Introduction

Since the rise of countercultures, sartorial fashions have been considered pluralistic and democratic. In the Digital Age, the democratization of fashion practices seems to have taken on a new dimension. This is not because anyone can become an influencer and determine what is fashionable, but because contemporary sartorial cultures usually arise bottom-up.¹ The emergence and the decline of such fashions do not depend on the fashion industry in terms of seasonal innovations or “the imposition of a prevailing mode or shape”² (top-down): they exist as long as the participants — unplanned and often unconsciously — interact with each other.

Bottom-up-constituted fashions emerge without the help of the well-connected mediating figures such as designers, celebrities, fashion media or subcultures, but form vestimentary structures based entirely on local interactions between individuals with relatively equal agency. The muffin top from the 2000s, normcore,³ fashions that appeared in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as workleisure etc., can serve as examples of bottom-up generated sartorial cultures. Such sartorial cultures do not materialize as rebellious anti-fashions, setting difference from the margins, but emerge because many participants, separated from each other in time and in space, unbeknownst to each other, engage in similar vestimentary practices.

Structures that result from such collective sartorial behavior can be described as distributed sartorial networks. Networks are usually modelled on the basis of relations of nodes as participating actors and links representing connections between them. In the case of sartorial networks, the participants (fashion bodies⁴) can be considered as nodes and their sartorial similarities (trends) as links. Distributed networks are non-hierarchical, mesh-like structures, in which all the nodes are equally important/well connected (as opposed to centralized and decentralized networks).⁵

How are bottom-up regulated spatiotemporal interactions to be modelled within this framework? Although fashion is usually associated with time, every fashion trend has a spatial and a temporal extension: it spreads in space and lasts for a certain period of time. For this reason, spatial and temporal interactions seem to be equally important for the stabilization (and destabilization) of sartorial networks. This paper focuses on the spatial stabilization of sartorial structures, which will be termed uniformization. Uniformization is defined as a process of alliance formation between interacting fashion bodies across spatial distances. In the following sections, the key criteria of uniformization will be examined: expansion (between coordination in contiguity and coordination in similarity) and density (between centripetal and centrifugal effects).

Fashion vs. Uniformity

Why should uniformization and uniformity be considered with respect to bottom-up organized fashions? Military and civilian uniforms are usually characterized as top-down organized, restrictive sartorial practices. Superficially, they seem to be the opposite of fashion practices: while fashion is associated with individuality, distinction, and instability,⁶ uniforms are designed to eliminate these criteria, thus representing sameness, conformity, and stability. Yet according to Gabriele Mentges and Birgit Richard, fashion and uniformity are structurally co-dependent: practices associated with fashion inevitably lead to conformity and uniformity, while uniformity contributes to fashionable variety.⁷ Mentges points out that one of the reasons of this structural correspondence is that both fashion and uniformity rely on standardization, seriality, and mass production, made possible by the Industrial Revolution.⁸ One could also argue that since the Digital Revolution — the era of simulacra, digital reproduction, algorithmic cultures⁹ etc. — their mutual dependency has intensified.

Standardization, seriality and technical reproduction are not exclusively reserved for the industrial production of goods such as clothes and textiles, but are also important structural components and instruments of media and communication. For example, especially since Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the movable-type printing press, letterpress printing is considered paradigmatic for the democratization of knowledge in the 15th century, just as mass industrial production of clothing stands for the democratization of fashion in the 19^th century.¹⁰ These technologies share a crucial functional characteristic: they are designed to produce identical copies in large editions and make them simultaneously accessible across spatial distances,¹¹ creating networks of uniformed entities distributed in space. In the Digital Age, technology not only provides easy access to individual copies, but at the same time offers a network of associated/similar/uniformed goods or information: from online stores to social media or streaming platforms — the algorithms are quick to show similar/uniformed items or images.¹²

In post-modern sartorial cultures, uniformity and fashion are not to be considered mutually exclusive. As Jane Tynan and Lisa Godson point out, “differences between uniform and fashion are at times subtle, and at other times, stark”,¹³ it might be suggested that their structural relationship can be visualized as a spectrum: at one extreme, there is rigid uniformity that does not allow for any form of individual expression (e.g. North Korean mass games), at the other extreme there is unreproducible fashionable idiosyncrasy (e.g. Haute Couture bordering on art). Between the two extremes, there are various vestimentary practices — processes of uniformization — producing different levels of sartorial uniformity-with-variety. Bottom-up structure formation can be found among those practices.

Uniformity as a Spatial Stabilizer

Uniformity is a spatial phenomenon. In the military context, sartorial uniforms are designed to help positioning and mobilizing the soldiers’ bodies in space.¹⁴ Because uniforms are closely associated which territorial claims, military parades are such an effective visual means of demonstrating power over space. Thus, uniformity appears most striking, when uniformed bodies are located in close spatial proximity and can be observed simultaneously.

Symbolically, rigid uniformity — be it military or civilian — represents hierarchical organization and is based on spatial inclusion and exclusion. Examining civilian uniforms, Elisabeth Hackspiel-Mikosch and Stefan Haas point out that their development is historically linked to the emergence of the modern administrative systems. As an organizational tool, uniforms provide information about the ‘place’ (position and status) of every individual within the structure.¹⁵

In contrast to rigid uniformity, bottom-up constituted uniformity-with-variety undermines hierarchies. Contrary to the common association of uniformity with subjugation, it relies on its less obvious implications: comparability, equivalence and relationality. When fashion bodies interact with each other in space (coordinate), they form similarity-based alliances which can be characterized as distributed networks of spatial relations. As stated above, distributed structures consist of entities connected to each other across spatial and temporal distances. These distances are key to the understanding of expansion as a central criterion of uniformization.

Contiguity vs. Similarity

How do we observe fashion trends spreading in space? One might suggest that we intuitively estimate the distances between sartorial similarities we encounter. When something is popular, we run into it repeatedly in rapid succession. For example, photographs by Hans Eijkelboom show that standing on a busy street of a big city for one or two hours, one can count at least eighteen very similar looking people.¹⁶ But what can the distances between uniformed individuals tell us about their relationships within a sartorial network?

When fashion bodies form similarity-based alliances with their close neighbors, their relationships may be characterized as coordination in contiguity.¹⁷ This phenomenon occurs when fashion bodies seek stabilization in their immediate environment. Successful coordination in contiguity results in spatially continuous, concentrated uniformity-with-variety that can be observed simultaneously. As stated above, this constellation is typical for top-down organized uniformity. In bottom-up organized sartorial structures, coordination in contiguity occurs less frequently. It may appear at youth-cultural events such as conventions, music festivals, etc.¹⁸ In such cases, the place and the occasion draw the spatially dispersed individuals together. For example, at the Wilderness Festival, a music festival that took place from 1 to 4 August 2019 in Charlbury (GB), at least twelve women, wearing the same polka dot dress by ZARA that had unexpectedly gained popularity in the summer of 2019,¹⁹ came together to be photographed lying in a row next to each other, thus demonstrating the startling effect of accidental uniformity.²⁰ The closer the observer approaches such a structure, the more differences become detectable between the uniformed entities.

Otherwise, we do not usually encounter bottom-up constituted uniformity-with-variety in synchrony, but in temporal succession. Such sartorial interactions can be termed coordination in similarity. Observers of such relationships have to filter out uniformities from a pool of amorphous dissimilarity and use their memory to ‘connect the dots’ between similar fashion bodies. The longer the distances between uniformed fashion bodies are, the more abstract are their sartorial interactions: they might never meet in the actual geographical space. While coordination in contiguity generates a concentrated, continuous, synchronous spatial structure, coordination in similarity just simulates such a continuum.

Uniformization can be characterized as a process of overcoming/reducing spatial distances between fashion bodies via similarity, forming sartorial networks. In a postmodern, pluralistic sartorial environment, several uniformization processes take place at the same time, competing with each other. Similarities crystalize out of several spatial interactions — and then dissolve into alternative, concurrent networks. This complementary process may be termed heteroformization. When uniformization turns into heteroformization, the distances between uniform fashion bodies increase.

Centripetal vs. Centrifugal Effects of Uniformization

Observing dynamics between uniformization and heteroformization, one might notice that some sartorial networks are more flexible and diverse, while others are more fixed and conformist. Flexible networks dissolve fluently and smoothly into competing ones, while rigid structures disintegrate more abruptly. The degree of density in sartorial networks can be described in terms of centrifugal and centripetal effects of uniformization. Centrifugal and centripetal forces regulate, how much variety/diversity/complexity a sartorial network can withstand under the pressure of competition without disintegrating. In other words: How much variety is tolerated within uniformity? How dense and binding are the relationships within and between competing structures?

Analyzing the influence of mass media on social organization, communication theorist Denis McQuail distinguishes between centrifugal and centripetal effects. Mass media, such as television, radio, the internet etc., transcend spatial distances and convey information to many recipients at the same time. For this reason, McQuail argues that mass communication has both diversifying (centrifugal) and unifying (centripetal) effects on modern societies. According to McQuail, centrifugal effects can be positive, such as freedom, change, and diversity, and negative, such as normlessness and loss of identity. Centripetal effects also have advantages, such as integration and solidarity, and disadvantages, such as dominance and conformity.²¹

Analogously, one could argue that in the field of postmodern, democratized fashion(s), spatially oriented uniformization has similar effects on the formation of sartorial cultures. On the one hand, its centrifugal tendencies lead to individualization and diversity, but threaten with mass individualization (“everyone can be anyone”²²), and ‘the flood’ of trends. On the other hand, its centripetal tendencies allow marginalized fashion bodies to connect to each other and form group identities (sub-, youth, countercultures), but can also lead to individuals ‘living in a (vestimentary) bubble’, meaning homogenization and limitation of sartorial choices.

Centrifugal and centripetal effects of uniformization can be described as tendencies regulating structural flexibility/adaptability or rigidity/conformity. If centrifugal tendencies dominate the process of uniformization, the network becomes more flexible and differentiated. Such adaptability allows its coordinating constituents to draw on the diversity of competing structures. If centripetal tendencies shape the process of uniformization, it leads to the emergence of dense, close-knit sartorial alliances. Such structures guard against the competition and the chaos/complexity it brings. The more rigid and homogeneous a sartorial network becomes, the more abruptly coordinating fashion bodies shift from one structure to the other. In short, the difference between centrifugal and centripetal effects is comparable to the contrast between normcore and punk: A fashion body belonging to the former, identifies with the broad spectrum of mainstream fashions, can adapt quickly and easily to fit into different groups, and pursues ‘freedom to be with everyone’;²³ a fashion body belonging to the latter, strongly identifies with a particular, limited group, and is less open to coordination with competing sartorial cultures such as mods or hippies etc. Yet in a pluralistic environment of sartorial cultures of the Digital Age, in which the boundaries between polarities such as street styles vs. mainstream, elite vs. everyday fashion etc. are blurred, any interaction between two (ore more) fashion bodies is a tension field between several centrifugal and centripetal tendencies.

Transformation Distance

Comparing different criteria of uniformization, one might assume that coordination in contiguity is related to centripetal tendencies, and coordination in similarity correlates with centrifugal tendencies: the former produce close-knit sartorial relationships, the latter loosely knit alliances. Although these categories correspond, there is a crucial difference between them. Coordination in contiguity/similarity generates close-knit/loosely knit networks in space. In terms of centrifugal/centripetal effects, the expressions ‘close-knit’ resp. ‘loosely knit’ have figurative meaning and refer to the degree of consensus within the structure. Centrifugal and centripetal effects emerge in conceptual space²⁴ (as opposed to actual, geographical space). For this reason, the categories coordination in contiguity/similarity and centripetal/centrifugal effects can be used independently, as alternative analytical registers of uniformization.

What criteria can be used for measuring distances in conceptual space? One might suggest the notion of transformation distance, originating from a branch of cognitive psychology dealing with perception of similarity. Ulrike Hahn and Nick Chater define the term as follows: “similarity is determined by the transformation distance between representations: entities which are perceived to be similar have representations which are readily transformed into one another, whereas transforming between dissimilar entities requires many transformations”.²⁵

The term transformation distance (TD) can be thus applied within the framework of centrifugal and centripetal effects of uniformization. On the one hand, short TD between fashion bodies within a sartorial network, and long TD to fashion bodies belonging to competing networks indicate centripetal tendencies. On the other hand, (relatively) long TD within a sartorial structure and shorter TD to the competing ones are a sign of centrifugal tendencies. A possible application is shown in the following section using the example of bottom-up organized lavender fashions.

Lavender Fashions

In the Digital Age, street fashion is not confined to the streets. As popular travel destinations, lavender fields provide a photogenic backdrop for fashionable display. They gained even more popularity on social media as places of sartorial coordination during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because lavender fields are distributed in space, one may find uniform fashion bodies e.g. in France, Germany, Tasmania,²⁶ etc. Observing lavender fashions, one can easily filter out women in airy white, purple or yellow dresses, equipped with straw hats and wicker baskets, whose uniformity might be provisionally labeled romantic boho chic,²⁷ from the pool of other everyday sartorial practices that are not bound to this particular location.

To analyze the phenomenon of uniformization on lavender fields, I have collected 500 images from different social media platforms from the period between ca. 2015-2022 and written an algorithm to visualize the distribution of uniformity in terms of centrifugal and centripetal effects based on the concept of TD. This project is designed to illustrate some aspects of the model of sartorial networks and is not to be considered an empirical study. This would include a critical examination of the relationship between fashion and social media, which is not part of this theoretical framework.²⁸

The algorithm sorts the images by similarity based on pre-defined characteristics²⁹ regarding colors and types of dress and accessories, as well as body and image techniques, and translates the degree of uniformity into spatial proximity, representing semantic/conceptual neighborhoods (Fig.1). Being considered as a node in a network, each fashion body is embedded in a reference system of semantic neighborhoods and is simultaneously integrated into several similarity-based alliances. Its coordinates in the overall structure are determined by the TD to other nodes. Thus, two images of people in yellow dresses are not always located next to each other, because this particular uniformization vector might be interrupted or relativized due to stronger relationships.

In the center of the graph, there are clusters of entities with the shortest TD, representing centripetal tendencies of the uniformization. The clusters consist of fashion bodies with overlapping feature sets (Fig.2). On the other hand, all fashion bodies are quite similar: it takes on average four steps to transform any two fashion bodies into each other, meaning that overall TD between competing structures are rather short.

In contrast to cluster-specific feature sets, this interconnectedness owes itself to two types of single features: omnipresent features, which almost every considered fashion body has (e.g. open hair; back to the camera etc.), and non-specific features (e.g. flowing dress/skirt; hand at the back of the head), randomly scattered across all sub-areas of the overall network. These single features point to centrifugal effects of the uniformization, holding all lavender fashions together and combine them into a coherent, relatively homogeneous whole. Thus, the boundaries between competing structures are fluid, and it cannot be precisely determined, how many of them constitute lavender fashions. Due to centripetal effects, fashion bodies at the edge of the network are no isolated difference-makers, but participants creating diversity within uniformity.

Conclusion

The model introduced in this paper assumes that in the field of democratized postmodern fashions of the Digital Age, every participant is integrated into a reference system of spatial relationships and is simultaneously involved in processes of uniformization of several competing sartorial networks. These formations show that bottom-up organized sartorial structures do not always emerge out of difference, novelty and instability. Instead, they are constituted by means of largely unconscious orientation of the participants towards the normal and the similar. Focusing on similarity instead of identity and difference of individuals or groups means comparing and drawing attention to constantly transforming relations between them. The concept challenges the modern Western understanding of fashion as a process of incorporating the abnormal/marginal/different (aesthetics of supposed outsiders) into the spectrum of normality/similarity by the fashion industry with the help of key figures such as designers, influencers or fashion media, thus offering a new perspective on the democratization of fashion.

The mechanism of uniformization draws attention to space as a crucial, but often neglected dimension of sartorial interactions. It has been demonstrated that bottom-up organized stabilization and destabilization of sartorial cultures in space rely on the structural template of uniformity. Connecting similar fashion bodies across spatial distances, uniformization creates distributed networks of uniformity-with-diversity. During this process, different types of relationships between coordinating fashion bodies emerge: there are close and concrete, as well as distant and abstract connections. These connections can be examined with the help of the analytical registers coordination in contiguity/similarity, and centripetal/centrifugal effects, — the former describing sartorial interactions in terms of spatial distances between uniform fashion bodies, the latter in terms of density and commitment.

Analyzing the mechanism of uniformization, it has been pointed out that the combination of spatiality and similarity create a structural tendency towards synchrony: spreading in space, fashion trends move against the flow of time. Yet in contrast to top-down created rigid uniformity, bottom-up generated uniformization is a process that never comes to a halt, and therefore relies on time-as-duration. To understand the process fully, it has to be scrutinized in terms of depth, dynamics, and the duration of sartorial interactions.

Bibliography

Baran, Paul. “On distributed communications: I. Introduction to distributed communications Networks.” IEEE Transactions on Communications Systems, Vol. 12.1 (1964): 1–9.

McDowell, Colin. McDowell’s Directory of Twentieth Century Fashion. London: Frederick Muller, 1984.

Eijkelboom, Hans. People of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Phaidon Press, 2014.

Esposito, Elena. Die Verbindlichkeit des Vorübergehenden. Paradoxien der Mode. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 2004.

Ewen, Stuart and Elizabeth Ewen. Channels of desire. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982.

Gärdenfors, Peter. Conceptual Spaces. The Geometry of Thought. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2004.

GirlsTravelMagazine(GTM) (@girltravelmagazine). “Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur, France.” Instagram photo, July 13, 2021. https://www.instagram.com/p/CRRz7eaMTeJ/.

Hackspiel-Mikosch, Elisabeth and Stefan Haas. Civilian Uniforms as Symbolic Communication. Sartorial Representation, Imagination, and Consumption in Europe (18th–21st Century). Stuttgart: Steiner, 2006.

Hahn, Ulrike, Nick Chater and Lucy B. Richardson. “Similarity as transformation.” Cognition, Vol. 87 (2003): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00184-1.

Hot4thespot (@hot4thespot). “I’M SHOOK @giloscope.” Instagram photo, August 3 2019. https://www.instagram.com/p/B0tadAvl1eR/.

Improviduto. “Boho Chic”. Urban Dictionary. Accessed January 31, 2006. January 20, 2021. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boho+chic.

Jakobson, Roman. “Zwei Seiten der Sprache und zwei Typen aphatischer Störungen.” In Aufsätze zur Linguistik und Poetik, edited by Roman Jakobson, 117–141. München: Nymphenburger Verlagshandlung, 1974.

Kamneva-Wortmann, Anna. Modenetze — Modeschwärme. Kleidungskulturen ohne zentrale Akteure. Bielefeld: Transcript, 2023.

K-Hole. “Youth mode: A report on freedom.” Accessed April 12, 2019. http://khole.net/issues/youth-mode/.

Kale, Sirin “The story of The Dress: how a £40 Zara frock stole the summer.” The Guardian online. Accessed August 19, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/aug/11/the-story-of-the-dress-how-a-40-zara-frock-stole-the-summer.

König, René. Menschheit auf dem Laufsteg. Die Mode im Zivilisationsprozeß. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 1999.

Lehnert, Gertrud. “Mode als Raum, Mode im Raum. Zur Einführung.” In Räume der Mode, edited by Gertrud Lehnert, 7–18. München: Fink, 2012.

Lehnert, Gertrud. “Der modische Körper als Raumskulptur.” In Theatralität und die Krisen der Repräsentation, edited by Erika Fischer-Lichte, 528–549. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2001.

McQuail, Denis. Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage, 2010.

Mentges, Gabriele. “Die Angst vor der Uniformität.” In Schönheit der Uniformität. Körper, Kleidung, Medien, edited by Gabriele Mentges and Birgit Richard, 17–42. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus, 2005.

Seyfert, Robert. Beziehungsweisen. Elemente einer relationalen Soziologie. Weilerswist: Delbrück Wissenschaft, 2019.

Sheisnotlost (@SHEISNOTLOST). “Bridgestowe Lavender, Tasmania.” Pinterest, August 12, 2012. https://www.pinterest.es/pin/582582901799963065/.

Thewanderingcountess (@thewanderingcountess). “~ Petite Provence ~ Germany.” Instagram photo, July 5, 2021. https://www.instagram.com/p/CQ8vW7wM07v/.

Tynan, Jane and Lisa Godson. “Understanding Uniform: An Introduction.” In Uniform: Clothing and Discipline in the Modern World, edited by Jane Tynan and Lisa Godson, 1–22. London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts, 2019.

Winkler, Hartmut. Diskursökonomie. Versuch über die innere Ökonomie der Medien. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2004.

Winkler, Hartmut. Ähnlichkeit. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2021.