" (2001) According to Crane "...the manner in which people perceive the social structure and conceptualize their identities within it has changed in the course of the twentieth century." (2001) The social identity was perceived by the individual to be "relatively fixed" however those with lower status were found to be more likely to "emulate the styles and behavior of those with higher status." (Crane, 2001) Contrasting is "in fragmented societies occupational settings are status hierarchies, but, outside the workplace social distinctions are based on criteria that vary within as well as between social classes." (Crane, 2001)

The work of Katherine (1991) relates that boundaries are utilized by the social psychology in explaining "...where an individual's self-concept begins and ends and to diagnose the healthiness of interpersonal relationship." Weick (1995) noted that the boundaries precise location is "debatable as individuals interact and shift among definitions of the self." Weick (1995) concluded therefore that these boundaries are not fixed in nature but instead are "social constructed and open to re-negotiation." It is noted in the work of Schneider (1991) that two purposes are fulfilled by boundaries: (1) they separate self from others (external boundaries); and (2) they differentiate internalized objects and representations (internal boundaries). According to the work of Lewin (1938) patterns are carved out in the lives of individuals through maintenance or deconstruction of the boundaries of "varying permeability" and held that the individual identity is allowed by the individual in order to impact on another individual identity aspect and that this segmented individual identity is that which is preferred. There are stated to be five aspects in which identity discourse has been characterized as problematic: (1) Essentializing Identity; (2) Automatically categorical; (3) Ignores knowledge / power interaction; (4) Totalizing the individual; (4) Rationalist Perspective; and (6) Constructivist Perspective. (Abstract 29, Brunel University - West London,...

Fashion and appearance are representative of the political, social and other hierarchies and is representative as well of the adherence to the appropriate identity according to that which defines what is acceptable and that which is deemed unacceptable and the desire of the human being to simply 'fit' within the society. However, fashion and appearance standards and mores' have changed as well as have the old 'status quo' witnessed as evolving and embracing diversity and differences among groups of individuals. However, this work has clearly shown through the review of relevant literature in this study that fashion and appearance are indeed representative of the hierarchies that exist both within and without the individual and in the form of cultural influences.
Bibliography

Abstract Paper no.29 (nd) Brunel University - West London. Online available at http://www.brunel.ac.uk/AdvertisingAgency. Organization Studies 1994, 15/4 535-563

Alvesson M. Talking in Organizations: Managing Identity and Impressions in an Breward, Christopher (1999) the Hidden Consumer: Masculinties, Fashion and City Life in 1860-1914. Manchester and New York, Manchester University press. 1999.

Brewer M., Hewstone M. Self and Social Identity. Blackwell publishing (2004).

Crane, Diana (2001) Fashion and Its Social Agenda: Class, Gender and Identity in Clothing. University of Chicago Press. 2001. Online Google Books available at http://books.google.com/books?id=vphcHONAXmwC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=HOW+IS+FASHION+and+APPEARANCE+CENTRAL+to+the+CONSTRUCTION+of+SOCIAL+IDENTITIES%3F&source=web&ots=qbK8Fr3GLV&sig=_Lj4_w1hWQsuB8xQn3K4uknnDTg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA16,M1