1. Why is imitation important?
I think that Simmel suggests that imitation is important, not only in fashion but in other aspects of life, because it provides a mode of learning cultural customs, and beyond that, provides a starting point for departure towards individuality. Imitation also allows for a sense of belonging within a certain community. If somebody in a certain sector of the "middle class", let's say of suburban origin and slightly subversive tendencies -- if that person finds comfort in the fashions of people with similar personalities, then imitating that fashion provides a sense of belonging for that person as well as makes that person a "model" for that particular community.
2. What is the duel nature of fashion in terms of cultural expression?
The duel nature of fashion, as Simmel explains, is the constant struggle between desire for imitation and individuality. Today, it could be said, most people strive to imitate some form of fashion, yet maintain a certain amount of individuality by slightly or significantly altering a current form of fashion, or by behaving differently than the majority of the people who follow that particular form of fashion.
3. Explain fashion as a power structure. (How can it be employed as a power structure?)
Simmel (constantly) emphasizes the fact that the upper class constantly strives to be "in vogue", more often than not using fashion as a means to differentiate and separate themselves from those of lower classes. However, since the lower classes are simultaneously constantly striving to be more like the upper class (or the "successful" people), the former tries to imitate the fashions of the upper class. This process can sometimes take some time though, as merely "identifying" exactly what makes up the upper class fashion, and then for the lower classes, allowing time to either build up monetary resources in order to obtain those fashions or time for the market to start creating inexpensive versions of the upper class fashion. In the end though, once the lower classes begin to succeed in imitating the fashion of the upper class, the upper class takes on a new fashion as to continue to differentiate themselves from the lower classes. This becomes a continuous cycle.
4. Explain the phenomena of fashion as "other" or foreign.
Simmel makes a reference to fetishizing that which is foreign by stating something along the lines of, "the eyes focus better on a point that is not too close to the face." I think what he is suggesting by that statement is that by being outside of a certain fashion -- looking at "foreign" fashions -- makes it easier to create a specific sense or attitude for that fashion, whereas with local fashion it may be harder create a specific sense for a particular fashion because more is known about the types of people who take on that fashion and those people may more obviously differ from each other than those people of a particular foreign fashion. Foreign things in general tend to become more valuable, due to their "different-ness" and possibly in some cases the expense of importing such things as well.
5. Contrast the role of fashion in a place like New Guinea with the role of fashion in New York.
In New Guinea, or in any "primitive" culture as Simmel would describe them, change in any form is often feared and in many cases, at least as far as fashion is concerned, deemed unnecessary. It becomes unnecessary because in many of these cultures there is less emphasis upon, or even a total lack of, classes or differentiation between classes. In large US cities, especially New York, people are constantly reminded of fashion, through advertising and store fronts -- one could easily say the much of the fashion industry worldwide is based in New York. In the US, as well as other "civilized" nations, most people seek at least some degree of individuality, and for a lot of people a primary mode of acquiring individuality is through clothing. Therefore in New York, fashion dictates much about the status and beliefs of individual people.
6. How does temporality function as a part of fashion (the passage of time)?
Fashion would not exist if it was not temporal in some way. If we continued to wear the same fashions that were worn in the 1800's, there would be no new fashions, and therefore all clothes would simply be "THE" fashion, the only fashion, and we could just call all clothes "Clothes", with no fashion branding attached to them. It is the dynamism of fashion the enables it to exist -- what makes certain eras of time known for certain fashions and enables new fashions to be created or old ones recycled.
7. Why are women stereotypically more involved in fashion than men?
Simmel suggests that before modern times, when the majority of women still did not experience many of the freedoms allowed to men (whether occupational, recreational, social, etc.), they would often use fashion as a means to create a higher degree of individuality for themselves. He also suggests that when people in general, both men and women, feel unable to express themselves in other aspects of life or feel discontent in those aspects, they often rely on fashion a mode to acquire individuality. However, it could be said that woman have stereotypically relied on this more due the many oppressions they have suffered throughout history.
8. What is my relationship to fashion?
I think that in some ways, in the past few years, I have become both more observant of fashion and more resilient to it. In middle school and high school there were definitely certain brand names that I advocated, which would have been evidenced through my clothing, as well as certain brand names that I abhorred, which was probably evidenced by my inclination to not hang out with many people who advocated those brands. Today, I would say that I am still pretty conscious of different fashions and brands, though I don't think that I could say that I follow a particular type of fashion. Most of the time now, I actually avoid wearing anything where the clothing company visibly Brands the clothing -- for example I will usually not wear a shirt that says "Calvin Klein" in big letters on the front of it. I feel that wearing things like that simply makes people into walking billboards and actually decreases individuality. I try not to wear plainly branded things, not because I necessarily have problems with certain companies, but because there must be some type of strong political or social statement that I agree with in order for me to wear such things. I also think a large part of my desire for unbranded (no visible logos or names) clothing is that I don't really care so much who makes the clothing, as long as it's well made and looks nice. I do often wear band T-shirts, that are often clearly marked with the band's name - however I feel that this is different than wearing clothing labeled by large companies because I feel that it is easier for me to identify the ethics and attitudes of musical groups and determine whether or not I agree with them -- whereas the ethics and attitudes of large companies may often be unclear.
