Criticisms[edit]

Whilst the theory has received attention due to its pioneering nature, conceptual development and its use in subsequent and related explanations of fashion diffusion and change, it faces many criticisms.


In a revision of the theory, McCracken states that Simmel does not explain the trickle down effect in its full detail and complexity, failing to account for the fact that only the lowest and highest-ranking groups in society have a single motive for their consumer behaviour. The lowest-ranking group have no lower group from which they must differentiate themselves so act solely in imitation whilst the highest-ranking group acts only to differentiate themselves as they have no higher-ranking social group to imitate. All intermediate groups, however, may have a dual motive. They may act either in imitation, in differentiation or both.^[1]


He also holds that whilst the theory may have been an accurate representation of fashion at the turn of the 19th century, when Simmel and Veblen were writing, the Simmel-Veblen model has little place in today's society. Firstly, the modern social and marketing environment is different to the class system that existed before.


This is because elite fashion has largely been replaced by mass fashion,^[13] which does not involve the same dynamic of imitation and differentiation observed by the trickle-down effect. The power of fashion depends on communication; the more fashion information is communicated, the more human fashion behaviour is impacted. Fashion information in contemporary society is democratised; it is no longer solely the upper class that has the ability to affect fashion behaviour, but a range of social classes and groups. Mass media exposure through televised fashion information, fashion magazines and editorials have allowed simultaneous adoption of new styles at all levels of society.^[14]


It is generally accepted among fashion researchers that fashions propagate more across social classes rather than trickle down (or up)^[15] as consumers tend to be more influenced by opinion leaders within their own social groups. As a result, each social group has its own fashion innovators who determine fashion trends.^[16]


Another criticism is that fashion is innately disorderly and complex. Trying to assign order to a complex phenomenon that usually consists of a range of factors including imitation and differentiation, adoptions and rejects all in relation to an individual's social surroundings^[17] has restricted the theory.^[8]