Accordingly, the rhetoric of men’s fashion takes the form of a set of denials that include the following propositions: that there is no men’s fashion; that men dress for fit and comfort, rather than for style; that women dress men and buy clothes for men; that men who dress up are peculiar; that men do not notice clothes, and that most men have not been duped into the endless pursuit of seasonal fads. (Craik, 1994: 176)
　　Finkelstein once noted: ‘In contemporary society, a frequent complaint is that men are left out of the fashion rush’ (1996: 61). However, in fact, men’s fashion changed regularly, and there were numerous types of jackets, trousers, cravats, ties, and hats that provided plenty of material for asserting or maintaining social status (Delpierre, 1990). This essay focuses on men’s clothing, and how men used their fashion and appearance to construct their masculine identity, as well as their social class. To begin with, it talks about the Sumptuary Laws applied to the Medieval Men Clothing, and how the bourgeois class emulates aristocratic elements later. Second, it compares the Macaroni image with the plainness of the new rich, and is followed by Brummel’s new restrained code of men’s dress. Lastly, it analyses McCracken’s assertions that Simmel’s theory should apply to more social groups including gender. The key themes are imitation and differentiation.
　　The trickle-down theory of Simmel (1904) states that – imitation acts as a form of social adaptation or conforming, whilst differentiation acts as a form of individual separation or distinction; the tension is mapped onto the question of social class as the lower or working classes are seen as trying to imitate the higher or middle classes who in turn try to differentiate themselves from the lower or working classes, setting up an endless paper chase. In other words, it is about the two opposing forces of individuation and sociality, which can be explained as the desire to fit