Fast fashion: what a shame

When I first started to explore Ecopsychology, I read Andy Fisher's chapter on capitalism, and the sense of shame it sometimes creates within people.  The upshot of the argument was really about our belief in the need to purchase more, in a  quest for deeper happiness.  Since then, I've learned about how we shop because we aspire to be different in some way.  And sometimes we shop out of a search for identity.

Naomi Klein's book, No Logo, showed how capitalism had gone onto the streets, sports fields or even coffee bars in a quest to convince us that a product could make us cooler, fitter, more intellectual, or quite simply more creative than we actually are.  Branding sought to convince us that it's the product which does the true work, and we are given that extra sense of capability by the products we purchase.

No Logo also looked at the costs of those products.  The factories, sweat shops and exploitation which came from cheap manufacturing.  I've also read about the wars, oil spills, deforestation and toxins dispersed into both the air and the water through dyes, toxic fumes and poisons which go into creating them.  The sprays, insecticides, fibre residues, and the overall impacts of transporting products makes costs to the environment huge.

Reading No Logo lead to Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion by Elizabeth Cline.  This book speaks of those ways that trendiness and, sometimes, lack of quality, leads to a perception that clothing is disposable, and that by buying regularly and changing our clothing frequently (very often donating the items we reject from season to season) we are merely expressing ourselves, with no harm done.  Cline focuses on fast fashion outlets such as H&M, and on our unwillingness to spend money on clothing which will last.  Although H&M are now offering the opportunity to recycle old clothing, this is still with the intention of making new purchases, and from a fast fashion shop.  By continually following trends, rather than developing a sense of personal (and consistent) style, customers are constantly making purchases based on the whim of buyers, merchandisers and (multi) seasonal trends.

I was astounded by how deeply we've bought into the belief that fashion should constantly shift and change when I read an article on the closure of a clothing group in Cape Town.  I used to buy from a shop which formed part of this group.   I also like many South African designers  and I'm hoping they are able to keep working.  

Last year, the shop closed down, and I wondered why.  Then a business day article explained that the shop hadn't managed to keep turnover up.  New fast fashion outlets, and some of our local shops, with  a faster style turnover had made the shop 'irrelevant' said an independent consultant.  The shops had battled to purchase new stock.  This consultant also said that the styles were 'outdated'.  Nobody is really interested in the 'white linen dress' or striped top when trends change so rapidly, he shared.

I was sad to read this.  I'm not very aware of trends.   But I've always been of the opinion that women who have their own flair stand out most.  That doesn't mean adhering firmly to a certain look, shop or merchandiser.  It's just that the person behind the clothes, and the combinations s/he makes are more interesting to me than the trends of the moment.  I'm not particularly great at styling, but I do appreciate this ability in others.   And I was astounded by the belief that good quality 'classic' style is irrelevant to modern day customers.

I'm also astounded at how the so - called 'look of the moment' and the ability to fit in with this is held up as some sort of achievement.  I remember being on holiday one rainy weekend, and sitting inside with my daughter and watching one of those makeover shows.  I really do believe that stylists who help people find a good fit, or get proportions right can make a big difference.  But in the show I was watching, the make-over gurus were pretty much about obliterating the personal (70s bohemian) style of the client.  Instead of helping the woman to add new touches or update what she'd done for so long, the stylist humiliated this woman by declaring she'd never get promoted or achieve anything by presenting herself in the way she did.  She then dressed the woman in some generic and trendy clothing, and declared her cured of whatever style ills she'd wandered onto the program with.  I personally thought the client looked better before she'd met the style consultant.  She certainly didn't look like she was about to burst into tears.  

I wonder why we think it's okay to humiliate people for being either 'out of date' or 'too trendy' and why we allow a couple of global brands, merchandisers or buyers to tell us how to express ourselves. If we are to work towards re-forming our awareness of environmental rights, perhaps it begins with re-forming or at least questioning why we allow ourselves to be dictated to by so-called experts.  What is so wrong with our own ideas on life, the environment, or fashion?  Why should we feel ashamed if we stand out, show a sense of individuality or refuse to buy into a culture which exploits both the environment and our humanity in a quest to make a new sale?

Radical Imagination

When I share my interest in imagination and its role in creating change, I sometimes get the response that imagination is unhelpful.  Not only that, but working with imagination is unhelpful too.  In a world where there is a terrible sense of social injustice, it can sometimes seem as though a focus on imagination means denying that problems exist.  If we can wish our troubles away, after all, why would anybody want to work towards a more just society?

However, imagination can help us see that the world around us doesn't exist as the only possibility.  Instead, it was once imagined (and then set into place) by those who have gone before us.  What we have inherited is a material reality which impacts upon the lives of many.  But these realities are not the only possibilities.  Instead, some theorists (such as poststructuralist or social constructionist theory) argue that if we come together and recognise the difficulties 'we' (as a non-hierarchal humanity) face, and work towards exploring possibilities for a better world, then perhaps we can work towards increased social and environmental justice.

Alex Khasnabish and Max Haiven have a book called The Radical Imagination:  Social Movement Research in the Age of Austerity, which focuses on how to harness the imagination in order to work towards a more just society.  They explain that:

• Imagination means visioning a different future, and then bringing these ideas back into the present so that we can inspire both solidarity and new plans of action.
• Drawing on the past (and the complexities of the present) in order to understand the struggles we face.
• Imagining the struggles of others allows us to work towards a more compassionate world.
• Understanding the way that power works, and the systems and beliefs which uphold this enables us to work towards a stronger civil society.
• Sharing experiences, stories and what it means to be a person in the world helps to add to a wider and deeper definition of being human.
• New ideas help towards building new future stories or ways of understanding.  
• Imagination is constantly in flux, transforming or changing constantly.  This enables to see that reality is in flux, and our own contributions can add to a greater whole.
• Radical imagination means looking at the roots of power imbalance which have lead to social and environmental injustices.  This can include racism, neo-colonialism, sexism, and oppression based on religion, sexuality health or (dis)ability.
• These beliefs are reproduced over and over again via actions or words which exist between us. By increasing our awareness of these actions or beliefs, we are able to work towards change.
• Social movements are sometimes able to work towards a different society (although they do not create utopias).
• Members of a social movement do not share set perspectives or identical ideas.  The multiple perspectives or contested ideas provide insight or new ways of seeing the world.

Working with dialogue very often means that those people who have the most insight into social struggles, the people who have faced oppression or difficult circumstances, are the people who get to talk.  Marginalised perspectives offer a great deal of insight into how to work towards transformation.  Tim Brown in Change by Design, gives examples of the hospital patient who understands the loneliness and isolation of staring at the ceiling or being pushed through corridors while in a vulnerable state.  Likewise, it is the person who cannot read who is most able to assist with signage, or a woman who walks through a deserted park after a long day who is most aware of safety or security.  People who have been forced outside of the system often understand best those areas of injustice, oppression or struggle, and how best to work towards change.

Radical imagination, which works towards acknowledging injustices, often offers insight into areas where change is most needed.  In a world where knowledge places us on a hierarchy, and often means talking about, for but never with 'others', imagination and dialogue is empowering.  It means acknowledging the agency or insight of the 'other' and using this to build a better world.