Fashion by George Simmel,
The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 62, No. 6 (May, 1957), pp. 541-558

"It [fashion] is the field which we can most easily relinquish to the bent towards imitation, which it would be a sin to follow in important questions [faith, science, individualism, etc.] (545)."
yes, I agree. I agree. this is why I have dilemma buying new clothes. I can't justify spending more money on buying a new clothing, when I already have more than enough. But those are from the past seasons out of fashion!!

How Simmel outrightly proclaims fashion as shallow, and can be bought with money (545) , amazes me. It's true, but I could never verbalize this truth in such a frank and matter of fact way.

Something that I never even thought to think about before:
"Should one of these [tendencies towards union and segregation in a society] be absent, fashion will not be formed - its sway will abruptly end (546)."
Fashion lives on the tension-building interaction between more than two societal groups. The more unavailable a style or fabric is, the more fashionable it becomes. So something becomes fashionable under these conditions; (1) a member of upper class wears it (in contemporary time: a celebrity wears it) (2) the supply of that thing is low (3) the rest envies it.

On page 548, Simmel tries to explain in what circumstance fashion is given dominance over greater convictions such as moral, faith, and science. He says: "The break with the past... this accentuation of the present" is the cause. I do not understand this part enough to agree or disagree.

"Fashion raises even the unimportant individual by making him the representative of a class, the embodiment of a joint spirit (548)."
This phenomenon happens in Japan and Korea a lot. Middle class people will spend a big portion of their savings on purchasing brand name fashion goods, so as to appear like they count in the society. Related to this is my observation that Korean people's home decorations are neglected by the wives or whoever keeps the house together, because big social events often take place outside of someone's home. So it makes sense to invest money in what they wear, rather than where they live. I noticed that in the U.S. many people invite friends over to their houses. When I go to Bloomingdale's, I see a lot of expensive and fancy home decoration items.

"such individuals [who have a feeling of modesty and reserve] do not care to resort to a peculiarity in externals for fear of perhaps betraying a peculiarity of their innermost soul... a triumph of the soul over [fashion]... (552)"
I understand this idea, but why Simmel calls this kind of resolve by these spiritual or moral individuals as using "mask", I do not understand. Why mask? Because I would think that these individuals do not use the clothes to mask their individuality and do not try to appear as a member of a certain social group.

I also do not follow Simmel's stream of thought on the topic of ego on page 555.

"very frequently not the slightest reason can be found for the creations of fashion from the standpoint of an objective, aesthetic, or other expediency (544)."
Simmel says this in the beginning part of the article, I was hesitant to agree with this statement. However, as I finished the reading, I do agree with the statement. Am I just mesmerized by his way of thinking?

Clothing: The Portable Environment by Susan M. Watkins,
pp. xv-xviii and 334-355

an object that represents my individuality

If a close friend of mine saw this object, she will know that this belongs to me. This object is a ordinary looking cover/blanket in which I can hide and become invisible. I call it 'invisibility cloak'. Eversince middle school, I started to notice that what I wear represent my social status. I could not justify the amount of money that cost just to purchase a clothing. Though it was a nice clothing. This realization came with heavy feelings of guilt and shame. I started to only wear clothes that were so ordinary that did not have any quality about it that described me as a person ideologically, socially, and politically. I became invisible through clothing and that has gradually became my individuality - being invisible. Now that many years have passed, I now realize that, yes, clothing often reflect my social status, and no, I do not have to be confined to just that meaning of clothes. I try to find my true identity and be consistent through my clothes. Sometimes I do not care what I wear, sometimes I do. I look forward to how my perspective on clothing will develop throughout this semester.