The field of fashion production in Milan: A theoretical discussion and an empirical investigation
Highlights
- •
- Bourdieu's concept of field of cultural production is proposed to explore strategies of fashion entrepreneurs.
- •
- A theoretical discussion shows that this concept is complementary to that of networks or Becker's world of art.
- •
- Empirically the concept is applied to emerging fashion designers in Milan.
- •
- The notion of field enriches our understanding of local organisation of fashion entrepreneurs.
Abstract
The
paper looks at the fashion industry in Milan, where, as in other
cultural industries, entrepreneurs and professionals rely on their
networks for the exchange of information, the building of reputation,
accessing critical resources and many other crucial activities.
Recently, research has been done about how actors access networks,
emphasising the role of social and cultural capital, stressing how
inequalities are reproduced and highlighting dynamics of exclusion. What
is less explored are actors' strategies to exploit the potential of
networking. With this aim, the paper investigates the dynamic
positioning of fashion professionals in the fashion system of Milan by
using Bourdieu's concept of field of cultural production. Key questions
concern actors' strategy in using and combining their social, cultural
and economic capital in order to gain better positioning in the system
and therefore gain success. In depth interviews and histories of
professional life of fashion designers constitute the basis of the
empirical investigation. Empirical results show that the notion of field
enriches our understanding of local organisation of creative workers.
Keywords
- Bourdieu;
- Fashion industry;
- Network;
- Social capital;
- Field of cultural production;
- Milan
Functions of networks within the creative economy
In
the 1970s Becker paved the way to the study of cultural production,
illustrating that artistic work is the product of collaboration and of a
complex division of labour among many different people: art is social
in character, as well as knowledge, innovation, creativity and culture
which are grounded on a large social base.
The local organisation of creative workers has been described as creative communities (Scott, 2000)
or, more generally, place-based networks of relations. The basic
theoretical assumption recalls Becker's idea that culture is a social
phenomenon and a social construct, and cultural or artistic forms are
comprehensible only in terms of a wider system of human relationships
(Scott, pp. 30–31).
Local
networks represent the environment where social relations develop. A
large body of literature flourished in particular at the turn of the
twentieth-first century, focused on face-to-face interactions,
co-presence and proximity and showed that, notwithstanding improvements
in mobility and communication, people have to meet in person and
face-to-face interactions and physical proximity still matter.
Information
exchange, knowledge (re)production, organisation of work, developing of
trust and recognition (of talent) are the main functions which the
literature agrees to be accomplished by interaction within networks (Banks, 2000, Menger, 2009, Molotch, 2002, Molotch, 2003 and Pratt, 2000). Therefore being into such networks, or, as Storper and Venables put it, being into the loop ( Storper & Venables, 2004),
is crucial for the success of creative professionals. Recent research
has been done about how actors access networks, emphasising the role of
social and cultural capital, stressing how inequalities are reproduced
and highlighting dynamics of exclusion ( Ashton, 2013, Freire-Gibb, Nielsen, 2014, Grugulis, Stoyanova, 2012 and Lee, 2011).
In previous researches on the fashion professionals in Milan and in London (d'Ovidio, 2010),
the importance and functions of networks among fashion operators have
been deeply analysed. Those results confirmed the general outcome of
researches in the creative industry, and they proved the importance of
developing and maintaining social relations for fashion designers. It is
by being connected with other people that they do business, solve
problems and acquire information, visibility and recognition as they
build their reputation. Through social relations, trust is built and
collaboration is fostered. As they need to be connected in order to
function successfully in their profession, time and energy are
constantly invested in networking, in seeing each other and being seen
in the “right” places and events.
The
paper discusses this literature proposing to frame the action of a
sample of fashion entrepreneurs in Milan, Italy, within Bourdieu’s
action theory and to analyse their strategy in using and combining their
social, cultural and economic capital in order to succeed. We will see
that this theoretical framework enhances our understanding of the
cultural production as it offers a deeper insight about conflicts among
actors, about their competitive strategies and their use of capital. We
will also see that such perspective is complementary and not
antithetical to the one focusing on networks and local communities.
Accessing the network or exploiting capitals in the field of cultural production?
The
large body of work exploring functions and importance of networks
focuses on reasons and mechanisms though which networks ease a whole set
of tasks; secondly it shows that being inside the network is crucial
for talent recognition and reputation; and thirdly, that entering the
network implies the use and practice of specific capitals (in particular
social and cultural ones) and that not all actors are accessing such
networks. Granovetter's legacy is clear: actors' embeddedness refers to
the role of concrete personal relations and structures (Granovetter, 1985, p. 490)
and the underlying hypothesis is that the more embedded are the actors,
the more they are successful. Accessing the network seems thus
necessary for the survival of operators within the system, but is it
enough for achieving success?
In
such literature it is not the degree of actors' embeddedness that is in
question, nor the means through which actors become embedded, but the
role and functions performed by the relations developing within the
network; the density of network and basically the number of contacts
which an actor can count on, is assumed as a proxy of success of the
functioning of a network for the given actor, without questioning how
these contacts have been made, whether they are redundant or not,
whether they are effectively conducive to success or not (Blair, 2009).
While
studying interactions' functions, networks are often conceived as a
“reified” social space, with clear boundaries, where the inside actors
win, not focusing enough on how they accessed such space nor what has
happened to those who remain outside.1
Moreover, focusing the attention on the functions performed by interactions within networks, the conflictual dimension
is often neglected and actors tend to be observed only when
collaborating together. As Blair claims, “in looking predominantly
within networks to explain their existence research has concentrated on
understanding structural features” ( Blair, 2009, p. 118).
Here,
a different perspective is offered, that looks at actors' dynamic and
relative positioning in the field of production, using the action theory
elaborated by Bourdieu. Developing a sociological theory of cultural
production, Bourdieu focuses on the relational nature of the field where
actors are seen according to their position-taking characteristics (Born, 2010). This point of view is by no means antithetical2
to that of network, but complementary, as it conceives the field of
production as a social space where actors are qualitatively and
hierarchically positioned. Moreover, if network-thinking allows to
understand cooperation and connection among actors, field-thinking also
helps to identify and analyse conflict. Of course both cooperation and
competition exist in the economic world, in particular with the
emergence of the cognitive-cultural economy that requires often a more
spatially dispersed but integrated organisation of work (Scott, 2008).
So,
key questions concern actors' strategy in using and combining their
social, cultural and economic capital in order to gain better
positioning in the field and therefore succeed.
An “heretical” use of Bourdieu's notion of field
Bourdieu's
action theory aims at overcoming the dualistic idea of agency and
structure with a more complex relation between internal drives and
external forces which results in the actor practice. The agent owns a
set of capitals (economic, cultural and social one) that combine in the
social action following two forces: an internal one, namely, the habitus, and an external one, determined by the social space. The habitus
is conceived as a subjective predisposition in using one's capitals
that agents acquired in their experiences. As Bourdieu himself wrote:
“subjects are active and knowing agents endowed with a practical sense, that is, an acquired system of preferences, of principles of vision and divisions (what is usually called taste), and also a system of durable cognitive structures (which are essentially the product of internalisation of objective structures) and of schemes of actions which orient the perception of the situation and the appropriate response. The habitus is this kind of practical sense for what is to be done in a given situation […].” (Bourdieu, 1998, p. 25)
Each agent, owing to a particular set of capitals, acts in a field that is characterised by a specific structure. In The Rules of Art ( Bourdieu, 1996),
Bourdieu presents most of the basic definition and uses of the field of
cultural production. The field is not only the arena within which the
action takes place, it structures the social position where agents' habitus operates; in Bourdieu's words, the field is:
“[…] a network of objective relations (of domination or subordination, of complementarity or antagonism, etc.) between positions […]. Each position is objectively defined by its objective relationship with other positions, or, in other terms, by system of relevant (meaning efficient) proprieties which allow it to be situated in relation to all others in the structure of the global distribution of properties. All positions depend […] on their actual and potential situation in the structure of the field. (Bourdieu, 1996, p. 231)
Bourdieu
specifies that in the analysis of an artwork, we must include in the
field within which it has been produced, not only the artist, but also
the whole set of agents and institutions that contribute to the
production of the value and belief of such artwork (not only cultural
intermediaries such as critics, curators, journalists, but also the
political and administrative institutions as ministers, academies,
museums…).
Fields are
therefore arenas of struggle in which individuals and organisations
compete, consciously and unconsciously, to valorise those forms of
capital which they possess (Benson & Neveu, 2005a.
p. 4). It consists not only of institutions, organisations, people, but
also cultural production, its symbols and its products; the community
of creative professionals (the local-based network) is part of the
field, but it is not totally superimposed on it. All elements of the
field are in the mutual relationship and actors perform in the field
with the aim of maintaining, or gaining, power positions.
Conceived
in this way, the notion of field provides further insights into the
local organisation of actors in the fashion system for the following
reasons.
First, it allows to
explore how agents make use of their capital (social, economic or
cultural one) in order to get better positions (emerge or consolidate)
in the field and therefore to take into consideration also conflicts
among actors. Bourdieu's approach has been criticised by being too much
oriented to the analysis of conflict within the field of cultural
production, but not being able to account the transformative power of
such conflict in the art sphere. According to Born, Bourdieu offers a
frame where to analyse “the antagonistic of position-taking” neglecting
the “substantive meaning and power of particular aesthetic formation” (Born, 2010, p. 179).
However, if we can agree with Born in the critiques of Bourdieu's
approach when he analyses the transformation of the aesthetics in the
cultural production, we intend to use such frame exactly in the analysis
of competitive positioning of actors, as similarly has been applied to
the journalistic field (Benson & Neveu, 2005b).
The
field perspective defines the cultural production as a social space and
organises it in sub-fields that are in mutual relational positions.
Agents position themselves within a field and also within a sub-field
based on how they use their capital (social, cultural, economic). Fields
and sub-fields are themselves organised as agents within the field, and
positioned according to two ordering forces: the market and the
culture. The first one, also called heteronomous because it is external
to the cultural field, is favourable to those who are dominant on the
economic side. The latter is related to the producer of art for art's sake
and Bourdieu refers to it as the autonomous force in the field.
Bourdieu identifies two main sub-fields in the literary field at the end
of the nineteenth century: the small-scale production and the sub-field
dominated by the market logic, ranging from the vaudeville or series,
to the Acadèmie (institutional consecration) ( Bourdieu, 1996, p. 122).
Once
defined as field of cultural production, such social space is
considered the environment where actors struggle for their autonomy
(from other authors and from other fields) and for recognition. The
control of the field is at stake and therefore the entry mechanisms, the
rules of field, its aesthetics and so on. Of course what is valid for
the field in general is valid for each sub-field, too. In a crucial pass
of The Rules of Art, Bourdieu argues: “To define boundaries, defend them and control entries is to defend the established order in the field” ( 1996,
225). Some boundaries have codified rules (such as the need of a
particular title or degree), others have more informal entering rules,
but if not for that, they are less effective.
Who
has the authority within the field is not only able to impose their own
world view, ideas and aesthetic, but also has the authority to be recognised.
Cerulo interprets the field in terms of struggle for recognition: “each
agent is positioned in the field in order to impose his/her principle
of dominant view, which means, to struggle in order to be recognised, to
be considered by other members, to be noticed, identified” ( Bourdieu & Cerulo, 2010).
This reminds us of one of the most important functions of the network,
as being in the network means to be recognised and acknowledged as a
talented creative professional ( Storper & Venables, 2004).
The relational perspective offered by the field notion allows to unfold
better the logic of the recognition: it is not only necessary to be “in
the loop”, in order to credit or to be credited with talent, but it is
necessary to be in a dominant position in the field.
We
call “heretical” such use of Bourdieu's concept of field of cultural
production for two main reasons. First Bourdieu develops such a concept
to “enable the scientific construction of social object” (Bourdieu, 2005, p. 30),
therefore to explain the meaning of art or cultural work, while here
the concept is used to frame agents' actions and positions and to
understand their strategies.
Secondly, the Bourdieusian field is not spatialised, namely, there is no geography in the theory of field and the space
is always understood as a social, a spatial space. In this work the
field notion is applied to the fashion industry of Milan, taking into
consideration agents and institutions based in Milan, following the way
paved by Santagata, who used such approach for the artistic field in
Turin: such spatialised notion of field helps to specify the elements of
a particular localised production system and to analyse the place-based
cultural production referring simultaneously to path-dependency
elements (e.g. the history of the creative community), to spatial
factors, to relational factors, all observed in their mutual connection (
Santagata, 1998).
Local organisation of actors in the field of fashion production in Milan
The
paper investigates the dynamic positioning of fashion entrepreneurs in
the fashion system of Milan by applying Bourdieu's theory of field of
cultural production, in the above explained terms. In depth interviews
and histories of professional life of fashion entrepreneurs constitute
the basis of the empirical investigation.3
The
fashion system has to be conceptualised here as the field of fashion
production, such as the social space that comprises fashion producers,
producers of value and belief of fashion; the field has its spatial
boundaries in the metropolitan area of Milan, Italy.
The
aim of the paper is that of framing the action of a sample of fashion
entrepreneurs and understanding their strategies (their use of capitals)
in order to succeed (obtain better position in the field).
To this purpose, we investigated three main spheres.
The
structure of the field of fashion production in Milan and their
sub-field: which and how many sub-field constitute the field, and how do
agents (fashion entrepreneurs) in the sub-field (re)present or narrate
themselves.
How actors enter
the (sub-)field, looking at their educational path (their cultural
capital), and at their first working (with or even without salary)
experience.
Strategies to
position-gaining in the field are explored, and agents' actions are
observed as the combination of their set of capitals (cultural, social
or economic one) performed in order to strengthen their position within
the (sub)field, or to gain new positions/obtain better ones.
Field and sub-field of fashion production in Milan
As
the field has to be conceived as a social space organised by an
external force (the market) and an internal one (the cultural or
creative sphere), the work of the fashion designer is always stretched
by being creative and being marketable. The fashion system is, indeed,
working on a double sense flows: on the one side the economy, managerial
and marketing level, on the other one the aesthetic and creative side (Lipovetsky 1987).
Fashion
designers are positioned in the field according to the importance they
give to creativity vis-à-vis to market and the respective recognition
they obtain. Moreover, in our sample, another tension emerges, that
between the making of a dress and the designing, or between the quality
and the aesthetic.
Therefore,
from the interviews we collected, the field can be conceived as
structured in two major sub-fields, and a transversal third one. The
first subfield includes all well-established fashion designers,
responding to and dominated by the market logic, basically the large
fashion houses of the Milanese fashion industry (the consolidated
sub-field from now on); the second sub-field can be compared with the
small-scale production in the literary field (Bourdieu, 1996),
and it comprises independent fashion designers, usually young and
emerging, proposing creative clothes, experimenting different aesthetics
(the independent sub-field). The sub-field of craft-based fashion
designers is the transversal sub-field, where we found those who are
interested in the quality of their clothes which they make themselves,
or whose manufacturing is very carefully organised (the craft-based
sub-field).
The
self-representation of fashion designers has been the key through which
sub-fields have been identified and through which designers have been
located in the social space.
Designers
of the consolidated sub-field tend to emphasise how fashion is a
business; they present themselves as experts of the fashion world.
Emerging fashion designers tend to emphasise their creativity and their unfamiliarity with the real
fashion world; they underline how creativity, and not marketing, leads
their creations: “I see my job both as a professional project and
cultural one. I want to say something, and being autonomous” (int. 1).
Emerging
fashion designers aiming at entering the sub-field of established
fashion designers usually quote famous designers and refer to their
professional careers, presenting themselves as stilista. 4
Stilista is who has a style, imposes his own style; while the designer works exactly at designing something that has been thought by someone else. […] My activity is that of stilista […]. Journalists today want to see the style, and if you do not have it, you're nobody. Not all graduated from a fashion school can be Armani, Dior or Madame Chanel. (int. 20)
Finally
fashion designers who are more involved in the artisanal world stress
how much they need to work with their hands, and how intellectual is the
manual work. They tend to emphasise the poor tailoring experience of
people working in the fashion world, and also the superficiality of that
world.
Once I saw a collection of night dresses with all fasteners that was sewed wrongly and badly: I had to work 20 hours to fix them, I was the only one able to do it. (int. 22)
Entering the field: education and first (work) experiences
Fashion
designers in our sample experienced three different kinds of
educational paths: they attended training schools, or design schools, or
they are not trained in fashion schools.
The
first ones have a strong manual skill and often they chose this kind of
schools because “at least I learnt a trade” (int. 24): they tend to be
very proud of their technical skills, underlying for instance that “now
in the fashion world nobody is able to sew on a button” (int. 24). Most
of these fashion designers enter the field, thanks to their cultural
capital (their technical skill), with an internship or a job in a small
tailor laboratory, or making clothes and selling directly to shops or to
friends.
Design schools
focus on the creative side, rather than on the making techniques;
fashion designers with such an education have a strong competency in
imagining a collection, in designing clothes, but they are not trained
in making clothes, in designing the patterns and so on.
Among
the interviewees, those with a more theoretical and creative education
seem to have very clear ideas: they consider themselves as stilista (in the aforementioned terms), they aspire to have recognition and to be well positioned in the field.
Fashion
entrepreneurs with a technical education have generally less clear
images about their careers, although some strive for the recognition
from the fashion establishment.
Those
who came in the fashion industry without a specific education stress
that they became designers “by chance” and they recall often the role of
some particular person, so as to emphasise their social capital, but
also they tend to emphasise that “creativity is something that needs to
be satisfied” (int. 16).
For
all interviewees the first encounter with the fashion world is not the
first job: during school they participate in fashion events or even in
fashion shows, or they work (as internship) with tailors, or again they
have some proto-working experiences with friends.
As
for instance: “I made hats just for fun and by chance they have been
shot by a Vogue photographer” (int. 9) or “I used to sew clothes and
sell them in small markets (or to friends)” (int. 25; int. 14), “with
the school I participated at the Toronto fashion show” (int. 19).
The
first job is linked to school, too: all those who came from a school
(either theoretical or technical) have an experience in a fashion house
as an internship. Internships are rather variegated and their stint can
be up to two years long, or very short (even less than 6 months). They
are generally not paid and the exploitation of young designers is very
intense (McRobbie, 1998).
After the internship they either stay in the company for a long or
short period of time and then they open their own companies.
The
ones without a fashion-related education usually “evolve” from an
embryonic and informal phase where they make dresses for themselves and
for friends, towards a more consolidated or formal stage where they
formalise their company, they sell to shops or to private customers.
I made 10 dresses and brought them to the neighbour playground and sold them immediately to friends; then I made 30 and sold them, and finally 50. After some months I made a small sample case and brought to shops. (int. 16)
Once
starting to confront the field, fashion designers have to survive on
their job, and to be recognised as such. The two forces leading the
field of fashion production (the market and the culture, or in simpler
words, earning one's bread and butter and being addressed as a fashion
designer) are not always connected.
The
cultural recognition in the field is performed by a number of cultural
intermediaries that, in this case, act as gatekeepers. Accepting new
clients is, for a multi-brand shop, a showroom or a buyer, both an
acknowledgement of the designers' talent, and also a test of the
intermediary capacity in recognising talent. The same can be said for a
journalist or a magazine, or for a fair or a catwalk. Therefore,
cultural intermediaries tend to be very cautious when they give their
recognition.
I had the chance of being selected by a showroom: they are very important, very good and they help me to mature. (int. 9)Vogue event and The Corner has been essential for our visibility. (int.17)Press and buyer acknowledgment is important for us, because we know that there are people interested in inserting our collection into their shops, and photographers willing to shoot us, journalist to review us and so on. (int. 3)
In
fashion fairs it is not only important to be accepted (everyone able to
pay the fee is indeed welcome), but to be assigned a good position, as
it emerges from the experiences of these designers: “It was a terrible
fair, they assigned us a dump” (int. 18); “That fair was completely
useless, it cost, but nobody saw us” (int. 20). Also awards and
competitions are essential to enter the field and be recognised.
With the winter collection I won an award that allowed me to a Paris catwalk, Who's next, that is very large and important, I hope it will open me opportunities. (int. 20)
Designers
enter the field not only by cultural intermediaries, but also by
obtaining recognition by the market, namely, by selling their creations:
opening a shop (or a workshop) and selling directly to customers, or
selling to shops, or having agents or showrooms.
I personally go to shop owners to show my clothes: I put ten/twenty dresses in a suitcase and go to present them. Sometime they order, sometime they don't. (int. 15).
Obtaining
market recognition and surviving is very hard, both because of the
harsh competition and because of the high costs that might come. Indeed,
of 26 interviewees only 15 are able to live, thanks to their job as
fashion designers: the others survive, thanks to their partners,
parents, or other jobs.
Strategies in order to strengthen positions or to obtain better ones
Approaching
the field and entering it is just the first step for fashion
entrepreneurs; they have then to gain a good position into the field.
The
strategies aiming at strengthening positions within the fields are
different according to the sub-fields and to the one designers might
aim, and they are related to the two spheres of recognition, it being
the market or the culture (the external force or the internal one to the
field).
After the first
steps into the field, fashion entrepreneurs have to confront with the
making and presenting of their collections as the fashion industry is
based on seasonal (six-months) collections, which have to be presented
in particular scheduled periods. Even showrooms and shops mostly work in
terms of collections. Preparing a collection requires a large amount of
resources: time, knowledge, and money. Fashion entrepreneurs depend
strongly on their social capital in order to learn and solve many
practical problems (find a good fabric, good pattern cutter, deal with
administration and so on), but they have to rely on their economic and
cultural capitals, too.
Differences
occur in terms of education, because those who came from a training
school can use their cultural capital and make the collection
themselves, while those without technical skills have to convert their
economic capital into competencies (namely pay someone else to make
their collection), but, conversely, they have more competences in terms
of conceiving and designing an entire collection. Also social capital
has to be converted into an economic one if investors are to be found.
It's very difficult to have loans from banks. Access to credit is much easier for employees rather than to a self-employed. (int. 20)[talking about an investor] we met some time ago and one day he told me that he had some money to invest in new business and he proposed me to become associate. (int. 25)
Usually
fashion entrepreneurs invest a large amount of resources in the first
collection, and this is the most delicate stage of their career. If they
fail (they do not obtain any recognition by cultural intermediaries nor
the market), the risk of bankrupting is very high; otherwise, they
might have a small return that can be re-invested in another collection.
Most of the interviewees claim that the first four of five collections
yield very little returns, so much so that some of them went out of
business.
Collections have to
be seen, presented and sold: recognition by cultural intermediaries and
the market is even more difficult at a later stage than at the very
beginning, when designers can count on their freshness in the field.
Moreover, sub-fields are dominated by powerful designers who want to
leave out the “newcomers” in order to secure their powerful positions.
So a fashion designer in the emerging sub-field aiming to the
established one might try and participate in the main Milanese fashion
show, or become a member of the Italian National Chamber of Fashion (the
institution that represents the most established and powerful fashion
designers in Italy). On their side, the established fashion designers
will protect themselves and their position by securing the access to the
field only to those who have a large economic and social capital:
“it's very expensive to participate to the fashion show, and then you have to pass a selection” … “I've asked to become member of the Italian Fashion Council, but after they saw my CV and turnover they refused.” (int. 20).
Similarly,
the recognition from the cultural intermediaries is difficult because
they, too, have to protect their reputation and their position in the
field. On the one side they have to look for something new and fresh
every day, on the other they have to guarantee a good return in terms of
money:
All fairs and fashion magazines today pay attention to advertisers, to those who have more money to spend […] fashion magazine has the problem of inserting something innovative between D&G and Calzedonia. (int. 14)
Conclusions
The
general question that gave rise to such empirical investigation
concerned how fashion entrepreneurs enter their network of relations and
whether entering the network is enough to succeed. Applying Bourdieu's
action theory situated within the field of cultural production, we aimed
at giving an answer to such a question framing the action of a sample
of fashion entrepreneurs in the fashion field of Milan. The first
emerging element is that, posing in this way, the question is
misleading, and a better one concerns how do fashion entrepreneurs enter
the field of fashion production and how do they consolidate their
positions. Within the field, one's network is conceived as the social
space where social capital is built and used.
Entering
the field means being recognised by the forces that regulate the field,
namely, the market and the cultural sphere. To consolidate their
position fashion entrepreneurs have to tackle the rapid succession of
collections, which the fashion field is organised on. Here the whole set
of capital owned by the fashion entrepreneurs is at stake as well as
the capacity of the business to survive. The system is extremely
competitive: only fashion designers with a large set of capitals are
able to survive, but, more importantly, mainly those with a large amount
of economic capital succeed, because awards and cultural
acknowledgements are not necessarily enough to assure the market
success; moreover the formal financial system and formal collective
actors (The National Chamber for Italian Fashion, Chamber of Commerce,
trade associations) seem not interested in supporting at large emerging
fashion designers. Social capital has proven to be equally important, in
particular when able to be converted to economic capital. The emerging
picture is that of a very close system that aims to secure the
established and powerful actors and to reproduce itself over time.
Cultural intermediaries seem dependent on powerful actors in the field,
and therefore reproducing the system, but more close attention should be
paid to that sphere with specific research programmes.
This
perspective revealed to be very productive because not only does it
give the possibility of understanding the complexity of the fashion
system, but it also allows to relatively position the actors within the
fields and sub-fields according to capitals and strategies. Moreover the
concept of field allows to address conflicts that constantly emerge
between the dominant actors and the new-comers struggling for their
recognition. More attention should be paid to other actors in the field:
institutions, cultural intermediaries, and consolidated fashion
designers, in order to better acknowledge also their strategies.
Such
perspective is extremely interesting also because it helps thinking
differently about policies supporting creative sectors in cities, as,
for instance, the fashion industry. Indeed, a crucial element is, for
instance, the field degree of openness to external influences: a field
dominated by actors willing to accept newcomers will be more easily a
field open to cultural innovation and, therefore, more innovative,
although maybe with actors owing few economic capital. On the contrary, a
field dominated by economically powerful actors, tend to be close to
the emerging ones and to cultural innovation: it risks, on the long run,
to loose the international competition based on novelty and creativity.
An articulated and complex research programme, offering a complete
picture of the field, has innovative chances firstly because it allows a
deep understanding of the cultural production, secondly as a powerful
tool in suggesting urban policies that are efficient, situated and able
to respond to the needs of all actors in the field.
