One thing to consider is whether Richard Dawkins, and other meme-fiends (oh look, I’m starting a meme – I wonder where it came from) make theories about their pet model of culture, thinking that they’re actually making theories about the thing it is supposed to be a model of. Boy is that ever a classic social science error.

As for phrase-types like ‘I’d like to see YOU come up with a better metaphor!’ – that’s like saying, I’d like to see YOU make this mistake in a better way! Keith, it would still be a mistake. Instead, in social science we try to have an over view of the complexities of the issues involved – not simplistic models to pander to those who didn’t want to do the eye-work with the pile of required textbooks.

Can you give us some examples of better metaphors for mid-level brain function, as we already understand it? We all need better ways to visualize what the science shows…. thanks!

I think you are probably diminishing real cultural differences when you suggest that all societies still have ‘fashion.’ For example, we know that material culture can be VERY consistent over long periods of time. The current feverish changes in fashion seem to be driven primarily by capitalism, as even in very recent periods, only certain segments of the population were attuned to ‘fashion.’ For example, witness the attempt to generate greater ‘fashion consciousness’ in men, and thereby to convince men that they need to put away perfectly good clothes because they are ‘out of style’ and purchase something that is ‘in fashion.’ Admittedly, in certain segments of the population, fashion consciousness and a certain pace of change are considered normal, but I really don’t think that you can say that ‘fashion is still there’ in the same sense.

Clearly, people read clothing in important ways (see, for example, Terry Turner’s piece on the ‘Social Skin’ and body decoration in the Amazon), but these forms of bodily display are often about group identity (and can be very conservative) rather than ‘fashion.’ I suspect that these differences are actually quite profound, and they may signal that a different set of emotions, intellectual tools, and motivations are being mobilized by bodily decoration.

And good luck with the ‘independent scholar’ path. That’s a rough one, but it doesn’t seem to have dampened your energy! Sounds like you’ve got an enormous range of interests — a great anthropological sampling of different phenomena.

I’ve got more ideas than I can use. Anyone is welcome to them.

Ah, as to societies in which fashion is downplayed — fashion is still there, it’s just played out in subtler details. I’m sure Amish women notice who has the latest thing in cap-strings, or the nicest new “plain” fabrics.

I agree that there are moments in which large status upheavals in society are reflected in fashion (Mao jacket, neo-classical muslins rather than elaborately draped and panniered brocade gowns). Wouldn’t one want to work on those AFTER we knew more about smaller changes?

I think you’re right, fashion or other forms of fast-changing esteem would be an interesting one to study, in part because there are easily quantifiable and measurable sorts of factors that might be measured alongside the less tangible measures. In addition, because as you point out, fashion trends are subject to quick manipulation, it might be possible to even create experiments that would allow you to see how susceptible these feelings are to social influences.

However, I would point out that not everyone participates in the fascination with new fashion (as my daughter is more than happy to point out in my case), nor is everyone excited by this. You might have a fun wrinkle in the research looking at those who are ‘fashion conscious’ compared to those who are, how shall we put this?, ‘fashion immune’ (my daughter might say ‘impaired’). In addition, there are whole groups of people — I used to live near large Amish communities, but there are others — who are downright hostile to changes in fashion. It would be interesting to know if the fashion conscious had been conditioned to perceive clothing styles in different ways, using different types of mental processes and associations.

As my comments might suggest, I think you’re going to find variation in the way that people respond to different fashions, but that itself would be a fascinating result, especially if you could find observable differences (either in behavior, manipulability, or even brain activity) that correlated with the more standard psychological measures of traits (I don’t know if there’s a standardized measure of ‘fashion consciousness’ out there already in the psych literature). The differences might suggest why some people, and groups, are more aware, conscious, and interested in fashion.

So rather than discount the ‘fashion-challenged’ (we are ‘poor souls’ perhaps, but a good deal less poor materially), they might be a great measuring stick for the changes in the brain and behavior that go into being fashion aware. Your project sounds fascinating to me, as long as you don’t ‘naturalize’ fashion awareness. Your reflection on the links historically with hierarchical societies is a good one, but then you’d also have to look at moments when ‘de-fashioning’ or a move towards more muted and conservative fashion also took place, such as in relation to the rise of the Protestant bourgeoisie rejecting opulent models of fashion among the English aristocracy. You’d have lots of interesting case studies that I can think of off the top of my head (e.g., fashion under Mao in China, the rise of ‘metrosexual’ fashion in the US, Amish kids who leave the community, middle-aged academics whose daughters try to ‘hip’ them to fashion… the mind boggles.).

Good luck with it, though, if you look into it, and PLEASE keep us posted. It’s just the kind of project we want to learn more about.

In fact, fashion is an interesting sort of cultural conditioning, in that it’s constantly changing. Pointy shoes are IN; they’re OUT; they’re IN. Deciding that they’re IN or OUT isn’t a reasoning process; for a lot of people, it’s as direct an experience as BLUE. (Not for the fashion-challenged, poor souls.) So how do our perceptions change?

My first take on this would be: new gains status when it’s paired with other indicators of high status — not just visual, but also contextual clues like “she’s a popular person” or “this is a high-status fashion show”. If you change too many things all at once and display them on a person of low status in a low-status context, then we’re going to disdain rather than admire the novelties.

It strikes me that this is the sort of limited problem that might be easy to study. Observe brain changes or pupil dilation. Do historical research on fashion. Look at external status markers in primate troops, if those change and how, then compare to human results.