Thisspiritualneedofdressisnotwholly，norevenchiefly，anaivepropensityfordisplayofexpenditure。Thelawofconspicuouswasteguidesconsumptioninapparel，asinotherthings，chieflyatthesecondremove，byshapingthecanonsoftasteanddecency。Inthecommonrunofcasestheconsciousmotiveofthewearerorpurchaserofconspicuouslywastefulapparelistheneedofconformingtoestablishedusage，andoflivinguptotheaccreditedstandardoftasteandreputability。
　　Itisnotonlythatonemustbeguidedbythecodeofproprietiesindressinordertoavoidthemortificationthatcomesofunfavorablenoticeandcomment，thoughthatmotiveinitselfcountsforagreatdeal；butbesidesthat，therequirementofexpensivenessissoingrainedintoourhabitsofthoughtinmattersofdressthatanyotherthanexpensiveapparelisinstinctivelyodioustous。Withoutreflectionoranalysis，wefeelthatwhatisinexpensiveisunworthy。“Acheapcoatmakesacheapman。““Cheapandnasty“isrecognizedtoholdtrueindresswithevenlessmitigationthaninotherlinesofconsumption。Onthegroundbothoftasteandofserviceability，aninexpensivearticleofapparelisheldtobeinferior，underthemaxim“cheapandnasty。“Wefindthingsbeautiful，aswellasserviceable，somewhatinproportionastheyarecostly。Withfewandinconsequentialexceptions，weallfindacostlyhand-wroughtarticleofapparelmuchpreferable，inpointofbeautyandofserviceability，toalessexpensiveimitationofit，howevercleverlythespuriousarticlemayimitatethecostlyoriginal；
　　andwhatoffendsoursensibilitiesinthespuriousarticleisnotthatitfallsshortinformorcolor，or，indeed，invisualeffectinanyway。TheoffensiveobjectmaybesocloseanimitationaStodefyanybuttheclosestscrutiny；andyetsosoonasthecounterfeitisdetected，itsaestheticvalue，anditscommercialvalueaswell，declinesprecipitately。Notonlythat，butitmaybeassertedwithbutsmallriskofcontradictionthattheaestheticvalueofadetectedcounterfeitindressdeclinessomewhatinthesameproportionasthecounterfeitischeaperthanitsoriginal。Itlosescasteaestheticallybecauseitfallstoalowerpecuniarygrade。
　　Butthefunctionofdressasanevidenceofabilitytopaydoesnotendwithsimplyshowingthatthewearerconsumesvaluablegoodsinexcessofwhatisrequiredforphysicalcomfort。Simpleconspicuouswasteofgoodsiseffectiveandgratifyingasfarasitgoes；itisgoodprimafacieevidenceofpecuniarysuccess，andconsequentlyprimafacieevidenceofsocialworth。Butdresshassubtlerandmorefar-reachingpossibilitiesthanthiscrude，first-handevidenceofwastefulconsumptiononly。If，inadditiontoshowingthatthewearercanaffordtoconsumefreelyanduneconomically，itcanalsobeshowninthesamestrokethatheorsheisnotunderthenecessityofearningalivelihood，theevidenceofsocialworthisenhancedinaveryconsiderabledegree。Ourdress，therefore，inordertoserveitspurposeeffectually，shouldnotonlyheexpensive，butitshouldalsomakeplaintoallobserversthatthewearerisnotengagedinanykindofproductivelabor。Intheevolutionaryprocessbywhichoursystemofdresshasbeenelaboratedintoitspresentadmirablyperfectadaptationtoitspurpose，thissubsidiarylineofevidencehasreceiveddueattention。A
　　detailedexaminationofwhatpassesinpopularapprehensionforelegantapparelwillshowthatitiscontrivedateverypointtoconveytheimpressionthatthewearerdoesnothabituallyputforthanyusefuleffort。Itgoeswithoutsayingthatnoapparelcanbeconsideredelegant，orevendecent，ifitshowstheeffectofmanuallaboronthepartofthewearer，inthewayofsoilorwear。Thepleasingeffectofneatandspotlessgarmentsischiefly，ifnotaltogether，duetotheircarryingthesuggestionofleisure-exemptionfrompersonalcontactwithindustrialprocessesofanykind。Muchofthecharmthatinveststhepatent-leathershoe，thestainlesslinen，thelustrouscylindricalhat，andthewalking-stick，whichsogreatlyenhancethenativedignityofagentleman，comesoftheirpointedlysuggestingthatthewearercannotwhensoattiredbearahandinanyemploymentthatisdirectlyandimmediatelyofanyhumanuse。
　　Elegantdressservesitspurposeofelegancenotonlyinthatitisexpensive，butalsobecauseitistheinsigniaofleisure。ItnotonlyshowsthatthewearerisabletoconsumearelativeLylargevalue，butitarguesatthesametimethatheconsumeswithoutproducing。
　　Thedressofwomengoesevenfartherthanthatofmeninthewayofdemonstratingthewearer’sabstinencefromproductiveemployment。ItneedsnoargumenttoenforcethegeneralizationthatthemoreelegantstyLesoffemininebonnetsgoevenfarthertowardsmakingworkimpossiblethandoestheman’shighhat。Thewoman’sshoeaddstheso-calledFrenchheeltotheevidenceofenforcedleisureaffordedbyitspolish；becausethishighheelobviouslymakesany，eventhesimplestandmostnecessarymanualworkextremelydifficult。Thelikeistrueeveninahigherdegreeoftheskirtandtherestofthedraperywhichcharacterizeswoman’sdress。Thesubstantialreasonforourtenaciousattachmenttotheskirtisjustthis；itisexpensiveandithampersthewearerateveryturnandincapacitatesherforalLusefulexertion。Thelikeistrueofthefemininecustomofwearingthehairexcessivelylong。
　　Butthewoman’sapparelnotonlygoesbeyondthatofthemodernmaninthedegreeinwhichitarguesexemptionfromlabor；
　　italsoaddsapeculiarandhighlycharacteristicfeaturewhichdiffersinkindfromanythinghabituallypracticedbythemen。
　　Thisfeatureistheclassofcontrivancesofwhichthecorsetisthetypicalexample。Thecorsetis，ineconomictheory，substantiallyamutilation，undergoneforthepurposeofloweringthesubject’svitalityandrenderingherpermanentlyandobviouslyunfitforwork。Itistrue，thecorsetimpairsthepersonalattractionsofthewearer，butthelosssufferedonthatscoreisoffsetbythegaininreputabilitywhichcomesofhervisiblyincreasedexpensivenessandinfirmity。Itmaybroadlybesetdownthatthewomanlinessofwoman’sapparelresolvesitself，inpointofsubstantialfact，intothemoreeffectivehindrancetousefulexertionofferedbythegarmentspeculiartowomen。
　　Thisdifferencebetweenmasculineandfeminineapparelisheresimplypointedoutasacharacteristicfeature。Thegroundofitsoccurrencewillbediscussedpresently。
　　Sofar，then，wehave，asthegreatanddominantnormofdress，thebroadprincipleofconspicuouswaste。Subsidiarytothisprinciple，andasacorollaryunderit，wegetasasecondnormtheprincipleofconspicuousleisure。Indressconstructionthisnormworksoutintheshapeofdiverscontrivancesgoingtoshowthatthewearerdoesnotand，asfarasitmayconvenientlybeshown，cannotengageinproductivelabor。Beyondthesetwoprinciplesthereisathirdofscarcelylessconstrainingforce，whichwilloccurtoanyonewhoreflectsatallonthesubject。
　　Dressmustnotonlybeconspicuouslyexpensiveandinconvenient，itmustatthesametimebeuptodate。Noexplanationatallsatisfactoryhashithertobeenofferedofthephenomenonofchangingfashions。Theimperativerequirementofdressinginthelatestaccreditedmanner，aswellasthefactthatthisaccreditedfashionconstantlychangesfromseasontoseason，issufficientlyfamiliartoeveryone，butthetheoryofthisfluxandchangehasnotbeenworkedout。Wemayofcoursesay，withperfectconsistencyandtruthfulness，thatthisprincipleofnoveltyisanothercorollaryunderthelawofconspicuouswaste。
　　Obviously，ifeachgarmentispermittedtoserveforbutabriefterm，andifnoneoflastseason’sappareliscarriedoverandmadefurtheruseofduringthepresentseason，thewastefulexpenditureondressisgreatlyincreased。Thisisgoodasfarasitgoes，butitisnegativeonly。Prettymuchallthatthisconsiderationwarrantsusinsayingisthatthenormofconspicuouswasteexercisesacontrollingsurveillanceinallmattersofdress，sothatanychangeinthefashionsmustconspicuouswasteexercisesacontrollingsurveillanceinallmattersofdress，sothatanychangeinthefashionsmustconformtotherequirementofwastefulness；itleavesunansweredthequestionastothemotiveformakingandacceptingachangeintheprevailingstyles，anditalsofailstoexplainwhyconformitytoagivenstyleatagiventimeissoimperativelynecessaryasweknowittobe。
　　Foracreativeprinciple，capableofservingasmotivetoinventionandinnovationinfashions，weshallhavetogobacktotheprimitive，non-economicmotivewithwhichappareloriginated——themotiveofadornment。Withoutgoingintoanextendeddiscussionofhowandwhythismotiveassertsitselfundertheguidanceofthelawofexpensiveness，itmaybestatedbroadlythateachsuccessiveinnovationinthefashionsisanefforttoreachsomeformofdisplaywhichshallbemoreacceptabletooursenseofformandcolororofeffectiveness，thanthatwhichitdisplaces。Thechangingstylesaretheexpressionofarestlesssearchforsomethingwhichshallcommenditselftoouraestheticsense；butaseachinnovationissubjecttotheselectiveactionofthenormofconspicuouswaste，therangewithinwhichinnovationcantakeplaceissomewhatrestricted。Theinnovationmustnotonlybemorebeautiful，orperhapsoftenerlessoffensive，thanthatwhichitdisplaces，butitmustalsocomeuptotheacceptedstandardofexpensiveness。
　　Itwouldseematfirstsightthattheresultofsuchanunremittingstruggletoattainthebeautifulindressshouldbeagradualapproachtoartisticperfection。Wemightnaturallyexpectthatthefashionsshouldshowawell-markedtrendinthedirectionofsomeoneormoretypesofappareleminentlybecomingtothehumanform；andwemightevenfeelthatgehavesubstantialgroundforthehopethattoday，afteralltheingenuityandeffortwhichhavebeenspentondressthesemanyyears，thefashionsshouldhaveachievedarelativeperfectionandarelativestability，closelyapproximatingtoapermanentlytenableartisticideal。Butsuchisnotthecase。Itwouldbeveryhazardousindeedtoassertthatthestylesoftodayareintrinsicallymorebecomingthanthoseoftenyearsago，orthanthoseoftwenty，orfifty，oronehundredyearsago。Ontheotherhand，theassertionfreelygoesuncontradictedthatstylesinvoguetwothousandyearsagoaremorebecomingthanthemostelaborateandpainstakingconstructionsoftoday。
　　Theexplanationofthefashionsjustoffered，then，doesnotfullyexplain，andweshallhavetolookfarther。Itiswellknownthatcertainrelativelystablestylesandtypesofcostumehavebeenworkedoutinvariouspartsoftheworld；as，forinstance，amongtheJapanese，Chinese，andotherOrientalnations；likewiseamongtheGreeks，Romans，andotherEasternpeoplesofantiquitysoalso，inlatertimes，amongthe，peasantsofnearlyeverycountryofEurope。Thesenationalorpopularcostumesareinmostcasesadjudgedbycompetentcriticstobemorebecoming，moreartistic，thanthefluctuatingstylesofmoderncivilizedapparel。Atthesametimetheyarealso，atleastusually，lessobviouslywasteful；thatistosay，otherelementsthanthatofadisplayofexpensearemorereadilydetectedintheirstructure。
　　Theserelativelystablecostumesare，commonly，prettystrictlyandnarrowlylocalized，andtheyvarybyslightandsystematicgradationsfromplacetoplace。Theyhaveineverycasebeenworkedoutbypeoplesorclasseswhicharepoorerthanwe，andespeciallytheybelongincountriesandlocalitiesandtimeswherethepopulation，oratleasttheclasstowhichthecostumeinquestionbelongs，isrelativelyhomogeneous，stable，andimmobile。Thatistosay，stablecostumeswhichwillbearthetestoftimeandperspectiveareworkedoutundercircumstanceswherethenormofconspicuouswasteassertsitselflessimperativelythanitdoesinthelargemoderncivilizedcities，whoserelativelymobilewealthypopulationtodaysetsthepaceinmattersoffashion。Thecountriesandclasseswhichhaveinthiswayworkedoutstableandartisticcostumeshavebeensoplacedthatthepecuniaryemulationamongthemhastakenthedirectionofacompetitioninconspicuousleisureratherthaninconspicuousconsumptionofgoods。Sothatitwillholdtrueinageneralwaythatfashionsareleaststableandleastbecominginthosecommunitieswheretheprincipleofaconspicuouswasteofgoodsassertsitselfmostimperatively，asamongourselves。Allthispointstoanantagonismbetweenexpensivenessandartisticapparel。Inpointofpracticalfact，thenormofconspicuouswasteisincompatiblewiththerequirementthatdressshouldbebeautifulorbecoming。Andthisantagonismoffersanexplanationofthatrestlesschangeinfashionwhichneitherthecanonofexpensivenessnorthatofbeautyalonecanaccountfor。