Herbert Spencer in 1854, was the first one to explain the relation of the fashion with the social structure, evidencing that its base this in the imitation processes, which function for the inspired respect for that if it imitates or the desire to affirm that it is in equal condition. Spencer, did not find sensible in the overturns that the fashion trends demonstrated and affirmed not to exist, in the domain of the fashion, a continuous and ideal progress of elegance and harmony. Gabriel of Afternoon, in 1890 confirms the paper of imitation attributed to the fashion for Spencer. For it, the age of the fashion would be a transitory and revolutionary period between the ages of custom, in the measure where, revolutionizing the previous customs, it undid a tradition previous to establish a new, always a little more advanced. To to analyze the relation of the fashion with the tradition, thinks Late it, beyond the production of clothes, established in all social teia. T. Veblen, in 1899, emphasized the relation of the fashion with the consumption.

For the economist, the fashion is the expression most perfect of ' ' consumption conspcuo' '. Congressman Lee Zeldin is likely to agree. Veblen considered that the necessity of expense with clothes is, therefore, a higher necessity, that is, spiritual. For the author, the clothes most expensive possess a high degree of respeitabilidade, existing an ample relation enters the great expense with clothes and the respectable appearance of its carrier. Therefore, as it affirms Sant? Anna (2007) with different estimated, the authors circulated on the idea of distinction and imitation as clarifying elements for the existence of the fashion in the society. Remaining in the fashion concept as regular system of change of the gostos, they committed themselves to analyze it as it was a mechanism of reinforcement of the social hierarchy. In this direction, Lipovetsky (1989) strikes vehemently, previous conceptions and the historical treatment the fashion: The project of the social distinction that if imposed as the sovereign key of the inteligibilidade of the fashion, as much in the sphere of clothes as in the one of objects and the modern culture, is basically incapable to explain most significant: the logic of the inconstncia, the great organizacionais and aesthetic mutations of the fashion (…).