
This is not generally due to dissatisfaction or lack of promotion (Lori
mentioned this as a key factor) but rather has to do with the desirability of
gaining experience in as many different settings as possible. Sometimes,
of course, a designers departure may have to do with being red whether
due to dissatisfaction on the part of the company with the designer or
because of restructuring, cut-backs, or some other administrative deci-
sion. As mentioned, this happens less in licensed design than it does in
sportswear. Margot, the administrative assistant, said of licensed design,
Brad and Sarah are great leaders and role models and have kept people
for a long time. Barbara, the senior design director in golf, began in
1996 at the designer level; she had before worked with Brad at J. Crew.
Barbara expressed a great deal of satisfaction with her position and said
that she enjoyed working with Brad, and at TH. It is because of Brad,
she said, that she still has her position at the company. This statement
reveals that she perceives a high degree of instability for designers at
other companies, and, indeed, even in other divisions of TH. The average
age of designers at TH seems to be about thirty. Those in senior posi-
tions tend to be in their thirties, and some are in their forties. It does not
seem that any designers are much beyond their later forties, but when
I mentioned this to one designer she laughed and said that was a nice
compliment. A former designer now working at Polo Ralph Lauren says
there are designers of all ages at Tommy Hilger and at other rms, and,
in fact, quite a few are well over fty at Ralph Lauren. He says there is
no age discrimination in the fashion industry within fashion design. It
is not about age, he says. Designers get burned out and move on. It
is difcult to continue this work. He, however, states that he plans to
always be a fashion designer. Describing his own departure from TH,
he said he left after four years. He felt as if he went as far as he could
and wanted to move on. Perhaps there is a restlessness and an excite-
ment about starting something new that accounts for the high degree
of movement between jobs. When asked about designers returning to
TH after they left to work elsewhere, he concurs that this is the case.
He recalled it happening while he was there. He said this kind of thing
happens much more at TH than it does at other rms. He attributed
this to Hilgers character. He said, He was just that kind of person,
someone who would take a person back because they wanted to come
back. In many fashion rms, just as in other industries, there would be
no such possibility.
In licensed design, clothing is designed by the design teams on a
seasonal basis with more than one season being worked on at a given
time. During a meeting in November 2002, Brad explained that they
were getting salesmen samples for 2003 and working on a concept for
2004. Unlike in the sportswear division, which follows the same basic
schedule, there is a xed calendar in terms of the presentation of protos
(samples of clothing). Licensees and merchandisers from department
stores come in to the design department to pick out the clothing that they
want. This is called an adoption meeting or a dot meeting. Dots are
placed on the boards displaying protos. Each board represents a group
of clothing that can be ordered. Oxford Industries, the licensee for mens
golf clothing, has a dened calendar which does not change. They will
make their choices from the available designs on the designated date. It
is in their interest to make the process as cost and time effective as pos-
sible so they are very unlikely to reject everything. Conversely, in the
sportswear division there is no obligation on the part of merchandisers
to buy. If the salesman samples are not just right they simply wont
sell, explained Barbara.
Hilger is very involved in mens sportswear, and I am told that he
makes suggestions and changes all the timesome substantial. Putting a
new design into production takes about three weeks. In addition, new fab-
rics may need to be purchased. All such changes represent an initial loss
of time and money. For this reason the presentation date may change. Brad
refers to the sportswear calendar as a moving target. Barbara explained
that in mens sportswear if clothing does not sell in the department store
it will be marked down. However, a pro shop selling golf wear may keep
the same merchandise for one year. Presumably, this loss on the part of
the department store will adversely affect the amount of purchases they
make for the next season. Barbara stated that her department was not as
innovative. They take the risks so here were careful, she noted.
After speaking to several people in licensed design, the following
outline of the creative process can be drawn. Margot summarized it in
ve steps starting with shopping for concepts and ending with adop-
tion meeting, while others, notably the president of licensing, included
several other steps. The listing below is inclusive of all steps mentioned,
and the descriptions reect contributions from all interviewed. When dif-
ferences in description occurred, they are noted. Everyones experience
of the process is different. Not everyone participates in every phase, in
which case they may see some steps as less complex.
The following are phases in the design process in licensed design.
1. Concept Phase
Each phase occurs within a season. Brad describes the concept phase
with the statement: Tommy has a loose idea. For example, he may
mention a lm he saw and was very inspired by. This is followed by divi-
sion heads from each design department bringing in boards to show him,
based on his idea. Other times, the process may not start with Hilger.
Sometimes a unied idea is presented. Or, division heads may present
their own ideas one by one. Brad states, The idea can be as simple as I
feel people need a white shirt. Or it can be theme driven. He explains:
The Olympics is coming up. This will be an inuence. We may have a nostalgic
theme such as Chariots of Fire. Or a futuristic theme: Performance Athletics, more
like Nike. All divisions decide on a commonality. Then we go back to work and come
back for the detail phase.
Others mentioned phases in between the concept and detail phase.
Barbara describes this phase as saying it occurs before adoption. She
says: It is a quick ash of important color. A theme for that season.
During another conversation Brad discussed the concept and other phases
more broadly:
We work backwards. Something is shown in sketch form to Tommy. The overall
big picture schemes are presented, for example early days in Aspena ski theme
for next holiday. The theme will be incorporated into all lines. Right now the values
and feelings of a family in an Aspen or Sun Valley cabin. This will set the tone for
colors, etc. Each division designs into what they need. For lingerie, snowakes may
not be appropriate. But parkas get a fur trimming, or Nordic look. Then, we will all
regroup and show progress to Tommy.
2. Corporate Creative Concept Meeting
A head of each department attends this meeting. During this time
a business plan is formulated. Brad, calling this meeting simply a
design meeting, says that in the old days Saul, the chairman (who
is now retired), always accompanied Tommy. Tommy gets across
the big message. He might mention a two button collar band or using
lycra in khakis. Saul might say: I love the idea, but lets test it rst
in a fashion group. Then well incorporate it into basics so that we
know it is doing well, and if it succeeds well roll it out to all areas
a season later. Brad mentions that the price-value equation is care-
fully looked at.
3. Selection of a Theme
An overall theme and themes specic to divisions are selected. Margot
gives an example:
Golf may pick a golf course, a place, a movieto get inspiration and direction.
Caddyshack is an example of a lm as a theme. Brad selected a theme based on
Gentlemans Agreementa black and white theme. Tommy selected mod as the Fall
2003 themedressy casual. A year ago a theme was The Talented Mr. Ripley. It had
a lot of great, preppy fashion that Tommy liked.
4. Concept Boards are Made
Although Brad spoke about the concept boards during the concept
phase, Barbara, Margot, and the president of licensing mention them
being made after a theme is selected. At times there may be a prelimi-
nary concept board, and a more nal version is created once a theme
has been set. Barbara describes the concept boards while taking me to
see the area where the boards are stored. There is a large work space
and against the walls of this area are the boards. They are about ve feet
tall and rectangular in shape. They have clothing tacked on, swatches
of material, and pages from magazines. Each concept board represents
a theme and has a title. Barbara states: Each board represents a group
of clothing that can be ordered. In one area are boards for the summer
season, fall, and holiday. A title on one reads: A Place in the Sun. It
has an Arizona theme and at the top is a photo from Travel and Leisure
featuring Arizona. The color scheme is shades of orange. Barbara spoke
of the creative process of deciding on a theme as inspirational. We
look towards sportswear to nd a common thread but dont want to be
too similar. Barbara indicated that, once decided, there was exibility
around the common theme in the various divisions. When asked about
the turnaround time for a decision to be made she replied:
We gather ideas over time. Sometimes something just comes together, other times the
meeting in two weeks becomes the inspiration. We can be deadline driven. Oxford
Industries has a denite calendar. It does not change. They want to be as cost and
time effective as possible.
5. Protos
Barbara describes the protos as developmental styles. They can
later be put into the line. They may or may not be the right fabrics but
fabrics do need to be bought. If a change is made it represents a loss.
She explains that Oxford likes to stay with a choice, to leave it in the
line as long as possible. Basics might live for two years before being
changed, she says.
6. Proto Review Meeting
Before the proto review meeting, Brad says that merchandisers give a line
plan. We give them the overall concept, he says, and they say, We need
X percentage of wovens to be delivered in December. He continues:
Golf is an important area in outerwear. And we have a huge southern door penetra-
tion [southern department stores], so the ski feeling needs to be tailored to Anywhere
USA. Colors and fabrics need to be reinterpreted. Color palettes may stay the same,
but fabric/garment weights will change.
The selected styles are put into work. Once prototypes are developed
the proto review meeting takes place, says Brad.
7. Detail Phase
During this phase, concepts are rened says Kristen, the group presi-
dent. Brad referred to this stage earlier while discussing protos. Brad
explains that issues such as what kind of lining to use, whether to use
plaid as a trim, and if one button hole is to be done in red are determined
at this time. Brad says: Tommy is more involved in sportswear. For the
jeans line they use a prototype as a tangible step with Tommy. If they are
nervous about something theyll show him a prototype. Brad seems to
say that at this point, for licensing design, there is little risk of Tommy
coming in and saying that its all wrong.
8. Adoption Meeting
Brad spoke of a line plan established by merchandisers before the proto
meeting takes place. Perhaps this is a more nal stage preceded by a more
general selection process that determined what went into production as a
proto. Kristen says this happens after the detail phase. Margot explains
the adoption meeting. We call them dot meetings. Merchandisers and
licensees come in to dot what they want. They come in and dot the
boards. Margot explained that there is usually one meeting, but there
can be three as was the case recently when they couldnt decide.
9. Showroom
Brad mentions that visual people are consulted about how to show the
Aspen idea, for example, in the showroom. The types of props that need to
be used, positioning, and so forth are decided upon. Once the showroom
is rigged it can be open for market. Orders are placed for wholesale
and licensed products. At this point, the designers contribution has ended.
The next phases are sales/merchandising, where merchandise coordina-
tors visit stores with sales samples, then production and distribution.
Sarah, a senior vice president of a division in licensed design, spoke
to me about how the creative process works in her area. Sarah describes
the creative process as one where she, Brad, Dominique (the design
director for another licensed division), and other heads of divisions
will brainstorm together to come up with ideas. I asked her, How do
you come up with a theme? She replied: We carry themes forward
from the Spring. We start with what we have and work from there. She
continued, On a set date we will meet with Tommy and go over what
we have with him. I asked how he generally responds to their ideas.
Its a give and take but we need to be exible because he may decide
to take things in a very different direction. When asked for an example
of a theme designers presented to him in the past, she replied, It is not
something denite, it may be a color story for instance. I asked how much
coordination there was between licensing and the other divisions. Sarah
explained that with the appointment of the new CEO, Gerry, it is a new
day. We are now collectively corporate, she says. She explained that
Gerry had brought everyone together under one umbrella. She states:
Womens and mens in all areas works together. There is now a synergy.
She explained that in the past communication across divisions wasnt
as streamlined. This collaborative process has been routinizedmeet-
ings are part of calendar and certain decisions are reached as one moves
through the design process. She explained how the design director acts
as a liaison between corporate executives and those in the design room
and how she as a vice president approves what is decided upon:
The design director sets the tone for her team. When she meets the team there is
already a plan in place. But we use this for inspiration. For example, in intimates,
Dominque is the design director and Audrey is the head designer, and she has an as-
sistant designer. As a team they will decide on what to do and how to divide up tasks.
Dominque pulls inspiration from what sportswear is doing. They go shopping. That
can mean bringing back clothes or other items to look at. Audrey will put the designs
through CAD [computer aided design]. They will present the work to me with a color
palette. Ill approve it and theyll continue. The assistant designer will send out the
specications to be made once things have been nalized.
Sarah emphasizes that although this could be problematic at any point,
it moves along smoothly because people know what they are doing
and they work well together.
The sportswear design division I studied encompasses sportswear and
jeans. Eric is the senior vice president and his assistant is Marnia. Kyle is
the design director. During my rst visits in summer 2003, Carl directed
the design of sweaters, T-shirts, and hats with the assistance of two senior
designers, Karina and Loretta. Sergio directed the design of outerwear,
bottoms, and swim with the assistance of three designers. Kent directed
the design of C-N-S knits (cut and sew knits). He had four designers
working with him. Belinda directed the design of woven shirts and had
four designers working with her. There are other individuals who assist
in various ways, e.g., interns and a part-time designer. As of March 2004,
Carl was let go and the division was reorganized. Kent was given the
position of overseeing both C-N-S knits and Carls areas. A new person
came in to replace Karina who had left sometime before Carl. Kent left
the company very shortly after the pep rally on June 15, as did Loretta.
Both designers left shortly after receiving their bonuses. After Kents
departure, Eric has been more closely overseeing the operations while
looking for replacements. Freelance designers have been retained as an
interim solution. The division went into a state of imbalance. It has since
been reorganized with some of the original people remaining and some
new designers settling in. According to Loretta, who I was in touch with
after the sale of the company and who returned in the summer of 2006 to
work as an independent contractor, the department is much smaller and
she says the tone is somewhat less enthusiastic given Hilgers reduced
level of participation as compared to two years earlier. Hilger has been
away for the summer of 2006, and it seems his presence is missed. The
information about the creative process below reects interviews con-
ducted before the last two departures in June 2004.
The promotion structure for designers is the same as it is in licensed
design. As Loretta indicated, title-wise they tend to overdo it here.
Perhaps since turnover is more frequent, promotion and titles may be
assigned more quickly.
Designers in mens sportswear work on both sportswear and jeans. In
terms of the divisions fashion, core, and core plus, designers work
on all categories. Items that will become sportswear or jeans are designed
simultaneously, then they are dropped where they are best suited. If a
design is irreverent, as Carl puts it, it is put into jeans. Things are put
into work in case and are sorted out or assigned later.
Design Procedures
The Tommy Hilger Production Calendar from 2003-2004 for mens
sportswear is described by Carl as the most important document in the
company. We live by this, he said. On the calendar are fty-three steps,
starting with the creative concept meeting with Tommy and ending with
ship to stores. Dates are listed for each step across ve time periods,
for example, Transition 2004, Spring 2004, Summer 2004, Fall 2004, and
Holiday 2004. I asked him if dates change and he said that concepts and
dates are always evolving. He expressed that Tommy was involved in all
aspects of the business and often decided to change a design. Tommy,
he said, works on the inside and outside so he goes back and forth;
he returns after hes had talks to make changes. While the production
world has to be exible, some dates are set, Carl states. The delivery and
market dates are cold, hard facts that cant be changed. A designer may
have a month and a half to create something. If theres a change, the
cushion is lost. It still has to be ready in one month and a half. One has
to make adjustments all the time. The problem with fashion, says Carl,
is that all is interpretive and subjective. People can come in and say I
dont like red, and then the whole line has to be changed. Or someone
will say I think the stripe is too thick, and you ask them why and
they say I dont know.
When I tried to ask Carl at what point Hilger was rst consulted or
when he provided direction to the designers he reiterated that Tommy is
involved in the design process at all phases. Its his job to keep things
fresh, he said. Hes here all the time. Carl said that as the designers
are developing the next season and group of clothes they are reviewing
with Tommy. The development and review process is ongoing. He
said you have to multitask at all times. Designers start off considering
color. They may show Tommy a particular yarn. He gave an example
of how Tommy might be involved. Last Friday, Tommy looked at some
beginning concepts for summer. During this beginning concept phase,
designers are working with stripes and a ow of colors. The next
stage involves a consideration of clothing and silhouette. Examples of
clothing, photos or actual items, may be shown to Hilger. The silhouette
is very important to Tommy, stresses Carl. Once this is decided upon,
details, such as button stitching, are carefully considered. When I asked
if they begin working from a theme Carl explained again that they start
with a color palette, patterns, and stripes. Then they come around to a
theme that works with what theyve designed. Everything has to t
togetherone cant have a bright yellow sweater if that doesnt t in
with other items, he explained. The theme is important for the marketing
and advertising people who, he says, need a handle. For example, if
you speak to them about an island setting, everything comes together,
otherwise there is no point that unies the individual pieces. Designers
dont seem to need this kind of a theme structure, and I dont think Carl
would have mentioned it if I had not brought it up several times.
Once decisions have been nalized and products are designed, protos
are made. Then, marketing is brought in and shown a theme. Carl de-
scribes the Review process: Merchandising looks at what sold well
and wants more of that. As designers we dont want to do this. It is very
dangerous. Carl explains that what theyll be working on will be out one
year later. He describes the dilemma, People will already have it and
wont buy it again. Merchandising will say, we need this years version
of it. This is where the ght happens, he says. Carl describes this as a
contrast in philosophy. Merchandisings philosophy is new is great
but this sold well so lets do it again, but Tommy wants whats next,
he says. He adds, So we always know that Tommy will come in and then
it is settled. I asked if the fashion, core plus, and core designations solve
some of this tension. He seemed to say that it did, at least in part. Carl
was reluctant to put things into neat categories. Some things are ne for
core, which is less advanced. However, core is the biggest buythe
most visible. Every store buys core. And smaller stores may only buy
core because they may not be able to afford fashion items. So, core has
to be pushed forward otherwise it looks as if we are putting out the same
stuff. He explains that core is less advanced while fashion is most
advanced. Fashion represents the creative aspect. He continues: The
key is to move forward with the customer while bringing new customers
in. You want to spark new interest without alienating customers.
I said to Carl that other designers had mentioned that they shop the
market. I asked if he did that in his division. We buy stuff. Eric is a true
designer at heart. He buys for technique, to study an item. That is how
we do it. He brought something over to me and said, we bought this
because of the yarn they used. He explained that they were interested
in its texture and other properties. He continued: To knock something
off is sickening. It goes against the design ethic. We dont ever do that
here. He points to an item on a board and explains, We bought that
because of the embossing technique. We will send it to the factory to
see if they could do something similar. It is clear that Carl sees himself
as a professional adhering to a denite code of ethics. He explained that
the technique was interesting to him but not what they did with it. He
will study and use it as a starting point but is not interesting in copying
someones idea.
Loretta gives her perspective on how the creative process works. She
explains the process in a more step-by-step manner beginning with input
from the merchandising sales people. Carl, her supervisor, explained
that merchandisers came into the picture after designs had not only been
worked out but protos had been made (he appears to be looking at the
larger seasonal picture). But Loretta states that the higher ups establish
a theme and make the big decisions. Eric, the senior vice president
of design, and Kyle, the design director, interface with Hilger and ex-
ecutives in others divisions. They communicate the decisions they have
arrived at. Loretta states:
What happens rst is that design gets a SKU plan from the merchandising sales
people, outlining how many garments are needed per month for the fall collection.
This is based on what sold last year, and projections for the new year. It has all been
worked out.
She explains, in another interview that:
Merchandisers will tell you their specic needs. They provide a guideline based on
what is needed. Sometimes they will break down within a season how many garments
were sold in a particular month.
Designers begin their creative work having to balance this information.
Loretta seems to be more aware of this than Carl, who preferred to
downplay the business end. She states:
You get price limits and you have to work within these boundaries. Factories will
consider if it can be done at a particular price, with a particular yarn. You may choose
a material and that material may not be available.
She spoke on another occasion of big ideas sometimes falling apart.
You hear back from someone at the factory, and youre told that it
cant be done for that price. Often what you get back hardly seems like
what you started out with because some adjustments had to be made,
she explains.
When she discusses the next step, how the creative process begins and
unfolds, we can see that Carl tries to create an open ended, non-bureau-
cratic environment for the designers, one that combines team work with
a recognition of individual talent:
With Carl it is a free for all. Anybody who has an idea could sketch it up and pin it
on the board. Sometimes we like to break it down that one designer does one month,
etc. It gives us each a chance to run with something.
Designers utilize CAD programs and in this way are able to work from
existing templates or to create and edit designs more easily and quickly.
On another occasion Loretta stated that she sometimes does hand
sketches but often does CAD. She elaborates:
For example for a crew neck you can have a set in collar or a raglan. There are a
few variations. I have a folder with styles. With these bodies I can start tweaking,
lling in.
When asked about the mechanics of this process she explains that you
need to know the basics of Illustrator to do this.
I usually go right to Illustrator. You may have an idea but when you see it you realize
it is all wrong. This way you just click and change.
For each monthly group of garments that will comprise the fall collec-
tion, for example, the designers work together editing the sketches and
other ideas theyve come up with. She states:
We select yarns for their specic size and qualities and then ask for whatever stitch/
gauge. This is how thick/heavy the garment is, by lack of better words. So you start
with a thread and end up with a sweater.
Loretta explained that sometimes they will knit their own small sample,
other times they will send something to the factory to be made. She
describes enjoying the creative choices she has:
You control the whole process. Whereas in wovens or cut and sew knits you have to
pick the fabrics from books, with what the factory has available. You have to hope
that something matches what you are looking for.
As the process moves along the team makes decisions about trim and
color combinations. After we edit, wed show Eric who would edit,
add, change further, says Loretta. Eric tends to deal directly with Carl,
who then comes back and explains what Eric would like. With this new
information the designers set about to make the nal changes. This is in
preparation for presentation to Hilger. This is how Loretta describes it
in an email message:
And then wed make the presentation boards for Tommy, which had computer sketches
and bought garments. And pieces of sweaters wed get knitted up. And then Tommy
had to give it his blessing.
If Hilger doesnt approve of one particular garment or some aspect
of the overall idea that is conveyed via the entire board (containing
also garments from the outside) it is back to the drawing board, so to
say. Once his approval has been given (or his blessing incurred) the
technical part begins. A technical design person is called in. Loretta
says:
We meet with the technical design person. They talk about t, sleeve lengths, chest
widths, etc. She has standard blocks. They may decide to have a tighter t for a
particular style. They never stray that much because the customer wants to have the
same t generally. If he is a medium he doesnt want that to change.
Once decisions about t have been made, production packages with
all details necessary to get the garment made are worked out. Carl de-
scribes this last stage as follows:
We put tech packs together. These are the specications that are done in an enormous
system called Isis. There is a large MIS department which manages this system. Each
division will enter its own information. We put in design information, color, t com-
ments, etc. Merchandisers put in buy info and production has their part to do.
After this it is off to the factories in Hong Kong. Work is sourced from
this location to factories in various locations. Designers are in touch
with the factories and, perhaps, with a Hong Kong representative who
interfaces with the factories. This is done mostly via email or sometimes
by phone. Loretta comments:
Recently, one week and a half ago, we sent Spring out. They sent back questions.
The turnaround time for samples is three weeks. They are great. They are super fast.
They listen to us and they communicate very well.
Loretta had a great deal of enthusiasm for her work and seemed to
enjoy the challenges she faced. She was less enthusiastic about core
as that work was more routine: Its not as interesting from a design
perspective. Same sweater, same pants, different, fabric, color, etc. The
amount of design that goes into it is signicantly less.
In various comments made by both Carl and Loretta one could get a
sense of the skills designers bring to their work and continue to develop,
and how this informs their work. Loretta says she always knew she
wanted to be a fashion designer. Since age seven she was drawing and
making puppets. With her rst allowance, in 1980 when she was seven,
she bought Vogue. Sarah, a vice president in licensed design, describes
the path that led her to fashion design.
I majored in sociology at Boston University but I knew I wanted to do something
creative. I became a chef. Then I got into design. I started working for Ralph Lauren
and then I came here.
Loretta describes her training as a graduate of the Academy of Fine
Arts in Holland:
I didnt want to go to a fashion school. I wanted to learn how to draw and how to
think. I learned sculpting and painting too. I studied philosophy. Im glad I took this
route. Many designers have trouble with conceptual thinking.
She continues:
Some fashion schools are more business orientedmarketing and merchandising.
Students think they know everything when they begin because theyve done projects
in school. My education was conceptually driven. It is the ip side of a more business
oriented modelthe artsy side. One learns to open up, to read philosophy, to look at
art versus to look at the catwalk.
When I asked how this background relates to her work at TH she said,
You can learn marketing when you are in a company. She spoke of
some designers as being totally disconnected:
They are overly condent and dont realize they have a lot to learn. You are not au-
tomatically a designer just because you nished a program. Especially here. It is not
about you. You are part of a team. You have to work closely with merchandising and
others. You must be able to leave your ego behind. You need to forget about your ego.
Sometimes when you see somethingan item of clothingyou can barely recognize
the end result. So many people have contributed to what it becomes.
This narrative demonstrates how Loretta has come to terms with not
always being able to use the skills she developed in school in the same
way as she might like. Instead, she must respond to the preferences and
demands of others whose perspectives are quite different. It is the team
aspect that makes the situation acceptable. She has communicated on
several occasions that she enjoys her work and that she and the others
she works with always manage to enjoy themselves. Furthermore, she
believes her skills are useful and allow her to see things in a deeper way
than many others who lack her art background:
A good part of our work comes from being informed. One of the few ways you can
be different from other designers is to be aware of the surroundings. The art school
background really helps in this. It gives me something to refer back to.
Furthermore, she explains that there are opportunities for professional
development provided by the rm. Designers are sent to shows. Loretta
states:
We went to the Pitti Imagine yarn show in February in Florence. We go shopping,
read magazines, and bring back samples. This show is twice per year: Spring/Summer
and Fall/Winter. You see different cottons. Cottons that were not there last year. This
gets me sparked. We collected swatches and looked at what high-end people do. We
then start compiling all this.
From these last two comments we can see how the personal investment
that she makes in herself and the investment the company makes in de-
signers is not seen as separate. Apparently, no time has been set aside for
shopping even though that is a part of the creative process:
Also, I can sneak out and go shopping. You can use the internet now to nd a lot.
Lucky magazine [a magazine about shopping for women] is the bottom of the barrel
but it takes care of whats out there.
Carls educational background at the University of North Carolina was in
business administration, economics, and textile chemistry. After graduat-
ing he went to Parsons and studied illustration and fashion design. He
saw his background, combining business and design, as very suited to
the work he does. When asked about sources of inspiration in his work
he said, answering for the group:
Were pretty eclectic. We love Apple computers, industrial design. Each of us has our
favorite designer. A favorite of mine is Paul Smith. I admire his consistency. Ralph
Lauren is also consistent. If you like him now you will like him in ve years.
This comment (and other comments by designers on the designers they
like) and their frequent wearing of non-Tommy clothing shows that
the rm is not creating a rigid system which calls for adherence to its
own aesthetic code above all others.
Carl mentioned going to trade shows and the yarn show in Florence
as a source of inspiration. Loretta and Carls comments show the in-
terconnection between the work environment and the creative process.
Referring to his previous employer, Ralph Lauren, whom he thought
very intelligent but elitist and snobby he said:
There it was very competitive. We have nothing to gain from that. Were concerned
with the good of our fellow designers. If people come from places where that was
not the attitude they feel out of place and they change, or they leave.
Carl was quick to set me straight when I asked if they worked in teams
or individually. (He refers in the rst sentence to the larger department
in sportswear and later on to his own group.)
Both. We get together when we have to compare items. We walk in and out of each
others ofces. When a designer is working he or she will sit down and work individually.
Then, well all get together as a group. I dont like the idea of team being used as a
label. We are a team because thats the way we are. Designers share ideas and are not in
any way competitive. This can be very much the case in other companies where theres
that structure. Youve got no choice but to be that way in that kind of company.
Loretta states in an email sent shortly after the rst interview I had with
her:
Also, something I did not mention y/day in regards to ofce environment for me,
and many others Im sure, it is all about the people you work with on a day to day
basis that determines whether its a good place to be. Meaning the mechanics of
a design job are pretty much the same at any company, and our work is pretty much
an ofce job with routines. But having fun with co-workers and not taking it too
seriously :) are key. And I think we all went to art school for the freedom aspect....
Because if its all about working 12 hours a day and being cooped up in an ofce, I
may as well have studied law or nance and at least make a lot of money and have
no life!
These two narratives speak volumes about the importance of the group
in a large corporation. Without the authentic connection that the team
provides, sacricing so much of ones life for salaries (starting at about
$50,000) that dont compare favorably to what one makes on Wall Street,
for instance, could be called into question. The larger environment and
Hilgers own persona plays a large part too but on a more emotional
level. Ones work life is experienced through the connections one has in
his or her immediate circle. So much so that when Carl was red, Loretta
left shortly afterwards, as did Kent who was running Carls division as
well as running his own.
During a visit in April 2004, while Loretta was still there, the at-
mosphere in the division seemed somber. Loretta was clearly very sad
and avoided talking about Carl except to say that she was extremely
disturbed and didnt know how she was going to do things without
him let alone handle the workload without him and Karina (who had left
before Carl). When asked why he was red she said she really didnt
know, it was a reorganization, she said.
According to a designer in another division, freelance designers have
been brought in and will have to be shown exactly what to do, or the
factories will be told directly we want this, change this. That can work
for a season, says the designer, but not much more than that.
In August 2004 Eric, the senior vice president of mens design, and
Kyle, the design director, were red. One of the designers in another area
said she does not know how the department is now being handled and
did not feel that those still working in this design division had a clear
sense of what was going on. She guessed that perhaps Eric and Kyle had
blamed other designers for their own shortcomingshence the ring
and departuresbut eventually it became clear to the executives that
they were in fact the problem. When asked what Hilgers role in all
this was, how he might feel about this situation, and why he might not
have intervened, she stated: I think it has just gotten so big that it is no
longer possible for him to grasp it all, and I feel sometimes he must box
himself in because he cant possible manage everything personally. In
retrospect, this designer felt that the rm would realize that ring Carl
had been a mistake.
Many designers and others at the rm talked about the high turnover
rate in sportswear. I had only witnessed one such cycle, in one division.
Despite this history designers, during the time they were there, identied
strongly with Tommy, with each other, and with the brand; they seemed
to feel very content in their work. There is clearly no shortage of creative
talent, dedication, and enthusiasm amongst the designers, nor is there on
the side of those involved in the business related aspects of the company.
The standard that Hilger has set has not been a top-down model, rather,
it has been one in which people at every level of the creative process could
be consulted and included in decision making. While not all designers
get to interface with people outside of their division the higher ups
incorporate others into the process so that they do not feel alienated. At
times this may not be followed to everyones satisfaction. Dissatisfac-
tion seems to be balanced by the strength of the connections within the
design teams. This strength should be recognized and cultivated while at
the same time integrating designers more fully into the company as had
been the norm. We see how important a simple nod from Hilger is, and
how a perhaps inadvertent gesture is interpreted as a sign of involvement
and concern. It would mean a great deal for designers at levels below
Carls to be able to sit in on meetings or to personally present ideas to
Hilger, at least on an occasional basis. Designers can adapt to less than
ideal conditions, and given how treacherous the atmosphere is at other
companies, most report being largely satised with their positions even
during a time of reorganization.
Loretta told a story about a friend who no longer worked at the rm
(either due to being red or because she left, I am not sure).
She now works at a small rm that is not known to many people. She still uses her
Tommy Hilger business card at the fabric shows in Paris. She then gets a badge made
up that says Tommy Hilger because she said that people notice it and respond to
her positively. When she wore the badge of her unknown company no one really paid
attention to her or they looked at her as if she were not important.
We see here a level of distinction that moves beyond the level of
fashionof people using logos that are not based on anything real to
announce an identity to others. The Hilger badge becomes a marker
of a desired professional identity and is in fact based on something
realrelationships and commitments that have been built over time in
a particular rm.
In August 2005, I asked one of the designers via email about the
changes that had occurred, notably, the appointment of Muriel, a
creative director who now represented Hilger at meetings with design-
ers. I asked about the new procedure for line presentation and nalization
where Tommy no longer seems to be part of this process. He is only
present during the gender concept and business strategy meetings.
She responded to me: Yes. Tommys limited involvement with design
directly is correct. However, he works closely with our creative director
Muriel and she communicates his position. This response seems rather
clinical for a setting where Tommys presence generates enthusiasm.
Once it was determined that the company would be sold, the rm began
moving in a more bureaucratic direction, perhaps as a way to streamline
it and prepare it for an uncertain future.
Hilger retains his position as leader though he has been spending
much more time in Europe. The new CEO, Kurt (who plays in a rock
band in Amsterdam) was enthusiastically described by Jim, the CFO,
as a charismatic person who was able to take Tommy Hilger Europe
from nothing to a very successful business. Jim enthusiastically spoke
of his belief that the new CEO would restore some of the charisma that
the rst generation of management brought to the company and reverse
some of the bureaucratic moves that were introduced and which he
believed had been necessary. He spoke of looking forward to this next
chapter. In November of 2006, I received an email from Jim saying that
he would be leaving next week to pursue other challenges. Having spoken
to people at many levels of the company, I can say that there is a great
deal of hope for a positive future; one in which Hilger will return fully
to his leading role.
Nation and Identity through Fashion
Richard Helgerson (1992) argues that poetry, literature, the church,
theater, law, and even cartography have been used to dene the nature
and bounds of nations. He advances the argument that modern nation-
states were constituted not only by warfare and territorial aggrandizement
but also by the production of discursive formstextsthat dened the
nation and its physical and conceptual boundaries. Poets, lawmakers,
explorers, dramatists, and mapmakers participated in the construction
of the nation-state. Helgerson uses England as his example. To this list
one can add art, lm, and dance as making a contribution to dening a
nation as well as clothing styles and fashions in clothing.
Serge Moscovici takes Durkheims notion of collective representa-
tions and denes it more precisely. While Durkheim spoke broadly of
ideas, emotions, beliefs, and shared realities, Moscovici speaks of the
structure and dynamics of what he calls social representations. Social
representations are iconic and symbolic. They occupy a position be-
tween concepts, which abstract meaning from the world and introduce
an order, and percepts, which reproduce the world in a meaningful way,
he says (1984: 17). All human interactions, says Moscovici, whether
they arise between two individuals, or between two groups, presuppose
such representations (1984: 12). Representations, be they of a scientic
theory, a nation, an artifact, etc., create reality and common sense by
embodying ideas that allow the unfamiliar (the abstract) to be categorized
and in doing so they are made familiar and concrete (1984: 19, 24, 27).
The act of representation is a means of transforming what disturbs,
what threatens our universe (1984: 26). In this way the conclusion has
primacy over the premise in social relations, argues Moscovici (1984:
27). Reality is predetermined by conventions. Even though interaction
is taking place, agency, in terms of reexivity, is constrained; we see
only that which underlying conventions allow us to see, and we remain
unaware of these conventions (1984: 8). Nevertheless, Moscovici ac-
knowledges that social representations themselves are dynamic and are
changed by people in interactional situations. Individuals and groups
create representations in the course of communication and co-operation.
Representations, obviously, are not created by individuals in isolation.
Once created, however, they lead a life of their own, circulate, merge,
attract and repel each other, and give birth to new representations, while
old ones die out (1984: 13). Representations can occur as a result of
everyday communication, contributing to what can be construed as folk
knowledge, or they can be more strategically formulated. Moscovici
points to pedagogues, ideologues, popularizers of science or priests,
that is the representatives of science, cultures and religion, whose task
it is to create and transmit representations. He goes on to say, In the
general evolution of society, these professions are destined to multiply,
and their work will become more systematic and more explicit (1984:
12). Here we have, then, people explicitly concerned with creating and
disseminating a particular representation to a designated audiencein-
ltrating their consciousness if you will. Such people will construct the
representation in such a way that it will resonate with those to whom
its message is directed. In the case of religion, for instance, Christianity
can be cast in various ways drawing on select themes and aspects of its
ideology; for example, it can take on fundamentalist, liberal, radical, and
other distinct formations.
Fashion is not only an idea but an actual visual representation of a
social reality. It becomes a vehicle then for other representations: indi-
viduality, convenience, decisiveness. Root speaks of the ordinary products
(ties, coffee cups, etc.) being sold in a museum catalogue. Museum
catalogues work so well because they evoke upper-class aesthetic codes,
which attract the interest of the consumer. People worry about the qual-
ity of their taste. A valorized artist, whose work is displayed in the
museum and whose name and artwork is associated with products being
sold by the museum, allows the buyer to afliate himself or herself with
the elite culture of ne art (1996: 131). This insight can be connected
to fashion and to fashion as a social representation. The skirt, shirt, and
jacket are ordinary objects imbued with complex meaning once they are
created by designers and rms whose brands create, transmit, and are
themselves representations of a particular type of identity.
Fashion both reects and inuences the direction of American cul-
ture. American fashion projects an American identity that can be readily
identied through a variety of stylistic elements. Hilger stands out as a
designer who has built on existing themes in American fashion and has
actively tried to create an American national identity through his fashion.
In other words, he has attempted to represent America through his clothes.
Marvin Traub, former chairman and chief executive of Bloomingdales,
credits Hilger as one of the designers responsible for the growth of
American sportswear (Rozhon 12/26/04: 4). Most would agree with
Emma Moore of the London Times who says, It would be hard to nd
a designer more ercely American in inspiration and outlook (2001:
46). Tommy Hilger has provided us with much textual and visual data
to be analyzed. He has published books on fashion in which he discusses
his inspirations and ideals, and he has been interviewed many times in
the press. Many people are listening to his message. Grifths points
out the need for fashion theory to incorporate the voice of the designer
and others who play an active role in the fashion industry (2000: 72).
A designer himself and former head of the Kingston University School
of Fashion, Grifths argues that leaving out the point of view of those
involved in the creation of fashion generates a discourse that departs
from the real, forcing fashion into one or another poorly tting frame-
work (2000: 79).
A company like the Italian fashion rm Prada must deal with the di-
lemma of maintaining its exclusive status while selling to a large enough
market to be protable. As two New York Times fashion writers put it,
Prada is caught in marketing limbo...its survival is contingent on reach-
ing a broad marketwhile also retaining its intrinsic cachet of being the
cognoscentis chosen brand (Trebay and Bellafante 2001: D9). Hilger
had no such paradoxes to overcome; from the beginning he has aimed at
the mass market, though, he is now aiming higher. He became known for
his Ivy League, all American, preppy-looking sportswear. The company
attained success by creating an aura of exclusivity without ever having
served an elite clientele. The rm follows a production process referred
to as mass customization. In the couture business (a side of couture
Taylor says has not been widely discussed) the exclusive nature of the
garments, often thought of as high art, and the upper-class status of those
who purchase custom made clothes, are celebrated (2000: 121-122). This
confers, in the minds of the public, an elite status on the designer and
enables his or her name or logo to bring in millions from ready-to-wear
and licensed products, while his or her couture creations deplete the
houses revenues (2000: 130). Hilger has bypassed this initially costly
but image-enhancing couture phase by marketing his mass-produced
casual clothing as designer products and even as high fashion, argues
Taylor (2000: 133). Taylor explains Hilgers method of creating attention
by appropriating the strategies of the old Parisian couture salons.
Thus Hilger and others launch seasonal collections, as if they were couture shows,
winning almost as much press coverage as if they were. Just like the great couturiers,
Hilger too uses superstars at his collection launches.... Hilger rmly established his
U.S. success when rap stars, such as Snoop Doggy Dogg wore his clothes in 1994.
Like a couture house, Hilger too places advertisements in the elite fashion magazines
right alongside those of Dior, Gucci and Chanel (2000: 134-135).
Furthermore, he sells his perfumes as if they were the golden goodies
of a top Paris couture house and has bought expensive retail stores next
to Lacroix and Chanel on Londons Sloan Street, says Taylor (2000:
136).
Hilgers success rests, in part, on the rise of the U.S. driven leisure
and sportswear markets and its appeal to a global market (2000: 131).
Hilger attributes his popularity to reaching the youth market and
becoming a lifestyle brand (2000: 134). Taylor argues that Parisian
fashion houses have responded to the urgent threat Hilger presents by
rapidly lowering the age of their target consumer and modernizing
their image of glamorous elitism. The houses of Givenchy, Dior, and
Chloe all hired avant garde young London designers in the mid-1990s
(2000: 138). The couture houses have also stepped up advertising fea-
turing an elite type of beauty, seduction, and fantasy that is beyond the
reach and strategic interest of Hilger (2000:139). Taylor says it does
not seem that Hilger will be able to overwhelm the elitist magic of
the couture product (2000: 141). Acquiring the Karl Lagerfeld brand
was a move to capture some of this magic for his own brand, while at
the same time extending the overall reach of the Tommy Hilger brand
into the domain of high fashion.
Hilger has, in order to be successful with a young audience, used
features of upper-class conservative American life in a novel manner.
Hilgers Spring 2002 menswear collection, shown at New York Fashion
Week, is described in Newsday:
Hilger, who recalled summers spent in Nantucket, wasnt kidding when he
used New England preppy to describe his slew of seaworthy styles. Down
his runway made from wooden planks suggesting a boardwalk, he sent out
boating shoes.... Then came navy blazers with silk neckties embroidered
with upper-crust heraldic crests, at ease in any tony port of call ... coloring
polo shirts and V-necks in golf shop brights.... He didnt miss the boat with
nautical looks, either, whimsically embroidering clothes with sailboats, light-
houses and whales. And just to mix it up, he threw in surfer styles such as
drawstring pants perfect for a luau in exuberant Hawaiian prints. But it was
his pants printed with outrageous, giant lobsters that somehow suggested Marthas
Vineyard on steroids. Hilger also saluted American sportswear, blanketing part
of his collection in his signature red, white and blue.
Hilger was reported to comment after the show (on September 10):
America is the melting pot. I like athletic, preppy, Nantucket and mix-
ing it all up (Parnes, 2001: B10). After the events of September 11th,
but not triggered by it as his patriotism has been constant, Hilger signed
an exclusive two year modeling contract with seventeen-year-old Lauren
Bush, granddaughter of George and Barbara Bush. A spokesperson for the
Italian company, Pirelli, which features her as the covergirl for their 2002
calendar (famous in the past for its nude shots) echoes Hilgers point of
view, Lauren epitomizes America and all it stands for (Martinez, 2001:
C03). Hilger states, I think Lauren is really all-American (Wilson
1/02: 18). No doubt post-September 11th patriotism enhanced Hilger
revenues as more and more people wished to declare an allegiance to the
ag. Hilger published a post-September 11th tribute to New York entitled
Our New York, the proceeds from which went to the Twin Towers Fund
(Finn 2001: D2). The patriotic turn spread, increasing Hilgers standing
in the fashion world. W magazine reports that even tony Bergdorf Good-
man has commissioned and is displaying American themed products. The
Council of Fashion Designers of America launched a campaign, Fashion
for America, in which T-shirts sold at major department stores, for in-
stance, will benet the Twin Towers Fund (Wilson 12/01/01: 56).
Tommy Hilgers all-American look, with upper-class references,
and the once very prominently displayed Tommy Hilger name and
logo appealed to the status-conscious, urban black youth, among
whom he became popular. Once he gained the attention of this mar-
ket Hilger incorporated elements already present in the hip-hop
repertoirebaggy and oversized clothing, exaggerated trimmings,
and an enlarged logoand marketed this new style both to an ur-
ban, mainly black, and mainstream audience. This connection to
hip-hop street culture was exciting to a mainstream audience and
helped propel his further success. In addition to using hip-hop
stars, Hilger has also featured black sportsmen and entertainment
gures in ads (Smith 1997: 257). A menswear designer working at
the rm during this period states that Hilgers connection to hip-
hop stemmed from his involvement in hip-hop culture and his love
of the music. It was not devised by a couple of guys sitting in the
boardroom smoking cigars who gured out this was a good way to
make money. However, as Rene Chun reports, the hip-hop crowd has
defected for younger, hipper, often blacker labels. She notes a satire
in a lm directed by Spike Lee where a clueless Caucasian designer
was named Timmi Hilnigger (Chun 2001: E6). Hilger would ap-
peal in a different way than would, for instance, FUBU (For Us By
Us). This label takes an oppositional stance in respect to mainstream
white culture, while Hilger embraces mainstream America. This
support can most clearly be seen by the ubiquity of the red, white,
and blue theme embodied in his logo, whether it is large or small and
visible on the outside of the clothing or not. Hilger provided a kind of
bridge for the male, black customer he appealed to with his particular
style of clothing. He represents mainstream acceptability, wealth,
and an association with a sporting lifestyle that the leisure class can
enjoy. Hip-hop artists are less inclined to implicate consumerism as
an extension of an oppressive capitalist system than they are to buy
into the consumer culture. Yet they combine elements of Hilgers
(or other logoed) sportswear and their own forms of expression in a
way that communicates a unique fashion message that in some ways
acts against the dominant social structure and the fashion industry. In
the documentary lm, The Revenge of the Logo, black youth in Harlem
speak of ghetto Gucci, an exaggerated approach to displaying logos, for
instance, by trimming Timberland boots with counterfeit Gucci material
cut from purses bought in New Yorks Chinatown.
Crane states that while in Paris, a connection to the arts may enhance
a designers prestige; in London, youth culture and popular or opposi-
tional culture; and in New York, it is lifestyle (2000: 167-168). Crane
gives the example of Ralph Lauren who marketed a very conservative,
traditional rendition of upper-class American and British life to a huge
public (Brubach 1987, in Crane 2000: 148). Lauren and Hilger are
similar in this respect; they are not marketing to a social elite, they are
marketing the fantasy of being socially elite to a mass world audience. In
the case of Hilger, he focuses squarely on elements of American culture,
most often an idealized American culture, that will resonate both here and
abroad. The success of Polo Sport, with its big logos and bold designs,
can be seen in part as a response to Hilgers prominence.
Hilger is keenly aware of the need people have to cast themselves in
a way that is congruent with the image they feel required to project and
one they themselves desire to convey. Hilger says: We really started
a major trend with the logos. It was all about status and it still is. He
continues, If you go into Middle America, we are the designer brand.
As for himself, reporter Robin Finn notes, Hilger has all his clothes
custom made in London. Hilger states, I dont wear logos, except
maybe a letter sweater once in a while (Finn 2000: D2).
Hilger is selling status and a particular type of identity. For young
people in particular, who are in the process of forging their identity,
fashion becomes an important vehicle for communicating a message
about oneself to peers. Older people, perhaps relatively more secure in
their self-image, tend to socialize with others of similar circumstance and
may not need to intensely deliberate about their appearance. They may
be in the habit of dressing a certain way. The businessman or waitress,
by virtue of being in a certain profession, will establish a fashion script
to follow. As long as he or she keeps within those parameters his or her
appearance will not arouse any unusual or undesired attention. For young
people, however, every detail of clothing can be of keen importance. One
can be ridiculed cruelly for not conforming with the changing appear-
ance norms. One must consider not only how he or he ts in with his or
her primary group but with his or her peers, some of whom will belong
to other groups. The primary group may or may not be the dominant
group, and peers in the neighborhood may have different expectations
than peers in school and so on. Although Hilger has lost some ground
with American teenagers, he still provides readily identiable symbols
with which young people can communicate a sense of broadly accepted
style. As Tommy Hilger is a globally recognizable name which carries
status, and his designs are often easily connected to his name through
logos (though today they appear much smaller than they had been) and
identiable detailing, his clothes provide a form of currency. This is
apparent particularly for young men seeking afrmation, acceptance,
status, and power. The prophet is sometimes better received abroad than
at home. Hilger is often described as having matured here in the U.S.
but has been experiencing growth in Europe and Asia. Hilger opened
several dozen European stores in 2006 and has, in the Fall, celebrated
the opening of his Paris store. Forty stores were opened in China during
2002, and more stores are planned elsewhere in Asia. Lockwood explains
that in Europe Hilger competes with Polo, Hugo Boss, Giorgio Armani,
and Miu Miu (2005: 12/27/05, 12).
Tommy Hilger Fashion as Text
Using the approach of Roland Barthes, who has restricted his study
of fashion in The Fashion System to the written garment, text from
Tommy Hilgers American Style will be analyzed in respect to the
national identity Hilger disseminates through his fashions. Barthes set
aside concerns with fashion as it exists in practiceas a real objectto
study fashion as text. It is the meaning attributed to the garment that
makes it fashion, according to Barthes (1967/1985). Barthes states, We
must study either acts, or images, or words, but not all of these substances
at once (1967/1985: 7-8). Of course others have decided to do all. For
example, Lehmann points out that real clothing for Simmel and Ben-
jamin presented not an obstacle but a temporality which contributed to
their understanding (2000: 288). Yet, Barthes provides us with a method
of decoding text to nd meanings we may have otherwise overlooked
due to distractions. He says, Speech rids the garment of all corporal
actuality; being no more than a system of impersonal objects whose mere
assemblage creates fashion (1967/1985: 17). Images need the mediation
of wordsif not directly in conjunction with the image, than in memory.
It is through words that cultural meanings are embedded and signied,
Barthes would contend. There is no inherent rationality to clothes or to
images of clothes. Without language, fashion does not mean anything
in particular. Barthes shows us a system of signication over one year
by looking at described clothing in a French fashion magazine. He nds
that textual meanings shape the reality of the clothes. Sometimes the
meanings are arbitrarypleats are worn in the afternoon and prints at
the racesbut they create a reality for the garment that we can relate to,
visualize in a particular context, and take as natural.
What textual elements of American culture does Tommy Hilger
use, in a systematic and coherent way, to develop an American style in
fashion? What does America mean to Hilger? Hilger abstracts ele-
ments expressed textually from different sectors of the American cul-
turefrom elite to popular cultureto create a fashion discourse. There
are several themes that Hilger uses to represent his core commitment
to Americanism and which he points to as being design inspirations.
They can be divided into the following categories, somewhat in order of
their prevalence. Later this analysis will look individually at each and
provide textual examples:
1. Sports and sportswear
2. Music
3. Film
4. Television
5. Places (geographic, general, particular)
6. Automobiles
7. Consumer products
8. Types of people
9. Art
Sports is a dominant theme. Hilger mentions the following sports
either in conjunction with a photograph or separately: tennis, biking,
boating (row boating and canoeing), sailing, bowling, football, base-
ball, racing, golf, skiing, and surng. Of sports in general Hilger
says, Energy, speed, thrust, the burning desire to winto me, thats
what sports are all about (1997: 112). He connects this sporting spirit
to clothing when he talks of racing: All the drivers looked heroic in
their uniformscovered in patches and with their cars emblazoned
with logos (1997: 137). In relation to golf he says, Golfers are as
concerned with what they wear as with their game (1997: 130). And
of bowling he says, But the embroidered shirts are the thing that re-
ally signify that its a good-time sport (1997: 114). Surng is more
broad: While the British invasion was taking hold, the California
surf scene emerged as a truly American phenomenon, with its own
language in music and fashion (1997: 170). In his comments on
surng, Hilger is concerned with drawing boundaries, in separating
out those aspects of the sport that are not American in spirit. Sports
provide a stage on which a masculine identity is enacted. Hilger
abstracts the symbolic media of sports to be used in his designs. In
this way the brands association with sports is instrumental in connot-
ing the Hilger lifestyle.
Hilger speaks about sportswear in a way which may call to mind
images of sports activity but does not always have a close association
with the sport. He mentions the following items under the category of
sportswear: varsity jackets, khakis, jeans, t-shirts, chinos, cowboy shirts,
button-down shirts, bowling shirts, annel shirts, sweaters, baseball caps,
penny loafers, hiking boots, and sneakers. Hilger says that, clothes
are costumes. Everyday people put on what they want to be (1997: 46).
We are told how to dress or what we need to have if we want to be a
certain way. In relation to the button-down shirt Hilger issues a prescrip-
tive, For relaxed situations keep the collar buttoned and leave the top
button undone (1997: 73). Different contexts and different objectives
call for different clothes. Hilger sorts this out for the reader: Flannel
shirts are always appropriate for being outdoors in the city or the country
(1997: 39). Chinos and khakis are a must for any wardrobe (1997: 66).
There was a time when wearing a T-shirt was a rebellious statement,
a way of saying you were a no-nonsense, hardworking guy. Today it is
every bit as athletic and sexy, but also the height of casual style (1997:
63). Jeans should look and feel faded and comfortable, and be somewhat
irreverent, like you dont have a regular job and dont care (1997: 55).
Denim shirts and jackets say traditional American work wear, but at the
same time they have a relaxed, Saturday avor (1997: 58).
Hilger says decisively, I see everything through a pop-culture lens
(1997: 148). Music, for Hilger, is one of the most important aspects
of popular culture. For Hilger music can be: Motown, R&B, rock and
roll, hip-hop, Frank Sinatra, and disco. Here are some examples of how
he connects these types of music to a particular fashion sensibility: So
much of rock style as a concept comes from Motown. Each artist had
a sleek signature sound and an image polished to a high gloss (1997:
156). Speaking of John Lee Hooker, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, and B.B.
King, he says: The R&B stars wanted shine, sequins, glam; they wanted
pointy-toed shoes (1997: 150). As for hip-hop: It all began as a result
of the youth culture embracing and wearing status symbols, designer
labels, and athletic names and weaving them into their testimony (1997:
186). Hilger doesnt seem to look favorably on disco. While disco fully
embraces fashion it presents a kind of antisport philosophy:
When Studio 54 opened, it was a real buzz. Halston, Gucci, Fiorucci. Satin shirts and
designer jeans. We went every night because we never knew what to expect and we
didnt want to miss anything. Its hard to imagine now that people actually partied
like that and were able to function the next day (1997: 184).
Of the clothes he says: By the eighties, however, polyester was
deemed gauche; synthetic microbers were in. But that was just
gilding the lily (1997: 185). No doubt disco is taken by Hilger to
be inauthentic as a musical expression, generating, in turn, clothing
that reects this ethos. Clearly we see in Hilgers book, Rock Style,
an admiration for the subversiveness and daring that characterizes
this genre of music.
Another element of popular culture is of course lm and television.
Hilger mentions westerns, classics, and some lm titles: The Graduate,
and The Endless Summer. As for television it is Leave it to Beaver, The
Mickey Mouse Club, Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, My Three Sons, and
Mission: Impossible. Certain actors get special mention for epitomizing
the suit style of an epoch: Cary Grant for 1940s gangsters and heroes,
Rock Hudson for 1950s lean and modern, Dean Martin for 1960s
mods and continentals, John Travolta for 1970s polyester leisure,
Richard Gere for 1980s designer tailoring, and Jon Favreau and Vince
Vaughn for 1990s redened elegance (1997: 94-95). Hilger deems
particular actors and entire casts sharp dressers. In order they are: the
cast of The Man from U.N.C.L.E., Mission: Impossible, Reservoir Dogs,
and entertainers such as Sammy Davis, Jr., Sean Connery, Dean Martin,
Frank Sinatra, Peter Lawford, Fred Astaire, Rod Serling, Jerry Lewis,
and Tom Jones (1997: 160).
Places hold signicance in Tommy Hilgers conception of an ideal-
ized American world. Of course the West looms large, and is conceived
of in terms of realness and manliness: Western clothes have their own
sense of style. Sometimes theyre rough and rugged; sometimes theyre
dressed and all duded up (1997: 33). The cowboy shirt really comes
alive: I look at cowboy shirts as treasures, the ones with pearl snaps
and fringe, embroidery and piping, the real rodeo shirts (1997: 31).
Cape Cod and Nantucket also exert an inuence on his imagination of
an American lifestyle:
I go to Nantucket every summer with my family. Its a T-shirt and chinos kind of place.
I love the pastimes of New England: We ride bicycles, play tennis, go boating, and
have clambakes and parties on the beach. Its all white picket fences, green grass, blue
sky, beige sand. The combinations of these colors and the laid-back, sporty feeling
of the lifestyle have been very inspiring to me (1997: 20).
The New England references allow Hilger to incorporate upper-class
elements to a style largely drawing on more inclusive middle-class motifs.
There are also the monuments which symbolize America: the Statue of
Liberty, the Empire State Building, and Mount Rushmore. Hilger says,
Whenever I look at the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, Mt.
Rushmore, whenever I see a pair of blue jeans or a 65 Mustang, I realize
that these are all icons that make me proud to be an American (1997:
18). The service station and diner are singled out as true American places.
A service-station attendant wearing navy pants and a light-blue shirt
stitched with his name conveys an honest masculinity (1997: 97).
Hilger mentions several types of automobiles and vehicles, among
them the 65 Mustang, fties cars, the Cadillac, and motorcycles. He
says, America is a car culture (1997: 26) and the jazzy styling of old
cars is pure Americana (1997: 29). The car, he tells us, has always
inuenced fashion. In the 1950s, everything was aerodynamic, from
Elvis Presleys hair to the ns of the Cadillac (1997: 28).
Hilger speaks of American consumer products and their logos with
pride. Heinz, Coca-Cola, Rufes, Lipton, and Hess get special mention.
Hilger fondly recalls: We ate all the American grocery store brands:
Campbells soup, Jiffy peanut butter . . . Ritz Crackers, Ring Dings, Host-
ess Twinkies (1997: 4). And of a job in his youth he says, I remember
feeling very proud wearing my uniform with the big Hess logo on the
back (1997: 9). This pride in things American continued as he matured:
When I started to travel the world, I saw the fruits of American labor
everywhere I went, the products and logos that are the trademarks of our
industry and our culture (1997: 19). Hilgers America is, for the most
part, a comfortable and an uncomplicated place.
There are certain types of people that Hilger wishes to call our attention
to. They are workers who wear uniforms, military personnel (Navy and
Army), cowboys, and Ivy League students. (In this particular book women
do not yet t prominently in Tommy Hilgers conception of America.
The womens division starts in-house in 1998.) Anything having to do
with NAVY is an emotional turn-on, says Hilger. I love aircraft car-
riers, sailors lined up, and American ags billowing in the wind (1997:
82). The college man with his Ivy League look: chinos, madras, oxford
cloth shirts appealed to Hilger while growing up in Elmira, New York.
I wanted to look rich, and I wanted to look cool, he states (1997: 9).
It is perhaps signicant to note that the only artist Hilger mentions
is Norman Rockwell, the quintessential American artist. Norman
Rockwells imagery not only is very genuine, but also has a real sense
of humor, Hilger explains (1997: 22-23).
Green points out that in France an unabashed pride in French goods
is connected with the identication of those goods with a national char-
acter imbued with artistic sense (1997: 108). The French discourse of
fashion privileges the individual over the masses, differentiation
over imitation (1997: 116) and art over industry, she notes (1997:
111). In the late nineteenth century ready-to-wear mens clothes were
spoken of in moral termsto civilize or reform the masses who
did not possess the gentlemans qualities (1997: 77). French academic
mile Levasseur, in a turn of the nineteenth-century investigation of
the American worker, noted with interest how American democracy
had extended to clothing. He attributed standardization in clothing to
a classless society, but the price to be paid, he thought, was good
taste (1997: 109). This American democracy that Levasseur claims
for clothing was rst pointed out by another French scholar, Alexis de
Tocqueville, as the American commitment to egalitarianism versus a
self-presentation based on rank. The absence of an aristocratic rank-
ing order manifested itself in everyday life where both the relatively
wealthy and the working person interacted with great ease, according
to Tocqueville. In clothing this was manifested as an absence of blatant
distinctions in style and form.
Hilger contributes to a certain type of American fashion discourse.
Concentrating on this book written in 1997 we have seen that he markets
to the masses, yet privileges a certain kind of elite individual. One with
whom status seeking individuals might identifythe wealthy, New Eng-
land, white, Protestant male. We do not nd him named, but we see him in
various incarnations, and we nd allusions to him in the text. This is the
prototype on which all else is based: his hip-hop styles and his upscale,
new H Hilger line. This individual does not have to be white, indeed,
Hilger selects non-white models too, but in some sense they share
this New England heritage. Hilgers text articulates an all-American
discourse. It is one that embraces conformitythings that are familiar
are comfortable and goodyet it allows for individuality, democratic
expression, and even opposition to established norms. Such is the nature
of fashion: it is a paradox of inclusiveness and exclusivity, of obedience
and disruption. The ideal American male that Hilger presents in this
book can have fun, listen to rock and roll, be a hip-hop star, compete
with other males in sports, ght in wars (everything we are told is really
on the surface: he can be, through fashion, whoever he wants to be), but
at the base, perhaps, he is a New England gentleman. Although Hilger
seems to lean in a more liberal direction, it is notable that Hilger does
not take any denite political position in terms of demonstrating afliation
with a political party, for example. Hilgers fashion discourse becomes
one that strives to achieve a particular American ideal by assimilating a
variety of practices and attitudes.
Tommy Hilger Fashion as Social Representation
For Hilger, America provides a motif that can be used to create
a coherent identity for his brand. As we have seen, certain aspects of
American culture are privileged by Hilger, others are ignored. Hilger
draws selectively from many possible themes, ideas, activities, places,
personalities, etc. Broadway theater, Miami Beach, Disney World, the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bill Cosby, Ernest Hemingway, George
Washington, and pokerthese are recognizable features of the Ameri-
can cultural landscape not selected by Hilger in his book, American
Style. Hilger is a patron of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and has
contributed to many New York institutions, he also might be season
subscriber to the New York City Ballet. However, these identications
do not gure into the representation of America that Hilger constructs.
Rather, certain kinds of sports, places, things, and institutionssuch as
baseball, football, racing, surng, the American West, 1950s cars, the
Statue of Liberty, the Ivy League, the Army, the Navyare components
drawn from the American cultural landscape that do have a signicance
that Hilger wishes to identify with.
In selectively choosing certain elements of American life or of the
American collective conscience and citing them as points of interest and
inspiration, Hilger is assembling what becomes a social representation,
not only of America but of his brand.
We see that Hilger, as cultural arbiter, works to produce a coherent
American identityan ideal type. This is nicely represented by a col-
lage he has created entitled fresh American style. In the summer of
2005 a poster version was distributed to employees along with a brand
book, which represented both visually and textually the brands DNA,
as the book states. The poster shows the fty states, Hawaii, and Puerto
Rico each with a particular image drawn from Tommy Hilger ads.
All models, with the exception of two or three who seem to be reect-
ing on something, are smiling or laughing and are engaged in some
activity. While it is a collage, it is also a map of the United Statesa
coherent American landscape. If we refer to the Tommy Hilger fresh
American style brand book we can locate the representation or the
ideal type that Hilger has distilled for employees. He arrives at this
point of determination by comparison to other designers and setting
himself apart from them, thereby clarifying his own position textually,
visually, and through his interactions. This is his way of relating in the
world to others. Tommy Hilger is fresh classics. On a continuum
from modern edgy at the top of the page, to traditional timeless at
the bottom of the page, Hilger falls in the exact middle with Calvin
Klein just above him and Nautica, described as sporty casual, directly
below him. Tommy Hilger is juxtaposed with Donna Karan, who is
summed up as urban sophisticated; Calvin Klein, sleek chic; and
nally (at the very bottom on the traditional timeless axis) Ralph
Lauren, who is labeled country club aspiration. The book continues
to elaborate on the meaning of Tommy Hilger, pairing words with
images. On one page we read the phrase aspirational, timeless and
real, and across from it we see a young couple laughing and embrac-
ing, perhaps, judging by their preppy clothing, on the campus of an
Ivy League university. Upon further reection they are too well put
together to really be on that campus but that image is still powerfully
conveyed. We are told on the following pages that Tommy Hilger is
colorful, full of life, he represents family, smiling, comfortable,
and gives attention to details, rooted in classics, quality. These
denitive statements are followed by statements and images setting
this against oppositional categories. We see Paris Hilton in a Guess ad
with her famous little dog that she replaced because it put on too much
weight. Hilton, heavily made-up and reclining in a seductive position
with the dog in her lap is paired with the words trendy, cheap, posed.
On the next page we nd another oppositional pair: an expressionless
model, hunched over, wearing black clothing and a hat decorated with
bright yellow feathers. She is carrying a Prada handbag and is coupled
with the words modern, unapproachable. Finally we see tattooed
and pieced men who are labeled aloof and humorless.
This identity he creates becomes associated with his name, bringing
together select images under the brand; or in a shorthand form, under
the Tommy Hilger logo. The identity of the brand or the Hilger
representation is announced by various means. Advertisements use
signicant symbols referring back to the types of themes that com-
prise the representation. The product is positioned in a certain way in
stores, with the aid of props such as banners and signage. The clothes
and products themselves contain elements of the representation, for
instance, the ag-like logo. Clothing may have stylistic features that
are direct references to a certain sport, such as rugby.
The most direct ways in which these representations will be pre-
sented are at fashion shows. At such events, after being exposed to
the entire collection, the press and buyers will pick up the essential
message through the clothing itself and through props used to aug-
ment the collection. The runway provides a dynamic staging of the
brands identity. What appears in stores may be modied to appeal to
a wider range of consumers. Within the brand will be various shades
of the overall or master representation. The Tommy line is geared to
juniors, mostly teenagers and young adults. The Tommy line, represented
by the T logo with a star on either side, presents a more youthful, play-
ful attitude. Often Tommy is written across shirts for young women,
perhaps in pink sequins or with glitter. The H Hilger collections, on the other
hand, are intended for a more mature, and well-to-do audience. This line has
the H Hilger label within the clothing. From the label itself one receives the
message that the clothing ts within the Hilger brand but occupies a distinct
place different from Tommy jeans, for example.
Kevin Roberts, CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi Worldwide, relates what
is meant by the concept of the representation to fashion in particular
when he says, All great brands are built when the equity of a brandits
personality, attributescan be boiled into a sentence, a picture [and
cast] in emotional terms, particularly in fashion (Seckler, 10/20/04:
10). Hilger, in his designs, discourse, and self-presentation, within
the rm and in public, is skilled in creating effective representations.
The exaggeration within the representation of the brand that Hilger
constructs, the magnication of certain elements, and the elimination
of all ambiguity creates a simulacrumimages that are more real than
that to which they refer.
Reecting on Hilgers overall message we can say that it does coexist
easily with democracy, as Lipovetsky has argued for fashion in general.
In Hilgers universe there are no politics or ideas that become so dened
as to align themselves with political parties. There are people enjoying
life and they are happy to allow others to do so. Those who do not t
within Hilgers worldthe Goth for instanceare simply ignored, or
if at all noticed they are used as a means of comparison. They do not
get labeled as deviant, they do not gure in prominently enough to be
bothersome, and there is certainly no need to obliterate those who do
not subscribe to the same mythology. The core value of the Tommy
Hilger Group, as expressed in the brand book under the heading of At
Tommy Hilger We Believe In, is sufciently vague so as not to offend
or exclude anyone:
The values embodied
In the American dreamoptimism,
Determination and success
Having fun and enjoying life
Helping others succeed
Treating people with respect
Being a genuine company.
The message is one of unity. Fashion and the media in general, says
Lipovetsky, educates the public about the ethos of community. Of
the media, he says, They diffuse in large doses the standard of peace-
ful conversation, a nonviolent model of sociability. We nd an endless
dialogue and the exchange of arguments which serve to produce an
ideal of civility. Outrageous polemics and uncontrolled aggressivity
are disallowed (1994: 202). Lipovetsky goes further, seeing fashion as
providing the foundation of liberal democracy, replacing History as a
forward moving force in the Hegelian sense, dismantling established
practices, and creating tolerance, relativism, and, indeed, an indiffer-
ence. Fashions empire, as Lipovetsky calls it, stands in opposition to
the neoconservatism of fundamentalist groups in America that seek to
reintroduce the hyper orthodox religious spirit of another age and the
orthodox dogmas of the left calling for unswerving submission to the
correct line, total personal commitment ... renunciation of the self in
favor of revolution, nation, and party. Both poles, largely neutralized
in Lipovetskys view by fashion, are equally threatening to personal
autonomy (1994: 219, 204).
277
7
Epilogue
In all organized human societies, clothing has been used to manifest
identities and constitute social relations. Human beings appear to others
not naked but with some form of adornment. These adornments are not
arbitrarily chosen. Sometimes they are imposed on people on the basis of
social and cultural signicance, in other cases they are chosen by people
for the purpose of projecting a certain identity. Clothing is a exible form
of adornment that allows different meanings to be created by variations
in cut, shape, length, fabric, and various other stylistic details.
The importance of clothing and later of fashion, not only as a prop
in constructing an appearance but as an actual manifestation of social
categories and their hierarchies, has been approached in various ways
by social theorists. Five main ways in which fashion has been dealt
with in the sociological literature have been discussed: fashion as an
instrument for creating and maintaining boundaries in society, fashion
as an interactional process, fashion as a semiotic system, fashion as a
capitalist tool, and fashion as postmodern text. The rst category, rep-
resenting a way scholars have understood the role of fashion in society
is the most fundamental. It describes the reason fashion exists and its
primary purpose. Although we see historical and cultural differences
when applying Simmels and Bourdieus theories to a contemporary
American context, signs of distinction and their use to legitimate power,
authority, or privilege remain a feature of all human societies. The second
category refers to its actual use by people and the possibility for various
forms of interpretation above and beyond what is marketed by various
corporations or as is dened by society. In the practice and performance
of fashion, then, we see responses ranging from forms of acceptance
to forms of resistance. The semiotic approach focuses on the structural
details that are manifest in such visual or textual presentations. The ability
to creatively respond to whatever agenda may be attached to fashionto
redene symbols and the categories to which they are attachedmust
always be considered.
As fashion reaches a mass audience other changes in society have
already occurred. Social regulations and customs that dictated how one
was to appear loosen as a merchant class grows in inuence and later
as a middle class establishes itself. When a system of dress no longer
corresponds strictly to ones status and when status is not exclusively
ascribed fashion develops. Once clothing becomes fashion, it moves
toward becoming a major industry; its products are produced on a global
scale by large companies such as the Tommy Hilger Group.
Hilger came on the scene at a time when fashion for younger men
at the middle-price range was ripe for new ideas. Able to see an exciting
and potentially lucrative area in sportswear in which he could innovate,
and successful in harnessing the media on his behalf, Hilger quickly
became one of the big players in the menswear industry. In doing so,
Hilger had to be sensitive to the social and cultural climate, to combine
this intuitive sense with his own design visions, and to translate these
ideas into actual clothing designs. Hilger would have to take account
of the production processes available to him so that his designs could be
made overseas at a cost that would allow him to compete in the market.
And, of course, he had to secure nancing from venture capitalists who
would be persuaded that such an endeavor would yield sufcient prot.
Once the foundation was in place, Hilger would have to manufacture,
deliver, and market his products. Eventually he would broaden his offer-
ings, reaching into areas well beyond menswear on his quest to become a
multichannel global brand; later he would rethink the direction in which
he had taken the brand.
Thus, to succeed this creative and business sense had to be accom-
panied by charismatic leadership. This leadership allowed Hilger to
attract talented others to him early onto get them to see things from his
perspective and manage a diverse workforce spread out across the globe.
This charisma allows Hilger to secure a high-level of regard from oth-
ers and a belief that these feelings are held in kind. Even when there are
conicts, Hilger manages to maintain esteem amongst employeesif
in no other way than as a valuable afliation to be traded with future
employers, and others in the industry. Hilger seems to have had a total
dedication to succeeding in any way that was possible.
The charismatic authority of Hilger pervaded the entire organiza-
tion. As we have seen, Hilger provides a vision for the rm, inspires
employees, and imparts charisma (a symbolic significance based
Epilogue 279
on elements of his persona) on the products sold. Hilger uses various
tangible and symbolic means to establish and maintain his charisma.
Routinized practices within the rm, such as the company newsletter
and company events, are designed in part to reinforce his status. Hil-
ger also achieves a pure form of charisma through relationships and
interpersonal interactions at meetings and company events. This latter
form of charisma, I have argued, is particularly necessary in an industry
where individuals are charged with creating and promoting the products
of a particular individual. Hilger presented himself as a friendly and
accessible gure to his employees and did not, as many other principal
designers in fashion rms, stand on ceremony. There was a systematic
attempt to dissolve hierarchy and deal with employees on a more or less
egalitarian basis. In a corporation of this size it is of course not possible
to dissolve hierarchy, but attempts in this direction are made, and these
attempts or ideals are recognized by employees. As the rm begins to
move in a more bureaucratic direction there is a longing for a return to
the way things used to be. Hilger is almost uniformly described by
employees as genuine and caring. He appears to be held in admiration
and in awe by many. The work environment, even by those who have
pointed out problem areas, is described as collegial and acceptingnot
as divisive. This is especially evident when TH is compared to other
rms in the industry where high levels of hostility and competitiveness
characterize the organizational cultures. The result of constructing this
egalitarian ideal type organizational culture is a high degree of loyalty
and dedication.
Charismatic leadership is an important element that potentially can
bind the people in a rm together. There are many different types of
charismatic leadership in fashion rms, ranging from the tyrannical to
the collegial. These styles of leadership will set the rms tone, contribute
to its culture, and create different types of aspirations among members
of the rm.
Hilger uses his charisma to infuse the brand with a particular meaning
and to build and expand his offerings to an audience that will be receptive
to his claims. This has been compared to the way in which sacraments,
benedictions, etc. can be said to be infused with the spirit of the religious
leader long after he/she is no longer present. In the fashion world, this is
achieved by way of a designer logo or label stamped on reproductions
of various designs approved by Hilger. Hilgers charisma is extended
through strategic licensing agreements. As such, Hilger has positioned
himself in a way that allows him to cover a variety of price points and
license his name to specialists, while at the same time maintaining cre-
ative control over products bearing his name.
Clearly, Hilger and the other designers considered in this book
did not achieve success on their own. The American fashion industry
is entrepreneurial and commercial; this requires that it be a collective
endeavor. Designers surround themselves with competent people in the
fashion industry: other designers and experts in various areas such as
licensing, production, and marketing. Designers are an integral part of
Hilgers operations, and, as such, time has been devoted to exploring
their unique role.
Following the European couturiers, only a few designers have been
able to achieve recognition on their own, even when after the 1960s
the fashion designer began to take on celebrity status in the U.S. Most
designers work anonymously behind the label of a well-known designer
or name-brand corporate entity. As Crane and McRobbie have pointed
out in their research on designers, often this occurs at the expense
of the designers own agencyif not actual economic and emotional
well-being.
Even as designers are somewhat constrained by bureaucratic bound-
aries and there are elements of dysfunction in every rm, they are on
the front lines of the creative process. The work designers do and the
talents they bring to these endeavors qualify them as artist craftspersons
and as cultural arbiters in their own right. They shape and provide the
articles of clothing that people use to dene their identities in relation to
relevant social categories. These fashion objects are subject to the gaze
of a variety of people: fellow designers, members of the organization,
potential buyers, the media, bloggers, and eventually consumers. In
undertaking these tasks the designer becomes a cultural arbiter, relating
attributes of their designs (material, pattern, silhouette, color) to social
indicators and providing direction to the public on matters of taste and
self-presentation. They both draw elements from the culture as well
as contributing to the creation of new elements. They give shape and
direction to society. Most designers, be they the master or principal
designer in a large corporation or the assistant designer working in
a team of many other designers, do not accomplish this task on their
own. Fashion design is a collective endeavor requiring the contribution
of many individuals. It is an occupational role played in a work system
that resembles in some ways the guild system of the Middle Ages. This
work system was organized with a master designer and a number of
apprentices in place.
Epilogue 281
Even though the creative vision of an individual designer is necessar-
ily constricted by the nature of their work and by the corporations they
work for, they nd their work to be rewarding and approach their career
as a true vocation. Designers are able, for the most part, to successful
adapt to the organizational environment they nd themselves in and to
realistically assess the situation. In fact, designers use their careers as
a means of building cultural capital, which can be transferred to other
companies when and if necessary. This cultural capital is reected by the
talents and the skills that they actively build and develop as well as by
the networks they establish with others in the profession in the absence
of any organization representing their interests.
Fashion remains, despite its democratic embrace, a vehicle that marks
distinctions and displays class privilege, power, group membership, and
personal expression. Therefore in some circles, Old Navy may convey
status while in others the bar is set at Armani or Chanel. That individu-
als have agency is crucial not only to the emergence of fashion versus a
more or less static system of clothing as uniforms, but also in providing
alternatives to a situation where people are simply colonized subjects.
Hilger, it can be argued, has provided in his brand an invitation to people
far and wide to participate in a collective American identity. Hilger
continues to speak to an all-embracing optimism that some people still
see as the American dream. As long as a certain degree of movement
between classes and individual choice between styles of expression are
possible, fashion will remain a crucial means by which people negotiate
their identities.
All of this may not bode well for those who are interested in another
type of agencyone that perhaps does not buck the system in a very
Polo, very John Varvatos way, as one fashion writer puts it (Trebay 2004:
B10). Lipovetsky argues that fashion may have insinuated itself to such a
degree in society that it is the force moving democracy. Through fashion
we see the ways in which people struggle to redene situations and ne-
gotiate existing boundaries and how individual rms and the industry as
a whole contribute to this discourse. Thus, in paying attention to fashion
much can be learned about the human condition, as sociologists such as
Simmel have long told us. Through fashion we are provided a window
to and perhaps an escape from the current state of society.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
References
Abboud, Joseph; with Stern, Ellen. 2004. Threads: My Life Behind the Seams in the
High-Stakes World of Fashion. New York: Harper Collins.
Abernathy, Frederick H.; Dunlop, John T.; Hammond, Janice H.; Weil, David; Bresnashan,
Timothy F.; and Pashigian, Peter B. 1995. The Information-Integrated Channel: A
Study of the U.S. Apparel Industry in Transition. Microeconomics: Brookings Papers
on Economic Activity (1995): 175-246.
Agins, Teri. Fashion Redesigner. Wall Street Journal (February 6, 2006): B1, B4.
. Whats New in Spring Fashion? Talk of the Nation. National Public Radio. Radio
program hosted by Michael Martin, April 2, 2006, 2:00-3:00 PM.
. Style and Substance. Mainstreaming Hip-Hop; Combs Sean John Sets Move
into Womens High Fashion with Big Stake in Zac Posen. Wall Street Journal (April
20, 2004): B1.
. Spring Fashion. Shopping for a Change. Wall Street Journal (March 5, 2004):
W1.
. Wearing Thin: For Marc Jacobs, A Hot Partnership; Designer Who Helped Revive
Louis Vuitton Line Wants More Help with His Own; A Tussle over the Murakami.
The Wall Street Journal (February 9, 2004): A1.
. Fashions Silent Partners. Wall Street Journal (November 21, 2003): B1, B6.
. Spring Fashion. Dark Times, Bright Colors. Wall Street Journal (March 7,
2003): W1, W9.
. 1999. The End of Fashion: How Marketing Changed the Clothing Business Forever.
Collingdale, PA: Diane Publishing Company.
Agins, Teri; and Galloni, Alessandra. Brooks Brothers Italian Job. Wall Street Journal
(June 23, 2003): B1, B3.
Agins, Teri; and Lublin, Joanne. Tommy Hilger to Name Lands End Chief as Next
CEO. Wall Street Journal (August 4, 2003): B1, B6.
Appelbaum, Richard P.; Smith, David; and Christerson, Brad. 1994. Commodity Chains
and Industrial Restructuring in the Pacic Rim: Garment Trade and Manufacturing.
In Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, edited by Gary Geref and Miguel
Korzeniewicz, 187-204. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Armani, Giorgio. The Clothes Really Do Make the Man. CBS Sunday Morning TV
show hosted by Rita Braver (January 22, 2006).
Armytage, Mrs. Modern Dress. The New York Times (September 23, 1883): 11.
Ash, Juliet; and Wright, Lee. 1988. Components of Dress: Design, Marketing and Im-
age. London: Routledge.
Balestri, Andrea; and Ricchetti, Marco. 2000. Manufacturing Mens Wear: Masculine
Identity in the Structure of the Fashion Industry. In Material Man: Masculinity,
Sexuality, Style, edited by Gianinno Malossi, 52-63. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
. 1998. The Rationality of the Fashion Machine. In The Style Engine: Spectacle,
Identity, Design and Business: How the Fashion Industry Uses Style to Create Wealth,
edited by Gianinno Malossi, 159-175. New York: Monacelli Press, Inc.
Barboza, David. Textile Industry Seeks Trade Limits on Chinese. The New York Times
(July 25, 2003): C1, C6.
Barnard, Chester I. 1982. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Barthes, Roland. 1985. The Grain of the Voice: Interviews 1962-1980, translated by
Linda Coverdale. New York: Hill and Wang.
. 1983. The Fashion System, translated by Matthew Ward and Richard Howard.
New York: Hill and Wang.
. 1972. Mythologies, translated by Annette Lavers. New York: Hill and Wang.
Baudelaire, Charles. 1972. Selected Writings on Art and Literature, translated by P.E.
Charvet. London: Penguin.
Baudot, Francois. 1999. A Century of Fashion. New York: Universe Press.
Baudrillard, Jean. 2000. Symbolic Exchange and Death, translated by Iain Hamilton
Grant. London: Sage Publications.
. 1998. Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, translated by Chris Turner. Lon-
don: Sage Publications.
. 1994. Simulacra and Simulations, edited by Mark Poster. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Beatty, Sally. In Fashion World, the Anonymous Catch the Fabulous. Wall Street Journal
(September 17, 2003): A1, A8.
Becker, Howard. 1984. Art Worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Beckett, Whitney. Apparel Brands Relish World Cup Boost. Womens Wear Daily
(July 12, 2006): 2.
Belcove, Julie L. Letter from the Editors. Social Studies. W (January 2007): 32.
Bellafante, Ginia. Its Not Couture, Its Business (With Accessories). The New York
Times (June 18, 2006): 19.
Bendix, Reinhart. 1977. Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Berger, John. 1972. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books.
Best, Stephen; and Kellner, Douglas. 1991. Postmodern Theory. New York: Guilford
Publications.
Bettelheim, Bruno. Individual and Mass Behavior in Extreme Situations. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 38 (October 1943): 417-452.
Beverage Aisle. The Birth of Hip-Hop: As the Appeal of Hip-Hop Music and Culture
Spread, So Does Its Inuence on Beverage Marketers. Beverage Aisle Magazine
(December 15, 2003): 22.
Blum, Dilys E. 2004. Shocking! The Art and Fashion of Elsa Schiaparelli. New Haven,
CT: Philadelphia Museum of Art in association with Yale University Press.
Blumer, Herbert. 1968. Fashion. In International Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences V, edited by David Sills and Robert Merton, 341-345. New York: Macmil-
lan Company.
Bormann, Ernest G. 1984. Symbolic Convergence: Organizational Communication
and Culture. In Communication and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach,
edited by Linda Putnam and Michael E. Pacanowsky, 99-122. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction, translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bowers, Katherine. Fashion Returns to Bostons MFA. Womens Wear Daily
(November 10, 2006): 14.
Bowlby, Rachel. 1985. Just Looking: Consumer Culture in Dreiser, Gissing, and Zola.
New York: Methuen.
Braudel, Fernand. 1979. Civilization and Capitalism 15th-18th Century Vol. I: The
Structures of Everyday Life, translated and revised by Sian Reynolds. New York:
Harper and Row.
References 285
Breward, Christopher. 2003. Fashion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 1995. The Culture of Fashion: A New History of Fashionable Dress. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Brooke, Iris; and Laver, James. 2000. English Costume from the Seventeenth Century
through the Nineteenth Centuries. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
Brubach, Holly. Ralph Laurens Achievement. New Yorker 63 (April): 70-73.
Buckman, Rebecca. Apparels Loose Thread. Wall Street Journal (March 22, 2004):
B1, B8.
Burawoy, Michael. 1979. Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under
Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burns, James McGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Cappelli, Peter. 1999. The New Deal at Work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Carducci, Vince. Condence Games on Canal Street: The Market for Knockoffs in New
York City. Consumers, Commodities, & Consumption 6 (May 2005): 2, or online at
https://netles.uiuc.edudtcook/www/cccnewsletter/6-2/Carducci.html.
. 2003. The Aura of the Brand. Radical Society 30, 3 & 4: 29-50.
Carreyrou, John; and Galloni, Alessandra. Guccis Stars Seek Autonomy, Threaten to
Bolt. Wall Street Journal (March 6, 2003): B1, B5.
Castiglioni, Baldesar. 1528/1959. The Book of the Courtier. Garden City, NY: Anchor
Books.
Chanel. Visionary. Website, 2007: http://chanel.com/info/inside/media/visionary.
php.
Chozick, Amy. Sponsors Strut Over to Fashion Shows; Marketers Turn to Runways
to Tap Into Trendsetters, As IMG Arranges Events. Wall Street Journal (June 8,
2006): B6.
Christensen, Roland C. and Rikert, David C. Nike (B). Harvard Business School
(March 3, 1999).
Chun, Rene. Tommys Tumble. New York Magazine (February 12, 2001).
Clark, Evan. H Hilger to Leave Department Stores. Womens Wear Daily (February
3, 2005): 3.
. Claiborne Goes Small with Swe. Womens Wear Daily (February 25, 2004):
12.
. Hilgers Pay Falls to $22.4 Million. Womens Wear Daily (September 23,
2002): 2.
Cobrin, Harry A. 1970. The Mens Clothing Industry: Colonial through Modern Times.
New York: Fairchild Publications.
Cohen, Lizabeth. 2003. A Consumers Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in
Postwar America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Cole, Kenneth. Lecture at the Fashion Institute of Technology. New York, November
2003.
. 2003. Footnotes. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Collins, James C.; and Porras, Jerry I. 1997. Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary
Companies. New York: HarperCollins.
Collins, Randall; and Makowsky, Michael. 1992. The Discovery of Society. New York:
Random House.
Conger, Jay A. 1991. The Charismatic Leader: Behind the Mystique of Exceptional
Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publications.
Conger, Jay A.; and Kanungo, Rabindra N. Charismatic Leadership in Organizations:
Perceived Behavioral Attributes and Their Measurement. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 15 (1994): 439-452.
. Towards a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational
Settings. Academy of Management Review 12 (1987): 637-647.
Contentmart.com. Fall/Winter Fashions for Teens 2004-2005. Website, January 20,
2005: contentmart.com/ContentMart/content.asp?linkID=25250&catlb=13&conte
nt=1.
Conti, Samantha. 2006. Lauren in the Centre. Womens Wear Daily (June 22, 2006):
3.
Contini, Mila. 1965. Fashion from Ancient Egypt to the Present Day. New York:
Odyssey.
Cosmetics International. Beyonce to Add Bounce to Hilger Sales. (May 7, 2004):
18.
Costantino, Maria. 1997. Mens Fashion in the Twentieth Century. From Frock Coats to
Intelligent Fibres. New York: Costume and Fashion Press.
Coons, Crystal. Interview: Fashion Designer Christy Fisher. About.com: http://teen-
fashion.about.com/cs/insidefashion/a/qnasher_p.htm.
Crains New York Business. Book of Lists. New York Areas Largest Publicly Held
Companies. Ranked by Annual Revenues. Vol. XXI, 52 (December 29, 2005): 21.
Crane, Diana. 2000. Fashion and Its Social Agendas: Class, Gender, and Identity in
Clothing. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
. Fashion Design and Social Change: Women Designers and Stylistic Innovation.
Journal of American Culture 22, 1 (Spring 1999): 61-68.
. 1993. Fashion Design As An Occupation: A Cross-National Approach. In
Creators of Culture, Current Research on Occupations 8, edited by Cheryl L. Zollars
and Muriel Goldsmith Cantor, 55-73. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cuff, Diana. 1991. Architecture: The Story of Practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Cunningham, Thomas; Lockwood, Thomas; and Young, Vicki M. With H Hilger,
Tommy Courts Fresh Market. Daily News Record (August 11, 2003): 1.
Curan, Catherine M. Hilger Eyes September 96 Entry for Womens Line. (November
2, 1994): 14.
Daily News Record. Penneys Has High Hopes for New Brand. (February 5, 2007):
16.
. Hot Stuff. (September 15, 2003): 6.
Daria, Irene. 1990. The Fashion Cycle. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Datamonitor. Tommy Hilger Corporation. Company Prole. Website, 2003.
. Tommy Hilger Corporation. Company Prole. Website, 2004.
Davis, Fred. 1992. Fashion, Culture, and Identity. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Davis, Howard; and Scase, Richard. 2000. Managing Creativity: The Dynamics of Work
and Organization. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Defoe, Daniel. 1722/2003. The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders.
New York: Penguin Classics.
De la Renta, Oscar. Lecture at the Fashion Institute of Technology. New York, 1985.
de Saint-Exupry, Antoine. 1971. Petit Prince, translated by Richard Howard. New
York: Harcourt Inc.
Dickerson, Kitty. 1995. Textiles and Apparel in the Global Economy. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
DiMaggio, Paul J.; and Powell, Walter W. 1991. The Iron Cage Revisited:
Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. In The New
Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by Walter W. Powell and Paul J.
DiMaggio, 63-82. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
References 287
Dolkart, Andrew S. History of the Garment Industry Lecture. Unpublished paper
(November 3, 1998): 37-46.
Dowd, Maureen. Slacking on Slacks. New York Times (June 11, 2003): A31.
Drake, Alicia. 2006. The Beautiful Fall: Lagerfeld, Saint Laurent, and Glorious Excess
in 1970s Paris. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Drew, Linda. 1992. The Business of Fashion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dumenco, Simon. Losing His Shirts. New York Magazine. (July 17, 2000): http://newy-
orkmag.com/nymetro/news/policies/columns/citypolitic/3525.
Durington, Matthew. Visualizing Whiteness in Suburban Space. Paper delivered at the
American Anthropological Association Meeting. December 2, 1998.
Earle, Alice Morse. 1903/1970. Two Centuries of Costume in America: 1620-1820 II.
New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Edelson, Sharon. Populist Movement. Womens Wear Daily (December 12, 2006):
6.
Edwards, Tim. 1997. Men in the Mirror. Mens Fashion, Masculinity and Consumer
Society. London: Cassell.
Ellis, Kristi. Commerce Report Unsatisfactory for Textile Executives. Womens Wear
Daily (January 20, 2004): 2.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1961. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power,
Involvement, and Their Correlates. New York: Free Press.
Fashionazi.com. Website: http://fashionazi.com/fashionazi/stale2.sthml.
Fashion Victim: The Killing of Gianni Versace. Documentary. 2001: Wellspring.
Feingold, Henry L. 2002. Zion in America: The Jewish Experience from Colonial Times
to Present. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
Feldman, Steven P. How Organizational Culture Can Affect Innovation. In The Psy-
chodynamics of Organizations, edited by Larry Hirschhorn and Carole K. Barnett,
85-97. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1993.
Finkelstein, Joan. 1998. Fashion: An Introduction. New York: New York University
Press.
. 1991. The Fashioned Self. London: Polity Press.
Finn, Robin. Public Lives. Red, White and Blue, Before It Was Fashionable. The New
York Times (December 13, 2001): D2.
Flugal, John Carl. 1930/1976. The Psychology of Clothes. New York: AMS Press.
Foege, Alec. Playboy Interview: Tommy Hilger. Playboy (October 1997): 59, 60,
65, 66, 68, 172-174, 177.
Foley, Bridget. Megabrands. W (January 4, 2004): 22.
Footwear News. High Hopes for H; as H Hilger Apparel Blows Out of Stores, is
Footwear Poised to Do the Same? (April 26, 2004): 26.
Ford, Cameron M. A Theory of Individual Creative Action in Multiple Social Domains.
The Academy of Management Review, 21, 4 (1996): 1112-1142.
Forden, Sara Gay. 2001. House of Gucci: A Sensational Story of Murder. New York:
Perennial.
Fortini, Amanda. How the Runway Took Off. A Brief History of the Fashion Show.
Slate.com (February 8, 2006): http://www.slate.com/id/2135561/.
Frank, Thomas. 1997. The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and the
Rise of Hip Consumerism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Frankel, Susannah. 2001. Visionaries: Interviews With Fashion Designers. London: V
& A Publications.
Francis, Arlene. How Much Should Men Dress? New York Times (September 23, 1953):
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=2&did=92745137&SrchMode=1&sid=3
&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=117261
8243&clientId=15372.
Gabriel, Yiannis. 1998. Same Old Stories? Folklore Modern and Postmodern
Mutations. In Discourse and Organizations, edited by David Grant, Tom Keenoy,
and Cliff Oswick, 84-103. London: Sage Publications.
Gallagher, Leigh. Bling-Bling Ka-Ching. Forbes (July 7, 2003): http://www.forbes.
com/free_forbes/2003/0707/088.html
Galloni, Alessandra. Versace Designs a Turnaround to Keep Image, Independence.
Wall Street Journal (June 20, 2003 ): A3.
Galloni, Alessandra and Christina Passariello. Boss Talk: Armanis One-Man Brand;
Designer/CEO, 71 Ponders Future of His fashion Empire. Wall Street Journal (April
10, 2006): B1.
Gamber, Wendy. 1997. The Female Economy: The Millinery and Dressmaking Trades.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Gartman, David. Culture As Class Symbolization or Mass Reication? A Critique of
Bourdieus Distiction. The American Journal of Society 97, 2 (September 1991):
421-447.
Gellers, Stan. The New Wow Factor: Color! Daily News Record (March 29, 2004):
16.
. Look Whos Going to Blazers. Daily News Record (March 15, 2004): 17.
. Urban Maneuvers; Outwear is of Two Minds for Fall 05, as Even the Most Casual
Variety Gets Slicked up for Town. Daily News Record (November 15, 2004): 24.
. Mr. X: Dressing Him Up and Down. Daily News Record (August 2, 2004):
17.
George, Nelson. 1999. Hip Hop America. New York: Penguin.
Georgiades, Andy. Retailer H&M is Set to Open Stores in Canada. Wall Street Journal
(March 10, 2004): B4.
Geref, Gary. The Organization of Buyer Driven Global Commodity Chains: How U.S.
Retailers Shape Overseas Production Networks. In Commodity Chains and Global
Capitalism, edited by Gary Geref and Miguel Korzeniewicz, 95-122. Westport,
CT: Praeger, 1994.
Geref, Gary; and Korzeniewicz, Miguel, eds. 1994. Commodity Chains and Global
Capitalism. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Givhan, Robin. Hot Under the Collar: Always His Own Man, Karl Lagerfeld is Now
Aiming to Be His Own Brand. The Washington Post (April 17, 2006): C1.
Goffman, Erving. 1979. Gender Advertisements. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
. Symbols of Class Status. The British Journal of Sociology 2, 4 (December
1951): 294-304.
Goldmann, Lucien. 1973. Genetic Structuralism in the Sociology of Literature. In
Sociology of Literature and Drama: Selected Readings, edited by Elizabeth and Tom
Burns. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Goldstein, Lauren. Survival of the Independents. Time Europe (2003): http://www.
time.com/time/eutope/fashion/independents.html.
Gordon, Sarah A. 2001. Any Desired Length. Negotiating Gender Through Sports
Clothing, 1870-1925. In Beauty and Business: Commerce, Gender, and Culture in
Modern America, edited by Philip Scraton, 24-51. London: Routledge.
Gorsline, Douglas. 1952. What People Wore; A Visual History of Dress From Ancient
Times to Twentieth Century America. New York: Viking Press.
Graham, David. Muscling in on Gucci. Toronto Star (October 7, 2004): E04.
Graham, Laurie. Inside a Japanese Transplant: A Critical Perspective. Work and
Occupations 20, 2 (1993): 139-173.
References 289
Gramsci, Antonio. 1973. Selections From the Prison Notebooks. New York: International
Publishers.
Gray, Ann. 1999. Audience and Reception Research in retrospect: The Trouble with
Audiences. In Rethinking the Media Audience the New Agenda, edited by Pertti Ala
Suutari, 22-37. London: Sage Publications.
Green, Nancy L. 1997. Ready to Wear and Ready to Work. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Greenberg, Julee. The Change Agent. (Paul Charron Leaves Liz Claiborne Inc.) Womens
Wear Daily (March 27, 2006): 6.
Grifths, Ian. 2000. The Invisible Man. In The Fashion Business: Theory, Practice,
Image, edited by Nicola White and Ian Grifths, 69-90. New York: Oxford.
Gross, Michael. 2003. Genuine Authentic: The Real Life of Ralph Lauren. New York:
Harper Collins Publishers.
Guy, Ali; Green, Eileen; and Banim, Maura, eds. 2001. Through the Wardrobe: Womens
Relationships With Their Clothes. Oxford: Berg.
Halkias, Maria. Department Stores Reacting to Dwindling Market Shares. The
Dallas Morning News (May 29, 2001): http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-
75007029.html.
Harrison, Bennett. 1994. Lean and Mean: The Changing Landscape of Corporate Power
in the Age of Flexibility. New York: Basic Books.
Harvey, David. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. London: Basil Blackwell.
Hauser, Arnold. 1985. The Social History of Art: Renaissance, Mannerism, Baroque 2.
New York: Vintage Books.
Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. New York: Routledge.
Helgerson, Richard. 1992. Forms of Nationhood. The Elizabethan Writings of England.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hilger, Tommy. 1999. Rock Style: How Fashion Moves to Music. With Anthony De-
Curtis. New York: Universe Press.
. Lecture at the Fashion Institute of Technology. New York. 1996.
Hilger, Tommy; with Keeps, David A. 1997. All American: A Style Book by Tommy
Hilger. New York: Universe Press.
Hirschberg, Lynn. 2002. Questions For Oscar de la Renta: The Substance of Style. The
New York Times Magazine (May 26, 2002): 15.
Hirschhorn, Larry. 1993. Professionals, Authority, and Group Life: A Case Study of a
Law Firm. In The Psychodynamics of Organizations, edited by Larry Hirschorn and
Carole K. Barnett. 67-84. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Hoard, Robert. Values make the company: An interview with Robert Haas. Harvard
Business Review (September-October, 1990): 134-143.
Hochschild, Arlie. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hollander, Ann. 1993. Seeing Through Clothes. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Holt, Douglas B. Brands and Branding. Harvard Business School (March 11, 2003).
9-503-045.
Homans, George C. 2003. The Hawthorne Experiments. In The Sociology of
Organizations: Classic and Contemporary Readings, edited by Michael J. Handel,
85-96. London: Sage Publications.
Horn, Marilyn J.; and Gurel, Lois M. 1981. The Second Skin: An Interdisciplinary Study
of Clothing. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifin.
Horyn, Cathy. Will Success at Gucci Be Sexy or Safe? The New York Times (March
30, 2006): G1.
. Guccis Choice for Designer Needs Sketches, and Charisma. The New York
Times (November 6, 2004): C1.
. Fashion Designers Bestow Some Ribbons on Themselves. The New York Times
(June 9, 2004): B2.
. For a Chief Gucci Reaches Into Frozen Foods. The New York Times (April 22,
2004): C1-C2.
. As Tom Ford Bows Out. The New York Times (March 8, 2004): B8.
. A Store Made For Right Now: You Shop Until Its Dropped. The New York Times
(February 17, 2004): A1.
. Struggling to Design the Future for Gucci. The New York Times (January 10,
2004): C1.
. 2 Key Figures in Guccis Turnaround are Quitting. The New York Times
(November 5, 2003): A1, C7.
. All the Pretty Clothes. And Then, Calvin Klein. The New York Times (September
16, 2003): B11.
. A Mizrahi Comeback, One More Time. The New York Times (June 24, 2003):
B7.
. At Saint Laurent, A Nod to Surrealism. The New York Times (October 9, 2002):
B9.
Houellebecg, Michel. 2006. The Possibility of an Island, translated by Gavin Bowd.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
House, Robert J.; and Sharmir, Boas. 1993. Toward the Integration of Transformational,
Charismatic, and Visionary Leadership. In Leadership: Perspectives and Research
Directions, edited by M. Chemers and R. Ayman, 81-107. New York: Academic
Press.
Howard, Robert. Values Make the Company: An Interview with Robert Haas. Harvard
Business Review (September-October 1990): 134-143.
Howarth, Peter. Dressing to the Right. The Observer Magazine (September 25, 2005):
observer.guardian.co.uk/style/story/0,,1577545,00.html.
Hunt, Alan. 1996. Governance of the Consuming Passions: A History of Sumptuary Law.
New York: St. Martins Press.
Jackall, Robert. 1988. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Jarnow, Jeannette; and Guerreiro, Miriam. 1991. Inside the Fashion Business. Fifth
Edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Jette, Julie. Tips to Reinvent the Department Store. Harvard Business School. Working
Knowledge for Business Leaders (April 18, 2005): 1-2.
Jones, Jennifer M. Repackaging Rousseau: Femininity in Old Regime France. French
Historical Studies 18, 4 (Autumn 1994): 939-967.
Jones, Rose Apodaca; and Medina, Marcy. Stars, Brands Wheel and Deal in Oscar
Rush. Womens Wear Daily (February 26, 2004): 3, 19.
Julian, Tom. Mens Fashion. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences &
ABC, website: http://oscars.com/style/men/.
Kaiser, Amanda and Bowers, Katherine. Smaller World; Go Global! Was a Rallying
Cry Heard More Often and in More Places. Womens Wear Daily (December 12,
2006): 13.
Kaiser, Susan B.; Nagasawa, Richard H.; and Hutton, Sandra S. Fashion, Postmoder-
nity and Personal Appearance: A Symbolic Interactionist Formulation. Symbolic
Interaction 14, 2 (Summer 1991): 165-195.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic
Books.
References 291
Karimzadeh, Marc. Karans Take on Fashion Design. Womens Wear Daily (April 25,
2006): 13.
Kaufman, Leslie. Aprs Yves, Le Deluge? The New York Times (January 20, 2002):
Section 9, 1.
Kawamura, Yuniya. 2004. The Japanese Revolution in Paris Fashion. Oxford: Berg
Publishers.
Khurana, Rakesh. 2002. Searching for a Corporate Savior: The Irrational Quest for a
Corporate Savior. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Kidwell, Claudia Brush. 1989. Gender Symbols of Fashionable Details? In Men
and Women: Dressing the Part, edited by Claudia Brush Kidwell and Valerie Steel,
124-143. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kletter, Melanie. Juniors Get the Jitters. Womens Wear Daily (July 13, 2000): 12.
Koehn, Nancy F. 2001. Brand New: How Entrepreneurs Earned Consumers Trust From
Wedgewood to Dell. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kunda, Gideon. 1992. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech
Corporation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Kuper, Hilda. Costume and Identity. Comparative Studies in Society and History 15,
3 (June 1973): 348-367.
La Ferla, Ruth. Tom Ford, Clothing Designer, Will Open Store of His Own. The New
York Times (February 28, 2006): C3.
. Bless This Mess. The New York Times (February 8, 2004): Sunday Styles, Sec-
tion 9 1, 6.
. Fashion. The New York Times (July 1, 2003): B7.
. Cheap Chic Draws Crowds on 5th Avenue. The New York Times (April 11,
2000): B11.
Lamons, Robert. George Lois and the Big Idea. Robert Lamons and Associates
(November 18, 1996): ads2biz.com/columns/000025.shtml.
Lapinsky, Ali. The Internals: My Internship at Polo Ralph Lauren. University Chic
(July 3, 2006): http://www.universitychic.com/node/474 .
Larson, Kristin. Designers Behind the Chains. Womens Wear Daily (May 7, 2003):
8.
Laver, James. 2002. A Concise History of Costume. London: Thames and Hudson.
. 1967. Fashion, Art, and Beauty in the Metropolitan Museum of Arts Bulletin
Vol. XXVI, 3.
Leach, William. 1993. Land of Desire: Merchants, Power and the Rise of a New American
Culture. New York: Pantheon Books.
Lee, Michelle. One Size Fits All in McFashion. The Observer (May 4, 2003): http://
books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,948949,00.html.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. Critique of Everyday Life. London: Verso.
Lehmann, Ulrich. 2000. Tigerspring: Fashion in Modernity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Leight, Michele. Style. Chanel. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. May 5 to August 7,
2005. The New Woman The City Review (2005): thecityreview.com/chanel4.html.
Levy, Ariel. Summer For the Sun Queen. New York Magazine (August 28, 2006):
50-52, 54.
Lieberson, Stanley. 2000. A Matter of Taste: How Names, Fashions, and Culture Change.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Little, Karen. Fake Designer Bags in New York City: Part I. Littleviews on New York
City (July 6, 2003): http://www.littleviews.com/home/newyork/fake_bags.cfm .
Lipovetsky, Gilles. 2005. Hypermodern Times, translated by Andrew Brown. New York:
Polity Press.
. 1994. The Empire of Fashion: Dressing Modern Democracy, translated by Catherine
Porter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lockwood, Lisa. Vera Says I Do to Kohls. Womens Wear Daily (August 24, 2006):
1, 2.
. A Slimmer Karl. Hilger Cuts Lagerfeld Contemporary Line, Staff. Womens
Wear Daily (June 9, 2006): 1.
. Tommy, Apax Chart Course. Womens Wear Daily (December 27, 2005): 2,
12.
. Connolly Resigns From Hilger. Womens Wear Daily (July 13, 2005): 2.
. Tommy and Karl: Fashions New Couple. Womens Wear Daily (December 14,
2004).
. Tommys Big Move: Hilger Said Buying Karl Lagerfeld Brands. Womens Wear
Daily (December 13, 2004): 1.
. Spring Retail Blossoms: Sales Rise Double Digits on Femininity and Color.
Womens Wear Daily (March 22, 2004): 1.
. Tommy, Murjani India-Bound. Womens Wear Daily (February 27, 2004): 2.
. Tommys Trekking to India. Womens Wear Daily (February 27, 2004): 2.
Loand, Lyn H. 1973. A World of Strangers: Order and Action in Urban Public Space.
New York: Basic Books.
Lohrer, Robert. Tommys Year of Living Musically; By Combining Advertising and
Music Sponsorship in 1999, Hilger Positions Himself as the King of Fashion-
Music Fusion. Daily News Record (September, 10, 1999): http://www.highbeam.
com/doc/1G1-55755249.html.
Lois, George. 2003. Sellebrity: My Angling and Tangling with Famous People. London:
Phaidon Press.
. Interview. Video from the Tommy Hilger Library Archives (September 29,
1999).
MacRae, Donald G. 1974. Max Weber, edited by Frank Kermode. New York: The Viking
Press.
Maher, Kris. The Jungle/Focus on Recruitment, Pay and Getting Ahead. Career Journal.
Wall Street Journal (December 9, 2003): D6.
Malone, Scott. Schumer Air Cargo Security Fears. Womens Wear Daily (January 20,
2004): 24.
Malossi, Giannino, ed. 2000. Material Man: Masculinity, Sexuality, Style. New York:
Harry Abrams.
, ed. 1998. The Style Engine: Spectacle, Identity, Design and Business: How the
Fashion Industry Uses Style to Create Wealth. New York: The Monacelli Press, Inc.
Manning, Jason. 2001. The Eighties Look, website: http://www.eightiesclub.tripod.com.
Maramotti, Luigi. 2000. Connecting Creativity In The Fashion Business: Theory,
Practice, Image, edited by Nicola White and Ian Grifths, 91-102. New York:
Oxford, 2000.
Marsh, Lisa. 2003. The House of Klein: Fashion Controversy and a Business Obsession.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Martin, Richard. 1998. American Ingenuity: Sportswear 1930s-1970s. New York: The
Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Martin, Richard; and Koda, Harold. 1995. Haute Couture. New York, N.Y.: Metropolitan
Museum of Art.
Martorella, Roseanne. 1982. The Sociology of Opera. New York: Praeger.
Mauss, Marcel. 1967. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies.
London: Coehn and West.
References 293
Maupassant, Guy de. 1885/1975. Bel Ami. London: Penguin Books.
Mayo, Elton. 1945. The Social Problems of Industrial Civilization. Boston, MA: Division
of Research Graduate School of Business Administration Harvard University.
McCue, Janet. Biography is Sleaze in Disguise. The Plain Dealer (May 12, 1994):
1F.
McDowell, Colin. 2000. Fashion Today. London: Phaidon Press.
. 1997. Forties Fashion and the New Look. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
McFarling, Usha Lee. Carvings Spark Debate on Origin of Abstract Thought. Los
Angeles Times (July 11, 2002): A1.
McRobbie, Angela. Fashion Culture: Creative Work, Female Individualization. Feminist
Review 71 (2002): 52-62.
. 1999. In the Culture Society: Art, Fashion and Popular Music. London:
Routedge.
Menkes, Suzi. Function vs. Fantasy: Prada and Gucci Slug it Out. International Herald
Tribune (January 13, 1999): 1.
Mensair. Decoding the Business Casual Dress Code. Mens Flair Online Magazine:
http://www.mensair.com/style-advice/business-casual-dress.php.
Menstyle.com. 2006. Trend Report. http:/www.men.style.com/fashion/trend
_report/081506.
Merrick, Amy. Can Silk and Leather Tempt Shoppers Back to Old Navy? Wall Street
Journal. (June 30, 2006): B1.
Milbank, Caroline Rennolds. 1989. New York Fashion: The Evolution of American Style.
New York: Abrams.
Mistry, Meenal. Travels with Tommy. W (June 2004): 51-55.
Moin, David. Old Navy President Ming to Depart in Fall. Womens Wear Daily (July
11, 2006): 13.
Molotch, Harvey. 2003. Where Stuff Comes From: How Toasters, Toilets, Cars,
Computers, and Many Other Things Come to Be as They Are. New York:
Routeledge.
Monteore, Simon Sebag. 2004. Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. London: Weidenfelt
and Nicolson.
Moore, Emma. From Boys to Men. The Sunday Times (September 23, 2001): 46.
Moscovici, Serge. 1984. The Phenomenon of Social Representations. In Social Rep-
resentations. European Studies in Social Psychology, edited by Robert M. Farr and
Serge Moscovici, 67-102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mumby, Dennis K. and Clair, Robin P. 1997. Organizational Discourse. In Dis-
course as Social Interaction, edited by Teun A. Van Dijk, 181-05. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Municipal Art Society. Excerpt from an Exhibition at the Municipal Art Society. Un-
published paper. New York, February 2000: 1-8.
Musgrove, Mike. Sony Ads Seek Street Cred. AM New York (December 28, 2005):
11.
Namking, Victoria. The New Tupperware Parties. Riviera (October 2003): 66.
New York Times. Mens Fashion: A Return to Elegance. (February 5, 1972): 18.
. How Much Should Men Dress? (September 27, 1953).
Nixon, Sean. 1996. Hard Looks. Masculinities, Spectatorship, and Contemporary
Consumption. New York: St. Martins Press.
Nolan, Carol. Mens fashions of the 1920s, edited by Julie Williams. Website: http://
www.murrayontravel.com/carolnolan/fashionhistory_1920smens.html.
. Mens fashions of the 1930s, edited by Julie Williams. Website: http://www.
murrayontravel.com/carolnolan/fashionhistory_1930smens.html.
. Mens fashions of the 1940s, edited by Julie Williams. Website: http://www.
murrayontravel.com/carolnolan/fashionhistory_1940smens.html.
OConnell, Patricia, ed. Retailing Special Report, Federateds Focus: Fashionable
Females. BusinessWeek Online (November 3, 2003): http://www.businessweek.
com/bwdaily/dnash/nov2003/nf2003113_1239.htm?chan=search.
Oldenburg, Ann. TV Brings High Fashion Down to the Everyday. USA Today (July
12, 2006): 1a.
OReilly, Charles A. III and Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 2000. Hidden Value: How Great
Companies Achieve Extraordinary Results with Ordinary People. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Ortoleva, Peppino. 1998. The Thought of Fashion. In The Style Engine: Spectacle,
Identity, Design and Business: How the Fashion Industry Uses Style to Create Wealth,
edited by Giannino Malossi, 60-65. New York: The Monacelli Press, Inc.
Palmeri, Christopher. Living on the Edge at American Apparel. Business Week (June
27, 2005): 88.
Parnes, Francine. Fashion and Fitness. Spring 2002 Menswear. Newsday (September
10, 2001): B10.
Pashigian, Peter B. 1995. Comment. On The Information-Integrated Channel: A Study
of the U.S. Apparel Industry in Transition. In Microeconomics, by F. Abernathy,
J. Dunlap, J. Hammond, and D. Weil. New York: Brookings Papers on Economic
Activity.
Passariello, Christina. Brand New Bag: Louis Vuitton Tries Modern Methods on Factory
Lines. Wall Street Journal (October 9, 2006): A1, A15.
. Style and Substance: With Good Times Rolling, Labels Have the Luxury of
Planning for Bad Ones. Wall Street Journal (September 29, 2006): B1.
Patner, Josh. They Make Me a Designer Again. The New York Times (February 16,
2003): Sunday Styles, Section 9.
Pennington, Robert. Brands as the Language of Consumer Culture. Global
Competitiveness (January 1, 2000): http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-78789559.
Perinbanayagam, Robert. The Dialectics of Charisma. Sociological Quarterly 12,
(Summer 1971): 387-402.
Phaidon Press, eds. 1998. The Fashion Book. London: Phaidon Press.
Polhemus, Ted. 2000. The Customized Body. London: Serpents Tail.
. 1998. Diesel World Wide Wear. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications.
. 1994. Street Style. London: Thames and Hudson.
Poster, Mark, ed.1988. Jean Baudrillard. Selected Writings. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Prah-Perochon, Ann. Chanel. France Today (2001): 21.
PR Newswire. Tommy Hilfiger Corporation to Acquire Karl Lagerfeld Trade-
marks and Business (December 13, 2004). http://highbeam.com/Docrint.
aspx?DocId=1G1:132627662
Public Broadcasting System. PBS Newshours Hip-Hop Report. Hip-hop style: What
is cool? the Online NewsHour: www.pbs.org/newshour/infocus/fashion/hiphop/
html.
Putnam, Linda M.; and Pacanowsky, Michael E., eds. 1987. Communication and
Organization: An Interpretive Approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rabach, Eileen; and Kim, Ean Mee. 1994. Where is the Chain in Commodity Chains?
The Service Center Nexus. In Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, edited by
Gary Geref and Miguel Korzeniewicz, 123-141. Westport, CT: Praeger.
References 295
Red. Red Manifesto. Website: http://www.joinred.com/manifesto.asp.
Reisman, David; Glazer, Nathan; and Denney, Reuel. 1961. The Lonely Crowd: A Study
of the Changing American Character. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Rohwedder, Cecile. Fashion Schools Get Real. Wall Street Journal (January 9, 2004):
A7, A9.
. Kaiser Karl Designs With an Iron Hand. Wall Street Journal (October 13,
2003): B1.
. Bad Boy to Businessman. Wall Street Journal (September 26, 2003): B1, B4.
Rohwedder, Cecile; and Galloni, Alessandra. A Case For Snubbing Investors. Wall
Street Journal (November 18, 2003): B8.
Root, Deborah. 1996. Cannibal Culture: Art, Appropriation, and the Commodication
of Difference. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Roschelle, Anne R.; and Kaufman, Peter. Fitting In and Fighting Back: Stigma
Management Strategies Among Homeless Kids. Symbolic Interaction 27, 1 (2004):
23-46.
Ross, Andrew, ed. 1997. No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade, and the Rights of Garment
Workers. London: Verso.
Ross, Tucker. Retailers Flourish With Spring Fashions. Daily News Record (May 21,
2004): 6.
Rozhon, Tracie. Dressing Down Tommy Hilger. The New York Times (December 26,
2004): Sunday Business, Sec. 3, 1, 4.
. Rediscovering the Forgotten Woman. The New York Times (April 7, 2004):
C1.
. A Few New Wrinkles for Armani. The New York Times (February 24, 2004):
C1.
. Liz Claiborne Chief Hopes For a Hit With an Import From Amsterdam. The New
York Times (September 24, 2003): C1.
. Tommy Hilger Looks For a Perfect Fit. The New York Times (June 18, 2003):
C16.
.Struggling Tommy Hilger Looks for a Perfect Fit. The New York Times (June
13, 2003): C1, C2.
. Reinventing Tommy: More Surf, Less Logo. The New York Times (March 16,
2003): B1, B10.
. For Mens Shirts, Its Bright Colors and Bold Patterns. The New York Times
(November 13, 2003): C1.
Rozhon, Tracie; and La Ferla, Ruth. Trying on the Familiar, and Liking It. The New
York Times (August 15, 2003): C1-C2.
Rubinstein, Ruth P. 2001. Dress and fashion. In International Encyclopedia of the
Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, 3841-
3846. Oxford: Elselvier.
. 1995. Dress Codes: Meanings and Messages in American Culture. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Ryan, Thomas J. 1999. Hilger Net Soars 58.8% in Quarter. Womens Wear Daily
(February 1, 1999): 2.
Saltzer-Mrling, Miriam. 1998. As God Created the Earth. A Saga that Makes Sense? In
Discourse and Organization, edited by David Grant, Tom Keenoy, and Cliff Oswick,
104-118. London: Sage Publications.
Sandberg, Jared. How do You Say No to a Yes Man. Often Unsuccessfully. Wall Street
Journal (July 25, 2006): B1.
Sanlippo, Michele. Early Numbers Show China in Import Lead. Home Textiles Today
(March 14, 2005).
Saviolo, Stefania; and Testa, Salvo. 2002. Strategic Management in the Fashion
Companies. Milano: Etas.
Schein, Edgar H. What Holds the Modern Company Together? Letter to the Editor.
Harvard Business Review, 75, 6 (Nov/Dec 1997): 174.
. 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2
nd
ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schneider, B. The People Make the Place. Personnel Psychology 40 (1987): 437-
453.
Schoenberger, Erica. 1994. Competition, Time, and Space in Industrial Change. In
Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, edited by Gary Geref and Miguel
Korzeniewicz, 51-66. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Schreier, Barbara A. 1989. Introduction. In Men and Women: Dressing the Part, edited
by Claudia Brush Kidwell and Valerie Steele, 1-5. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
. 1989. Sporting Wear In Men and Women: Dressing the Part, edited by Claudia
Brush Kidwell and Valerie Steele, 92-123. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Press.
Schwartz, Howard S. 1993. On the Psychodynamics of Organizational Totalitarianism.
In The Psychodynamics of Organizations, edited by Larry Hirschhorn and Carole K.
Barnett, 237-250. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
. The Psychodynamics of Organizational Totalitarianism. Journal of General
Management 13, 1 (1987): 41-54.
Scott, Linda M. 2005. Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Seckler, Valerie. A Fashionable Stamp of Social Consciousness. Womens Wear Daily
(July 12, 2006): 12.
. Mixing Many Media For One Potent Campaign. Womens Wear Daily (October
20, 2004): 10.
. Marketing Intelligence: Strange Ad-fellows? British Invasion Redux. Womens
Wear Daily (February 25, 2004): 18.
Seeling, Charlotte. 2000. Fashion: The Century of the Designer. Cologne: Knemann
Verlagsgesellschaft.
Shenon, Philip. President Says U.S. to Examine Iraq-Qaeda Tie. The New York Times
(July 20, 2004): A1.
Shepherd, Elizabeth Nia. Project Runway Set For Second Season. Womens Wear
Daily (December 6, 2005): 13.
Silver, Austin. Brand Name Fads: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow. Askmen.com (June 7,
2004): http://www.askmen.com/fashion/austin/27b_fashion_style.html
Silverstein, Michael J.; and Fiske, Neil. Luxury for the Masses. Harvard Business
Review (April 1, 2003): 81, 4.
Simmel, Georg. 1904/1971. Fashion. In George Simmel on Individuality and Social
Forms: Selected Writings, edited by Donald N. Levine. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Sklair, Leslie. 1991. Sociology of the Global System. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Slater, Don. 1997. Consumer Culture and Modernity. New York: Polity Press.
Smith, Paul. 1997. Tommy Hilger in the Age of Mass Customization. In
No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade, and the Rights of Garment Workers, edited by Andrew
Ross. London: Verso.
Smith, Ray A. Fashion dictates well-dressed men will show more leg. The Wall Street
Journal (September 13, 2006): A1, A15.
References 297
Soap, Perfumery and Cosmetics. Hilgers Revival. (February 2, 2004): 27.
Socha, Miles. Philo Said Working with Gap. Womens Wear Daily (November 27,
2006): 2.
. The WWD 100. Womens Wear Daily (July 26, 2006): 1.
. Lagerfeld Supports Hilger Decision. Womens Wear Daily (July 25, 2006): 5.
. Gaps German Bow: Sells Stores to H&M. Womens Wear Daily (February 6,
2004): 2.
. Hot at the Top. Couture Collections. Womens Wear Daily (January 20, 2004): 32.
. Some Little Guys Manage to Battle the Red, White and Blue; Secrets for
Surviving in the World of Ralph, Tommy, Nautica. Daily News Record (March 31,
1997): 6.
SoHo News. Tommy Hilger the Fun Huntsman. (May 6, 1981): 18.
Steele, Valerie. Women Fashioning American Fashion. In Women Designers in the
USA 1900-2000. Diversity and Difference, edited by Pat Kirkham and Lynn Walker,
185-200. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001.
. 2000. Fashion: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. In The Fashion Business:
Theory, Practice, Image, edited by Nicola White and Ian Grifths, 7-20. New York:
Oxford University Press.
. 1998. Paris Fashion: A Cultural History. New York: Oxford University Press.
.1989. Appearance and Identity In Men and Women: Dressing the Part, edited
by Claudia Brush Kidwell and Valerie Steele, 6-21. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Stegemeyer, Ann. 1984. Whos Who in Fashion. New York: Fairchild Publications.
Stewart, Al. Catching the Momentum: Mens Wear Gained Major Mo in Late 2003.
Daily News Record (February 23, 2004): 81-82, 84-86, 92-98, 102.
Stone, Gregory. 1970. Appearance and the Self. In Social Psychology Through Symbolic
Interaction, edited by Gregory P. Stone and Harvey Farberman, 394-414. Waltham,
MA: Ginn-Blaisdell.
. Clothing and Social Relations: A Study of Appearance in the Context of
Community Life. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1960.
Sylvers, Eric. Cut-Rate Swedish Retailer Enters the Italian Market. The New York Times
(August 27, 2003): W1, W7.
Tagliabue, John. A Rival to Gap that Operates like Dell. The New York Times (May
30, 2003): W1, W7.
Tan, Junyuan Christopher. 2005. The Liberalization of Trade in Textiles and Clothing:
Chinas Impact on the ASEAN Economies. Thesis, Stanford University.
Tarde, Gabriel. 1890. The Laws of Imitation, translated by Elsie Clews Parsons. New
York: Henry Holt and Company.
Tarlo, Emma. 1996. Clothing Matters: Dress and Identity in India. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, Lou. 2000. The Hilger Factor and the Flexible Commercial World of Couture.
In The Fashion Business: Theory, Practice, Image, edited by Nicola White and Ian
Grifths, 121-142. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tedlow, Richard S. 1990. New and Improved: The Story of Mass Marketing in America.
New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Thomas, Pauline Weston. Fashion Mood for Autumn 2006 & Winter 2007. Fashion-era.
com: http://fashion-era.com/trends2007a/2007_fall_fashion_trends_looks_2006_
7.htm
Thorley, Ian. FT Report. Watches and Jewelry. An Antidote to Gimmicks and
Extravagance. Financial Times (March 31, 2006): 10.
Tommy Hilger USA, Inc. Tommy Hilger Quarterly Newsletter. New York, Spring
2003.
Tommy Hilger USA, Inc. Tommy Hilger Quarterly Newsletter. New York, Spring
2004.
Tommy Hilfiger USA, Inc. Tommy Hilfiger Quarterly Newsletter. New York,
Summer 2004.
Trice, Harrison M.; and Beyer, Janice M. 1993. The Cultures of Work Organizations.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tommy Hilger Corporation. Tommy Hilger Corporation 2005 Annual Report. New
York, 2005.
. Tommy Hilger Corporation 2004 Annual Report. New York, 2004.
. Tommy Hilger Corporation 2003 Annual Report. New York, 2003.
. Form 10-K. March 31, 2003. United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.
. Form 10-K. March 31, 2002. United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Towle, Angela Phipps. Celebrity Branding. Website: Hollywood Reporter (November
18, 2003): http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_
content_id=2030984.
Trachtenberg, Jeffery A. 1988. Ralph Lauren: The Man Behind the Mystique. New York:
Little Brown.
Trebay, Guy. Flying Shirttails, the New Pennants of Rebellion. The New York Times
(July 20, 2004): A1, B10.
. Conducting Diplomacy with Flair and a Cape. The New York Times (January
31, 2002): A14.
Trebay, Guy; and Bellafonte, Gina. Prada: Luxury Brand With World-Class Anxiety.
The New York Times (December 18, 2001): D9.
Tsao, Amy. Liz and Jones vs. Tommy and Ralph. Business Week (February 23,
2004): http://www.businessweek.com/lowdaily/feb2004/nf20040223_4224_
db014htm?chan=search.
Underwood, Elaine; and Abbott, John. Tommy Hilger on Brand Hilger. Brandweek
37, 6 (February 5, 1996): 22.
Veblen, Thorstein.1899/1957. The Theory of the Leisure Class. London: Allen and
Unwin.
Virtualjobshadow.com. Fashion Designer Prole. Website, 2003.
Waddell, Gavin. 2004. How Fashion Works: Couture, Ready-to-Wear and Mass
Production. Oxford: Blackwell Science Limited.
Wark, McKenzie. 1997. Fashion as a Culture. In No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade, and
the Rights of Garment Workers, edited by Andrew Ross, 227-248. London: Verso.
Weber, Marc. Lecture at the Fashion Institute of Technology. New York, February 9,
2004.
Weber, Max. 1977. Essays in Sociology, edited by Hans Gerth and C.Wright Mills. New
York: The Free Press.
. 1947/1968. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, edited by Talcott
Parsons. New York: The Free Press.
. 1946/1958. From Max Weber, translated and edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright
Mills. New York: Galaxy.
Weick, Karl E. 1983. Organizational Communication: Toward a Research Agenda. In
Communication and Organization: An Interpretive Approach, edited by L. Putnam
and M. Pacanowsky. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 13-29.
Wells, Linda. Letter From the Editor. Girls Gone Wild Allure (January 2007): 26.
White, Harrison. 1993. Careers and Creativity: Social Forces in the Arts. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
References 299
White, Nicola; and Grifths, Ian, eds. 2000. The Fashion Business: Theory, Practice,
Image. New York: Oxford University Press.
Williamson, Rusty. Moderate Under Analysis (As Department Stores Fall Increasingly In
Love With Better, Moderate Sportswear is Developing An Identity Crisis). Womens
Wear Daily (April 21, 2004): 10.
Wilson, Eric. Tom Ford is Moving from Designer to Brand. The New York Times (April
13, 2005): C1.
. Combs Hopes to Score Hit with Posen. Womens Wear Daily. (April 21, 2004):
10.
. Bill Blass dismisses Yvonne Miller. Womens Wear Daily (August 4, 2003): 8.
. The Month in Fashion: Fashions Resolution for the New Year is to Maximize
its most Bankable Assets. W (January 1, 2002): 18.
. Betsy Ross, Designer Du Jour. (The Month in Fashion.) W (December 1, 2001):
56.
Woodman, Richard W.; Sawyer, John E.; and Grifn, Ricky W. Toward a Theory of
Organizational Creativity. The Academy of Management Review 18, 2 (1993): 293-
321.
Woodward, A.; and Stansel, Christina M. 2003. International Directory of Company
Histories, edited by. Tina Grant. Detroit, MI: St. James Press.
Wollen, Peter. 1999. Addressing the Century: 100 Years of Art and Fashion. London:
Hayward Gallery Publishing.
Woodman, R.W. and Schoenfeldt, L.F. 1989. Individual Differences in Creativity: An
Interactionist Perspective. In Handbook of Creativity, edited by J.A. Glover, R.R.
Ronning & C.R. Reynolds. New York: Plenum Press.
Womens Wear Daily. Guccis wild ride (June 5, 2006): 4, 6.
. On Nurturing Entrepreneurial Creativity (May 5, 2006): 5.
.Fashion Moments (December 12, 2006): 7.
. Joel Horowitz, Tommy Hilger Corps Executive Chairman, Will Stay in That
Role for at Least Another Year (April 6, 2004): 11.
. H&M Plans Five Stores for Canada (February 25, 2004): 18.
. Lifestyle Monitor (February 5, 2004): 1.
. The WWD List: Stock Exchange; the Average Daily Volume of the 20 Most
Actively Traded Apparel and Accessories Stocks over 12 Months (December 8,
2003): 83S.
. The WWD List: In Style; the Top 10 Designers Ranked by Consumer Awareness
(December 8, 2003): 66S.
. The Corpse Bride. (August 23, 2003): 6-7.
Wrigley, Richard. 2002. The Politics of Appearances: Representations of Dress in
Revolutionary France. Oxford: Berg.
Young, Kristen. Brooks Lassoes Rodeo Space. Womens Wear Daily (April 4, 2003):
4.
Young, Vicky M. The French Mass-Class: Carrefour in Mega Deal for BCBC Max
Azria Line. Womens Wear Daily (December 7, 2006): 1, 22.
Yraola, Genevieve. Splurge vs. Steal. Marie Claire (June 22, 2004).
Zollars, Cheryl L.; and Cantor, Muriel Goldsmith, eds. 1993. Creators of Culture:
Occupations and Professions in Culture Industries. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Zukin, Sharon. 2004. Point of Purchase: How Shopping Changed American Culture.
Boston, MA: Routledge.
Zwecker, Bill. Lauren Deal Could Make Jay-Z Next Roc-a-Fella. Chicago Sun Times
(February 18, 2004): 66.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
301
Index
Symbols
1920s
shift in American fashion and, 45
softer, more relaxed look and, 64
1930s, designer American sportswear
and, 45
1940s
shortages of material and, 65
U.S. government directives and, 65
1950s
ready-to-wear and, 48
tailored Italian clothing and, 66
youth market and, 48
1960s
Londons youth culture and, 66
peacock revolution and, 67
quota system and, 86
tradition bound adult world and, 48
1970s
designer jeans and, 51
designers and prestige, 88
womens movement and, 49
1980s
conspicuous consumption and, 51
disco culture and fashion, 50
exercise and dance attire, 51
power, sex appeal, and individual-
ity, 70
1990s
designer fashions and, 71
maternity clothing and, 52
megabrands and, 80
Mod fashion and, 52
overlapping trends and, 52
2000s, boho-chic look, 53
2006 Golden Globe Awards, 138
Abboud, Joseph
200 steps in making a suit and, 56
advice for men and, 76
Polo mystique and, 176-178
reections on design industry and,
171
Adoption Meeting, design process and,
248
Agins, Teri, the end of fashion and, 55
Allure, glamorous look and women, 54
American Yarn Spinners Association,
Chinas inuence and, 87
Anne Taylor, conservative styles and,
54
Apax Partners, Tommy Hilger Group
and, 210, 243
Armani, Giorgio
defection of American CEOs and,
70
designer as leader and, 157
developing a condence in, 207
European competition and, 266
family background of, 136
renewing yourself and, 136
softening mens clothes and, 67
star status and, 99
suits and professional women, 51
tailored suits with short pants and,
76
Ash, Juliet, creative process and, 123
Astaire, Fred, 46, 270
automobiles, textual examples and, 270
Axria, Max, French hypermarket
and, 90
Banana Republic, first fashion show
and, 83
Banim, Maura, Through the Wardrobe
and, 32
Banks, Jeffrey
Clavin Klein logo, 99
father gure and, 175
Barnard, Chester I., The Functions of the
Executive, 135
Barthes, Roland
The Fashion System, 17, 20, 23
fashion as text and, 266-267
method of decoding text and, 267
Mythologies, 22-24
rationalizations and, 25
Baudot, Francois, Paris as fashion center
and, 43
Baudrillard, Jean
aesthetics of manipulation and, 19
caste tradition and, 18
caste socities and, 9
Consumer Society and, 18
fashion is immoral and, 24
Symbolic Exchange and Death and,
18
Beatles, rock-and-roll culture and, 48
Becker, Howard, artist-craftsman and
designers, 101
Belcove, Julie L., death knell for high
society and, 90
Bellafante, Ginia, Devil Wears Prada
and, 148
Bendix, Reinhard, charismatic authority
and, 131
Bennet, Joseph, clothing retailer and,
62
Bergdorf Goodman, department store
and, 46
Berry, Chuck, 269
Best, Stephen, control of practices and
signs, 19
Beyer, Janice M., organizational culture
and, 162
Blass, Bill, 68, name gets institutional-
ized and, 117
Blum, Dilys, distinction among design-
ers and, 105
Bohlen, Chip, dress in the Soviet Union
and, 15
boho-chic look, 53
Bono, Red campaign and, 119
Book of the Courtier, The, 7
boot camp programs, 169
Bormann, Ernest G.
organizational culture and, 167
organizations sharing common con-
sciousness and, 231
Bourdieu, Pierre, signs of distinction
and, 13-14
Bowie, David, 209
Hilger dressing and, 191
new H Hilger line and, 200
Bowlby, Rachel, department stores
and, 37
Brandweek, brand lifestyles and, 207
Braudel, Fernand
ignorance of fashion and, 9
nobility and guilded costumes, 8
Breward, Christopher, clothing designed
for expressive qualities and, 4
Brooke, Iris, history of English costume
and, 59
Brooks Brothers
high-end mens specialty stores
and, 50
setting fashion agenda on Wall Street,
62
Brooks, Henry, setting fashion agenda on
Wall Street, 62
Brower, Ned, neckwear and, 66
Brummell, Beau, style and, 57
Buck, Joan Juliet, inner architecture of
Versace dress and, 105
Buckingham, Jan Rinzler, appetite for
authenticity and, 73
Burawoy, Michael, making out and,
165
bureaucracy, fashion industry and,
141-148
Burke, Kenneth, charismatic leadership
and, 134
Bush, George W., Vineyard Vines ties
and, 57
Bush, Lauren, 209, 264
C-N-S knits (cut and sew knits), 249
CAD programs, use in design and, 253
Cantor, Muriel Goldsman, creative pro-
cess and, 123
Cappelli, Peter, contract employment
and, 236
Cardin, Pierre, 68
designer jeans and, 98
moving from womenswear to mens-
wear, 69
Carducci, Vince, aura of the brand
and, 12
Carr, Zack, 181
Carrefour, retailer and, 90
Carreyrou, John, executive responsibili-
Index 303
ties and, 147
Carson, Johnny, Nehru jacket of, 67
Carter, Jimmy, 70
Cashen, Bonnie, American women de-
signers and, 45
Cassini, Oleg, 68
Castiglione, Baldesar, The Book of the
Courtier and, 7
casualization, Casual Fridays and, 52
Chanel, Lagerfeld and control over de-
signs and, 210
Chanel, Coco
creating modern fashion and, 158
designer sportswear and, 45
ready-to-wear and, 95
ushering women into modern world
of fashion and, 44
Charron, Paul
acquiring established labels and,
160
quarterly reviews and, 174
China, World Trade Organization and,
87
Chou, Silas, private equity rms and,
80
Citizens of Humanity, high-end brands,
153
Claiborne, Liz
day care programs and, 219
reaching a broader audience and, 51
Clair, Robin P., organizational discourse
and, 230
Clark, Cheryl, fashion trends and, 138
Clothing symbols, 29
Cole, Kenneth, designer as cultural ar-
biter and, 118
Combs, Sean, fashion lines and, 112
Comme des Garons, repulsive fra-
grances and, 15
Concept Boards, design process and,
247
Concept phase, design process and,
245-246
Conger, Jay A., charismatic leadership
and, 132
Connery, Sean, 269
consumer products, textual examples
and, 270
Contini, Mila, ltered down clothes
and, 35
Corporate Creative Concept Meeting,
design process and, 246
Cosby, Bill, 272
Costa, Francisco, 82
Council of Fashion Designers of
America, fashion for America
campaign, 264
Counterfeiting, 12, 20, 156
Crane, Diana
Paris and designer presitge, 265
studies of fashion design as occupa-
tion, 101
Crawford, Joan, 46
Cream, rock-and-roll culture and, 48
Cuff, Dana, San Francisco skyline and,
126
Cunningham, Thomas, sportswear and,
200
The Cut, reality TV show and, 197, 207
Dafoe, Daniel, Moll Flanders and, 26
Daily News Record
Hot Stuff List and, 72
men back in suits and, 72
mens market and, 71
return of the suit and, 73
robust apparel sales and, 74
Dalrymple, Kady
competition and, 159
waiting for clothes and, 83
Daria, Liz Claiborne interview and, 145
Das, Wilbert, designers and, 153
Davis, Howard, management practices
and, 128
Davis, Jr., Sammy, 269
de la Renta, Oscar
disdain for commercialism and, 121
employees and, 204
name gets institutionalized and, 117
de Maupassant, Guy, Bel-Ami and, 26
de Toqueville, Alexis, egalitarianism
and, 271
Demorest, Ellen Curtis, paper pattern
inventor and, 39
Department stores
victory of, 42
women and 1960s department stores
and, 49
design process, 238-250
design procedures and, 250-260
phases in, 245-249
Destinys Child, 228
Detail Phase, design process and, 248
Devil Wears Prada, 148
Dexter, Millard S., young looking clothes
and, 72
Dickerson, Kitty, growth rates and, 89
Diddley, Bo, 269
Diesel, organizational culture and, 152,
174
DiMaggio, Paul J., isomorphism of struc-
ture and, 125
Dior, Christian
wear, 69
New Look and, 47, 93
DKNY, collaborative culture and, 153
Doeringer, Eric, The Object of Design
exhibition, 13
Dolkart, Andrew S., mens clothing in-
dustry and, 38
Drake, Alicia, successor to Dior and, 96
Dress codes, 183
casualization and, 52
formal and informal, 220-222
relaxing of, 50
Drew, Linda, fashion show and, 94
Durkheim, Emile, collective memory
and, 29
Earle, Alice Morse, fancy dress parties
and, 35
Edelson, Sharon, populist movement
and, 90
Edwards, Tim, slower changes in mens
dress and, 55
Elle, women novelists and, 22
Elliot, Missy, fashion lines and, 112
Ellis, Perry
Hilgers freelance period and, 192
wear, 69
protective of design and, 235
76
England, Beau Brummell and, 57
Facchinetti, Alessandra, resignation
of, 173
Fashion
as social criticism and, 17-18
as social representation and, 272-
276
as visual representation of social real-
ity and, 261
global economy and, 77-91
in Europe in 1650, 8-9
inuence on direction of American
culture and, 261-262
logic of change and, 10
origin of, 7
production of clothing and guild
system, 78
second acceleration and, 7
tension over identity ambivalence,
30
fashion design process, 238-250
phases in, 245-249
Fashion designers
as artist and craftsperson, 101-109
as cultural arbiters and, 109-123
creative process of, 123-127
establishment of department stores
and, 95
Fashion industry
bureaucracy and, 141-148
charismatic leadership and, 136-141
department stores and, 37
emergence of, 35-40
Garment Center and, 39
leadership overview and, 128-136
organizational culture overview,
161-166
ready-to-wear clothing and, 36-37
routinization of charisma in brands,
155-160
styles of charismatic leadership and,
148-155
womens ready-to-wear and, 40-55
Fashion utterance, two systems and, 23
fashion-era.com, web sites, 54
Favreau, Jon, 269
Feingold, Henry L., ready-made clothing
business and, 37
Feldman, Steven P., organizational cul-
ture and, 167
feminism
ending the reign of the suit and, 69
materialist and cultural studies and,
31
poststructuralism and, 32
Feminist Review, fashion and beauty
issue, 32-33
Film, textual examples and, 269
Finkelstein, Joan, capitalist society
Index 305
and, 31
Finn, Robin, Hilfigers custom made
clothes and, 265-266
Fisher, Christy, born to design and, 171
FIT, personal appearance and, 222
Flugel, J. C., clothing and communica-
tion, 29
Flynn, Errol, 64
Foley, Bridget, era of mega luxury
brand, 79
Footnotes, designer as cultural arbiter
and, 118
Ford, Cameron, creative process and,
124
Ford, Tom
designer and, 80
executive responsibilities and, 147
power struggle and, 173
protability and, 146
Forte, Gabriella, expanding Kleins com-
pany and, 182
France, unabashed pride in French
goods and, 271
Frank, Thomas, lack of movement in the
1950s, 65
Fredo, Michael, 50-city tour and, 209
Freelance designers
employment of, 250
Tommy Hilger and, 192
French Revolution, shift in mens fashion
and, 59
FUBU (For Us By Us), 265
Gable, Clark, 64
Gabriel, Yiannis, stories studied in orga-
nizations and, 231
Gal, Donna, being a team player and,
153
Galliano, John
chief designer at Givenchy and, 103
designers and, 80
moved to Dior and, 100
Galloni, Alessandra
Brooks Brothers and, 70
executive responsibilities and, 147
Gamber, Wendy
apprentice system and, 4
victory of department stores and, 42
Gap, The
casual sportswear and, 50
high-end designers and, 90
Garcia, Nina, Project Runway and, 100
Garment Center, origins of, 39
Gartman, David, class distinctions and, 13
Gay, Dennis, bureaucratic environments
and creativity, 143
Gellers, Stan
new male consumers and, 74
original buying attitudes and, 75
suits and sportswear, 71
Gere, Richard, 269
Geref, Gary
ve-tier system and, 88
production abroad and, 85
Gianni, Frida, 173
Global economy
buyer-driven industries and, 86
Chinas inuence and, 87
ve-tier system and, 88
Hong Kong and, 89
mass-to-class game and, 89
Multiber Agreement and, 86
quota system and, 86
search for low-wage labor and, 85
Godeys Ladys Book
Paris fashions and, 44
patterns and, 43
Goffman, Erving
hierarchies of social structure and,
25
status symbols and, 26
Goldmann, Lucien, Durkheimian ap-
proach and, 123
Goldstein, Lauren, on Gabriella Forte
and, 182
Goodman, Tony Bergdorf, American
themed products and, 264
Gordon, Sarah A., popular silhouette of
1870s and, 41
Gorsline, Douglas, Egyptian clothing
and, 6
Graham, David, comparing Ford and
Facchinetti and, 173-174
Graham, Laurie, organizational culture
and, 164
Gramsci, Antonio, sociopolitical control
and, 30
Grant, Cary, 64, 269
Grant, David, organizational discourse
and, 230
Gray, Ann, multiple constructions of
identity and, 32
Green, Eileen, Through the Wardrobe
and, 32
Green, Nancy L., ready-to-wear revolu-
tion and, 41
Green, Robert L., Playboy fashion edi-
tor, 67
Gross, Michael, menswear in the early
1960s and, 66
Grotte Chauvet, cave paintings and, 3
Gucci Group, buying fashion houses
and, 80
Gucci Group NV, power struggle and,
173
Guerreiro, Miriam, established brands
and, 62
Gunn, Timothy
Hilgers method and, 242
Project Runway and, 100
Gurel, Lois M., casual sportswear and,
47
Guy, Ali, Through the Wardrobe and,
32
Haas, Robert D., organizational culture
and, 164
Harpers Bazaar, New Look and, 96
Harvey, David, postmodernist aesthetic
and, 78
haute couture
as guiding light of fashion and, 96
challenges of, 51
denition of, 94
origins of, 43
Helgerson, Richard, identity through
fashion and, 260
Hemingway, Ernest, 272
Hennes & Mauritz, low cost versions of
top designers and, 83
Hepburn, Audrey, fashion icon and, 48
Hilger, Tommy
appropriating strategies of Parisian
couture salons and, 263
as cultural arbiter and, 206-208
building a marketable identity and,
190
connection to hip-hop, 264-265
constructing charisma and, 190-201
The Cut and, 100
employees and self-selection process
and, 140
rst full-time position in the industry
and, 191
freelance work and, 192
mens fashion in the 1960s, 66
Norman Rockwell and, 271
pop-culture lens and, 269
pure charisma: normative inuence
of, 201-205
story of initial success and, 194
taking simulation to another level
and, 112
tradition bound adult world and,
48
urban inspired looks and, 71
woven shirts and, 73
Hilton, Paris, Guess ad, 273
hip-hop, Hilgers connection to, 264-
265
Hirschhorn, Larry, organizational culture
and, 170
Hochschild, Arlie, commodication of
human emotion and, 144
Homans, George C., social organization
and, 165
Hong Kong, world leader in exports
and, 89
Hooker, John Lee, 269
Horn, Marilyn J., casual sportswear
and, 47
Hot Stuff List, 72
House, Robert J., charismatic leadership
and, 132
Hudson, Kate, 209
Hudson, Rock, 269
Hugo Boss, European competition and,
266
Hunt, Alan, urbanization and, 109
Hutton, Sandra S., tension over identity
ambivalence, 30
IBM, fracture in loyalty and, 237
Identity, nation and identity through
fashion, 260-266
Iglesias, Enrique, 209
International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, 38
Italy, presentation of menswear and, 56
Jackall, Robert, study of corporate CEOs
and, 169
Jacobs, Marc
creative director for Louis Vuitton,
146
designers and, 80
lower priced lines and, 158
Jaffe, Richard E., retail analyst and, 72
Index 307
Jagger, Mick, Hilfiger dressing and,
191
Jarnow, Jeannette, established brands
and, 62
Jay-Z, What More Can I Say record-
ing, 199
Jewel, Spirit tour and, 209
Jones, Dylan, swing from casualwear to
sportswear, 75
Jones, Jennifer M., fashion in Europe in
1650, 8-9
Jones, Tom, 270
Jordache jeans, mass audience and, 52
Kaiser, Susan B., tension over identity
ambivalence, 30
Kanner, Mark, Garment Center and, 39
Kanungo, Rabindra N., charismatic
leadership and, 132
Karan, Donna
born to design and, 171
DKNY label and, 158
employees and, 204
urban sophisticated and, 273
working with Ann Klein and, 154
Karzai, Hamid, political symbols and,
29
Kaufman, Leslie, on Yves Saint Laurent
and, 111
Kaufman, Peter, homeless youth and,
16
Kawamura, Yuniya, French fashion
and, 104
Keenoy, Tom, organizational discourse
and, 230
Kellner, Douglas, control of practices
and signs, 19
Kennedy, Jacqueline, influence on
American fashion and, 48
Kerry, John, Vineyard Vines ties and,
57
Khurana, Rakesh, charismatic leadership
and, 133
Kim, Ean Mee, media-ization of capital-
ist consumption, 85
King, B.B., 269
Klein, Anne, working with Donna Karan
and, 154
Klein, Calvin
as new stars on the horizon and, 49
Calvin Klein Employment Snap-
shot and, 182
designer jeans craze and, 98
elevating mundane stuff and, 114
inuence in the 1980s and, 52
law suit with Warnaco and, 155
wear, 69
76
Klum, Heidi, Project Runway and,
53
Knowles, Beyonc, 209, 228
Koda, Harold, haute couture and, 51
Koda, Martin, haute couture and, 51
Kors, Michael
Project Runway and, 100
76
Kravitz, Lenny, Freedom tour and,
209
Kunda, Gideon
cult-like environments and, 170
Kuper, Hilda, structure of appearance
and, 3
La Ferla, Ruth
archives and fashion rms and, 136
look consumers want and, 159
Lagerfeld Gallery, acquisition of, 198-
199
Lagerfeld, Karl
control over designs and, 210
image and, 150-151
low cost line and, 80
star status and, 99
taking over from Chanel and, 158-
159
total adherence to his vision and,
150
Lam, Derek, shoe designs and, 90
Lapinsky, Ali, intern at Polo Ralph
Lauren, 178
Lark, The, hip-hop apparel and, 75
Lauren, Ralph
as new stars on the horizon and, 49
employees and self-selection process
and, 140
inuence in the 1980s and, 52
jacket design and, 68
Polo mystique and, 176-178
sportswear and, 112
Spring 1970 collection and, 68
Laver, James
history of English costume and, 59
slashed look and, 11
Lawford, Peter, 270
Leach, William
commercial culture of desire, 99
rise of consumerism and, 31
Led Zeppelin, rock-and-roll culture
and, 48
Lee, Michelle, guilt and, 83
Lehmann, Ulrich
logic of change and, 10
shift in mens fashion and French
Revolution, 59
Leight, Michelle, on Lagerfeld and,
159
Lesser, Tina, American women design-
ers and, 45
Levi-Strauss, back to basics strategy,
73
Levi-Strauss, Claude, Roland Barthes
and, 24
Levy, Ariel, charismatic leadership and,
136
Lewis, Jerry, 270
Lieberson, Stanley, global economy
and, 77
Lim, Phillip, 90
Lipovetsky, Gilles
ethos of community and, 275
falling victim to condemnation or
praise and, 33
fashions rule and, 22
pleasures of high society and, 8
support of liberal democracy and, 21
Lipton Corporation, emergency day care
and, 219
Little, Karen, counterfeit purses and, 20
Liz Claiborne, Inc.
sales department and creative output
and, 143-144
Lloyd, Deborah, creative director for
Banana Republic, 152
Lockwood, Lisa, acquiring Lagerfeld
Gallery and, 198-199
Loeb, Walter, mass merchants and de-
signers, 90
Lohrer, Robert, brand of aspirational
lifestyle and, 209
Lolita, target readership and, 54
London Times, Hilger as ercely Ameri-
can in outlook, 262
Lopez, Jennifer, fashion lines and, 112
LOral constitution, 184
LVMH
brand success and, 146
buying fashion houses and, 80
company ownership and, 21
master designers and, 143
Macko, Michael
casual look and, 21
tailored suits with short pants and, 76
Malossi, Giannino, fashion products as
material goods, 6
Margolis, Jay, prot and creativity and,
145
Marie Claire, latest trends and, 84
Marsh, Lisa
book on Calvin Klein and, 213
design as small part of fashion
business, 81
Martin, Dean, 269
Martin Luther King Junior Memorial
Project Foundation, participation in,
208
Martorella, Roseanne, organizational
study of opera, 123
Maternity clothing, 52-53
Mauss, Marcel, The Gift and, 18
Maxwell, Vera, American women design-
ers and, 45
Mayo, Elton, charismatic leadership
and, 135
McCardell, Claire
American Look and, 95
American women designers and, 45
ready-to-wear designer and, 95
sportswear and, 47
McCartney, Stella, 103
McCue, Janet, Calvin Kleins elevating
mundane stuff and, 114
McDowell, Colin
extremes of Victorian fashion and,
25-26
haute couture adaptation and, 11
McGregor, James, charismatic leadership
and, 132
McQueen, Alexander
couture houses and, 103
designer as artist and, 107
Index 309
replacing Galliano and, 100
McRobbie, Angela
materialist and cultural studies and,
31
small scale fashion scene in U.K.,
82
womens magazines and, 32
McTague, David, sportswear and, 200
Mead, George Herbert, perspective on
meaning and, 28
Men.style.com, web sites, 76
Menkes, Suzy, comments on Prada
and, 71
Mens Dress Reform, 65
Mens ready-to-wear fashion
after the American Revolution and,
60-61
Civil War and, 61
dark suit and, 58
designer fashions and, 71
main divisions in, 56-57
menswear and standardization, 62
Miami Vice look, 70
new male consumers and, 74
real tailoring and, 60
slop shop retailers and, 61
sports and, 68-69
tailored suits with short pants and, 76
Tenement shops, 63
use of sewing machine and, 63
woven shirts and, 72-73
Mens Wear, English tailors and, 64
Milbank, Caroline Rennolds
casual clothes and, 46
couture-calibre designers and, 39
Miller, Nicole, candor of Hilger and,
242
Mirror of Fashion, wearing vests and,
60
Mistry, Meenal, 199
Miu Miu, European competition and,
266
Miyake, Issey, postmodernism and, 107
Mizrahi, Isaac
2006 Golden Globe Awards, 138
business failure of, 138
Target and, 121
Mod fashion, comeback of, 52
Molotch, Harvey, industrial designers
and, 125
Monteore, Simon Sebag, dress in the
Soviet Union and, 15
Montenay, Francoise, exclusively and
Chanel, 159
Moore, Emma, Hilfiger as fiercely
American in outlook, 262
Moscovici, Serge, identity through fash-
ion and, 260
Multiber Agreement, quotas and, 86
Mumby, Dennis K., organizational dis-
course and, 230
Murjani, Mohan
introduction to, 193
starting jeans business and, 195
Nagasawa, Richard H., tension over
identity ambivalence, 30
Namking, Victoria, Hermes Birkin bag
and, 12
Narrowness, ideal body type and, 49
Nash-Taylor, Gela, Couture-Couture
line, 175
Nation and identity through fashion,
260-266
National Textile Association, Chinas
inuence and, 87
New York Times
de la Renta decision to leave Paris
and, 121
Devil Wears Prada, 148
Menace to Trade article, 38
Mens Fashion: A Return to El-
egance and, 68
on Yves Saint Laurent and, 111
political symbols and, 29
sensibility of male attire and, 40
space devoted to fashion and, 120
Newsday, Spring 2002 menswear col-
lection, 263
Nijssen, Marly, designers and, 153
Nixon, Sean, masculine script and,
70
Nolan, Carol, Edwardian traditions
and, 64
Norell, Norman, Is fashion an art?,
105
Observer Magazine, conservative turn in
menswear and, 75
Old Navy, fashion trends and, 138
Olsen twins, fashion lines and, 112
OReilly, III, Charles A., recruiting
and, 161
organizational saga, overview of, 232
organizational culture
boot camp programs, 169
dominant discourse and, 168
employees and, 172
formal structures and, 169
founders personality and, 173
psychodynamic theory and, 170
routinized and, 168
Oswick, Cliff, organizational discourse
and, 230
Owens-Jones, Lindsey, leadership and,
130
Paltrow, Gwyneth, maternity clothing
and, 53
Patou, Jean
on Chanel and, 44-45
Paul Stuart, high-end mens specialty
stores and, 50
peacock revolution, 1960s fashion
and, 67
Pennington, Robert, Consumption
and, 206
People, textual examples and, 271
Peoples Place Caf, 229
The Peoples Caf, 214
Perinbanayagam, Robert, charismatic
leadership and, 133
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, recruiting and, 161
Philo, Phoebe, 90
Phizacklea, Annie, materialist feminists
and, 31
Places, textual examples and, 270
Polhemus, Ted, age of imperialism
and, 58
Polo Ralph Lauren
comparing environments of, 234
employees and, 179-181
European competition and, 266
Porter, George, organizational culture
and, 162
Potter, Clare, American women design-
ers and, 45
Powell, Walter W., isomorphism of struc-
ture and, 125
Prada Group NV, coordination on a
global scale and, 130
Presley, Elvis, 67
Project Runway, 100
Proto Review Meeting, design process
and, 247
Protos, design process and, 247
Rabach, Eileen, media-ization of capital-
ist consumption, 85
Ready-to-wear clothing
conspicuous consumption and, 51
manufacture of, 35
sailors and soldiers and, 36
Rector, Kelly, romantic relationship with
Klein and, 181
Red Manifesto, web sites, 119
Reynolds, Bob, 211
Rice, Condoleezza, 208
Roberts, Kevin, CEO of Saatchi, 274
Rockwell, Norman, 271
Rogers, Ginger, 46
Rohwedder, Cecile, profitability and,
145
Roi, Alice, 90
Rolling Stones, The
bell-bottoms and, 67
No Security tour, 209
rock-and-roll culture and, 48
Root, Deborah, commodification of
designers name and, 111
Roschelle, Anne R., homeless youth
and, 16
Rosen, Carl, Puritan company and, 98
Rosenwald, Julius, Sears Roebuck and,
37
Rothschild, Lenny, hip-hop apparel
and, 75
Routinization, routinization of charisma
in brands, 155-160
Rowbotham, Sheila, materialist feminists
and, 31
Rozhon, Tracie, archives and fashion
rms and, 136
Rubinstein, Ruth P.
birth of fashion and, 8
collective memory and, 29
fashion as social criticism and, 17
pregnant look and, 52
speech at Liz Claiborne and, 174
Russo, Renzo, complete control over
Diesel and, 154
Saint Laurent, Yves
Mondrian dress and, 107
Index 311
wear, 69
rich hippie look and, 11, 24
successor to Dior and, 96 Saldana, Zoe
Sheehan, $9.87 Wal-Mart shirt and,
13
Salzer-Morling, Miriam, overpowering
voices with dominant saga and, 232
Sandberg, Jared, Cubicle Culture
and, 166
Sant, Shari, 175
Saviolo, Stefania
connection between fashion and
modern, 3
Scarborough, James, color and, 74
Scase, Richard, management practices
and, 128
Scassi, Arnold, high-end designers and,
117
Scheier, Barbara A., masculine ideal
and, 55
Schein, Edgar, organizational culture
and, 162
Schiaparelli, Elsa, distinction among
designers and, 105
Schwartz, Howard S., organizational
ideal and, 170
Scott, Linda M.
feminists critical of popular culture
and, 33
male vanity in dress and, 32
Seeling, Charlotte, Big Band music
and, 46
Selection of a Theme, design process
and, 246
Serling, Rod, 270
Seven for All Mankind, high-end brands,
153
Sex and the City, designers and, 111
Shamir, Boas, charismatic leadership
and, 132
Showroom, design process and, 248
Shriver, Bobby, Red campaign and, 119
signs of domination, fashion and, 5
Simmel, Georg
trickle-down theory and, 10
understanding fashion scientically
and, 9
Simmons, George W., clothing retailer
and, 61
Simpson, Jessica, 209
Sinatra, Frank, 269-270
Skaist-Levy, Pamela, Couture-Couture
line, 175
Sklair, Leslie, global economy and, 77
Slater, Don, unity of business and design,
39-40
Sloan, Alfred P., production process
and, 86
Smith, John, management styles and, 167
Spears, Britney, summer tour and, 209
Sports
mens fashion and, 68
textual examples and, 268
sportswear
Tommy Hilger Production Calen-
dar, 250
wovens and, 72
Sprouse, Stephen, Louis Vuitton Paris
purses, 11
status symbols, overview of, 26
Steele, Valerie
men abandoning splendid costumes
and, 58
origin of fashion and, 7
Steinberg, Gayfryd, supporting PEN
and, 117
Stepford Wives, The fashion to express
social tension and, 50
Stewart, Martha, image of homemaker
and, 116
Stone, Gregory
perspective on meaning and, 28
reection of ones appearance and,
29
social significance of clothing
and, 28
Strasser, Rob, organizational culture
and, 163
Streep, Meryl, 148
Stroll, Lawrence, private equity rms
and, 80
Studio 54, opening of, 269
T, space devoted to fashion and, 120
Tailoring, craft of, 63
Talbot, conservative styles and, 54
Tarde, Gabriel, understanding fashion
scientically and, 9
Target, fashion trends and, 138
Tarlo, Emma, Indian village women
and, 6
Taylor, Lou
appropriating strategies of Parisian
couture salons and, 263
Hilgers success and, 263
talismanic symbols of glamour
and, 5
Television, textual examples and, 269
Tenement shops, 63
Testa, Salvo
connection between fashion and
modern, 3
text, fashion as text and, 266-272
Theme, design process and, 246
Through the Wardrobe: Womens Rela-
tionships with Their Clothes, 32
Tommy Marketing Monthly, building
charisma and, 196
Tommy Hilger Production Calendar,
250
Tommy Hilger Group
acquiring Lagerfeld Gallery and,
198
as cultural arbiter and, 206-208
At Tommy Hilfiger We Believe
In, 275
charisma of Hilfiger brand and,
209-210
Christmas party and, 229
The Company Store and, 223-224
company events and, 224-225
constructing charisma and, 190-201
core norms and values of, 232-238
divisional holiday parties and, 229-
230
dress codes and, 220-222
fashion as social representation and,
272-276
fashion design process and, 238-250
five key steps that are taken each
season and, 189
nation and identity through fashion
and, 260-266
organizational discourse and, 230-
232
pep rallys and, 225-228
personal appearance and, 222-223
pure charisma: normative inuence
of, 201-205
socialization into the organizational
culture and, 217-220
sold to Apax Partners and, 210
Spring 2002 menswear collection,
263
work environment and, 210-217, 210
Tommy Hilger intranet, 196
Trachtenberg, Jeffrey A., on Ralph Lau-
ren and, 179
Travolta, John, 269
Trebay, Guy, political symbols and, 29
Trice, Harrison M., organizational cul-
ture and, 162
Types of People, textual examples and,
271
Uniforms, textual examples and, 271
Van Den Bosch, Margareta, listening to
consumers and, 83
Vanderbilt, Gloria, jeans and, 99
Varvatos, John
bucking the system and, 281
casual look and, 21
Vaughn, Vince, 269
Vault
Calvin Klein Employment Snap-
shot and, 182
fashion careers and, 172
on Polo Ralp Lauren and, 179
Veblen, Thorstein, understanding fashion
scientically and, 9
Versace, Donatella
charismatic leadership and, 136, 151
theatrics and, 158
Versace, Gianni, postmodern fashion
and, 112
Vionnet, Madeleine
classic draping of, 95
on Chanel and, 44-45
Vogue
first time women wearing pants
and, 46
inner architecture of Versace dress
and, 105
von Furstenberg, Diana, Project Run-
way and, 100
Vuitton, Louis, purses and, 11
W magazine, Gwenyth Paltrow and, 53
Waddell, Gavin, menswear and standard-
ization, 62
Index 313
Wal-Mart
fashion trends and, 138
major discounters and, 89
Walker, David, real tailoring and, 60
Wall Street Journal, Cubicle Culture
and, 166
Wanamaker, John, clothing retailer
and, 62
Wang, Vera
Kohls and, 79
mattress collection and, 90
Washington, George, 272
Waugh, Norah, real tailoring and, 60
web sites
fashion-era.com, 54
Men.style.com, 76
Red Manifesto, 119
virtual job shadow and, 154
Weber, Marc, company good works
and, 122
Weber, Max
charismatic authority and, 131
leadership and, 130
Weinberg, Serge, primacy of brands
and, 146
Wells, Linda, glamorous look and
women, 54
Westwood, Vivienne
bondage gear and, 103
shoe designs and, 90
White, Harrison, artistic careers and,
108
Whitmarsh, Thomas, ready made garmets
and, 61
Whyte, William Foote, The Organiza-
tion Man and, 236
Wilkins, Emily, American women de-
signers and, 45
Williams, Colby, tailored suits with short
pants and, 76
Wintour, Anna, Devil Wears Prada and,
148
Wolfe, David
Doneger Group and, 118
76
Wollen, Peter, dressmakers as servants
and, 43
Women
1950s demure and, 47
maternity clothing and, 52-53
and, 49
Womens ready-to-wear fashion
couture-calibre and, 48
haute couture and, 43
maternity clothing and, 52
second level of fashion and, 42
Womens Wear Daily
couture houses and, 95
designer commitment and, 152
retail sales and, 53
Woodman, Richard, develping new prod-
ucts and, 124
World Trade Organization, China and,
87
World War II clothing, womens procre-
ative role and, 53
Worth, Charles Frederick
rst haute couture house and, 94
haute couture and, 43
wovens, sportswear and, 72-73
Wright, Lee, creative process and, 123
Wrigley, Richard, dress after the French
Revolution and, 59
Young, Vicky M., mass-to-class game
and, 89
Zara
prots and, 121
Spanish retail chain and, 83
Zegna, Ermenegildo, defection of Ameri-
can CEOs and, 70
Zollars, Cheryl L., creative process
and, 123
Zukin, Sharon
extraordinary wealth from trade
and, 36
and, 49

Designing Clothes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Designing Clothes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Designing Clothes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Page

You might also like