eurovisie a publication of the study association for european studies
october 2021 / eurovisiemag.com / eurovise@ses-uva.nl
IN THIS EDITION... 4 - THEODOR ADORNO: NOT INTO THE MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE? RENATA RÎMBU
eurovisie
Volume 17 Issue 2 December 2021
7 - NUCLEAR ENERGY: THE UNDERWHELMING “HERO” OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS ANNELIE DALY 10 - THE ETHICAL ACT OF EATING ÓRLAITH ROE 12- THE CAPITALIST PARADOX OF PIRACY ARIANNE ZAJAÇ 14 - OUTPLAYING ROLE MODELS IN RETAIL FREDERIQUE DE RIDDER
Imprint Editorial office: Kloveniersburgwal 48, room E2.04/2.05, 1012 CX Amsterdam Editor-in-chief: Arianne Zajac Editors: Nicolae Odagiu, Órlaith Roe, Frederique de Ridder, Julius Sieburgh, Arianne Zajac, Lara Kristjansdottir, Emilia Juchno, Renata Rîmbu, Irina Petrescu, Sophia Bombeld Design: Irina Petrescu, Nicolae Odagiu page 2 | eurovisie | december
page 2 | eurovisie | may
Editorial Arianne Zajac Dear reader, This December edition is being released in, yet again, another time of uncertainty and apprehension. With more lockdowns, closures, and curfews. The world seems to have been turned upside down again, while most of us (in Europe, at least) come to terms with our new but now familiar lives. As our politicians lay down laws and restrictions in the fight to be the guiding force of our societies. People are turning to vestiges past and modern deities to provide some form of structure and belief in this time of normalised crisis. Society is becoming divided into those that have conformed and those who have not. It is becoming polarised between those believing they are serving the public good and those who are demonised as selfish and irresponsible. It seems that our Western beliefs in ethics and morality are bursting into the forefront as we decide who is good or evil in this current state of affairs. We are continuing to boil down complex cultural and social problems into simplified black and white responses. Within this edition, our writers are attempting to understand these problems. Although none of them provide a straightforward analysis. Instead, nuanced cases are put forward to understand the role of heroism in our world. Annelie and Orlaith both take the COP26 as their starting points but travel down different routes. Annelie explores the power of nuclear energy to change our futures while Orlaith discovers that we all can make a difference to the climate through our diets. Frederique tackles our unhealthy relationship with fast fashion the destruction it brings to people’s lives. Meanwhile, Renata disputes the philosophical disdain of popular cinematic culture. Finally, Arianne navigates the economic history of piracy and determines that pirates are not the outcasts we once thought they were. It brings me pleasure that this edition is being held within firm hands. Perhaps it will serve as one more certainty in this liminal world. Contemplatively yours, Arianne Zajac, editor-in-chief
eurovisie | may | page 3
THEODOR ADORNO:
Not into the Marvel Cinematic Universe? the superhero movie in light of the culture industry RENATA RÎMBU
Superhero films seem to be constantly increasing in number and outreach; what does this mean for the state of culture nowadays? Are we simply being won over by flashy special effects and a narrative of heroism, or is there more to this genre than might meet the eye? In trying to find an answer, the perspectives of German philosopher Theodor Adorno and well-known contemporary film-makers meet the secret weapon of the superhero film: representation.
T
he new star-packed Eternals film premiered only a few weeks ago, directed by Academy Award-winning director Chloé Zhao. It feels like every day a new superhero film or TV series is announced, and you must live under a rock to not have heard of the Marvel Cinematic Universe before. The MCU, for proper fans, you see. This abundance is despicable to some, and beyond exciting to others. Despite one’s stance on the matter, one thing cannot be denied: the superhero culture has been growing steadily and seems to be here to stay. Is liking superhero films a mere matter of preference, or does it indicate a deeper societal and cultural ill? Take us back a few decades, and German philospher Theodor Adorno would have had quite a clear answer that still resonates today.
more present than ever. Every product of the culture industry turns into its own advertisement since it is part of a bigger commercial force - and, clearly enough, superhero films have reached a point where they can comfortably sell themselves. Their promotion is built on the fact that they belong to a so-called cinematic universe, and support each other through expectancy. True fans know they have to stay in the cinema until the credits are done, (patiently) awaiting a new scene that will tease the next installment without having properly digested the one they’ve just seen. There’s a knowing smile around the room, an air of superiority and excitement, like you’ve been let in on a secret that only the others who’ve stayed know. And it’s a formula that seems to be working better and better.
A leading figure of the famous Frankfurt School of critical theory, Adorno is not known for being an optimist when it comes to the state of culture in the 20th century. He was actually incredibly critical of what he called the “culture industry”, a theme present in some of his most influential works. This concept encompasses Adorno’s distrust of the technological advancements of his time, which encouraged mass production and turned art into an industry in itself. Because of this mechanisation, he was afraid cultural products turned people into unthinking masses, who are not seen as audiences anymore, but rather as indicators of profit - the new ideology of culture.
If we take a step back and look at it, the MCU (and superhero films in general) seem to tick off all the boxes that Adorno was so concerned about. There’s another aspect that comes into play, however. While many defenders of the superhero film argue that there is room in culture for every genre, which seems an admirable sentiment in theory, reality shows a different story. Superhero films have incredible box-office success, prioritisation in promotion and an overwhelming presence, so how much room do they actually leave for other types of films to creep in? How many small, independent films, for example, will have the possibility to make it in the little space that is left in the audience’s attention? As a result, how many stories will not be told because studios don’t believe they will make enough money?
In a world where box office records make the news constantly and there seems to be a race to always beat the latest one, Adorno’s concerns seem
december | eurovisie | page 5
Though it may seem Adorno’s concerns are those of a different century, it’s clear how well they still fit into the consumed art of today. Moreover, they’ve been shared by many big names in the film industry, such as Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, Denis Villenueve, Jane Campion, or Alejandro González Iñárritu. All of them have cited lack of originality, weak scripts and story arcs, little to no character development, and reliance on impressive special effects to make up for the lack of potent dialogue as the main offenders. The most serious accusation, perhaps, is the lack of emotional connection with the audience; though looking at the theatres full of excited fans might contradict that.
woman in her fifties such as herself just became a superhero for the first time, and that she cried the first time she tried on her costume. The film introduces characters of all shapes and sizes, races, sexual and gender orientations, and the first-ever deaf superhero. The impact of seeing oneself on a big screen in positions of power has been proven again and again to promote a sense of normality and acceptance. Instead of hindering the development of people’s individuality, like Adorno feared, products of mass culture might actually help those who felt like they were outcasts, outside of the constructed societal norms, to be inspired and become more confident.
To a certain extent, this brings us back to the ever-present debate about the role of “high art”. Does something have to be artistically great in order to be considered valuable? What even is artistically great, who determines it and on which principles? Many argue that it is enough for something to move you, to make you laugh, cry or anything in between for it to be considered profoundly powerful.
While the arguments against the superhero film industry remain powerful and often cited, they don’t necessarily turn the audiences into blind consumers. Quite the opposite: they can connect people in ways we couldn’t have imagined before, and serve as reminders of strength in the face of adversity. Their lessons remain relevant, and it is understandable to relate to the concerns of economic and artistic overpowering, lack of emotive storytelling and repetitive patterns; but maybe we can all take a page from the book of the children (and adults) who see themselves on the big screen for the first time and choose to feel inspired instead.
“At the end of the day, besides their monopolistic tendencies, superhero films often produce just that: true emotion in their viewers.” Additionally, perhaps one of the most valuable arguments that the critics of this genre haven’t fully considered is the effects of representation. Having such a large audience also means you can reach an immense number of people, people who haven’t seen themselves on a screen before. Coming back to the newest MCU release, Eternals, actress Salma Hayek recently said in an interview that she couldn’t believe a Mexican and Lebanese
Nuclear Energy: The Underwhelming ‘hero’ of the Climate Crisis ANNELIE DALY
Nuclear energy has a short, yet pernicious history. The workings of the COP-26 Summit in Glasgow will add another chapter, as the nuclear debate continues.
T
he history of nuclear energy is undeniably rooted in war. When fission was discovered in 1938, scientists were supported by governments to develop nuclear weaponry. The Allied Manhattan project developed the first nuclear reactor in 1942, and just two years later the US bombed the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear energy has never managed to shake its villainous origin story, although rebranding efforts began as early as Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech in 1953. To the disadvantage of nuclear energy’s image, practical nuclear power was first developed in the US Navy. After the establishment of civilian nuclear power in the USSR in 1953, the mood was hopeful. The 1957 Euratom Treaty created a European Community for nuclear power in Europe. Later that year however, the Kyshtym disaster in the USSR and the Windscale fire in the UK created an anti-nuclear sentiment amongst many Europeans and the Treaty is largely regarded as a failure. Later anti-nuclear activism in the 60’s and 70’s encouraged by nuclear expansion in the face of the oil crisis - was so successful that countless reactor proposals were cancelled. Activism increased the cost of building nuclear reactors, but unfortunately, did little to offer an alternative. Notably, these
protests were often student-led grassroots organisations, who were concerned about waste and accidents, even before the impending Chernobyl tragedy. On the 26th of April 1986, a fire broke out at the Chernobyl Power Plant, releasing airborne radioactive contamination for nine days. The eventual total death toll is unknown - but predicted to be from 9,000 to 16,000. In the Soviet context of the time, the crisis was mismanaged. Inaccurate reporting delayed evacuation and negligence on behalf of the plant workers increased the damage. Chernobyl is a symbol of every failing of nuclear energy. The environmental impact and the loss of human life will never be forgotten. The far-reaching impact of the Chernobyl disaster in Belarus emphasises the international nature of nuclear power and disaster. The anti-nuclear movements in Italy and Germany were strengthened by this and nuclear power was phased out. Aside from the human risk of nuclear power, the issue of nuclear waste management also remains contentious. Nuclear waste is often stored in temporary storage containers, prone to leaks, and not safely underground. Even when stored safely, nuclear waste is a long term problem created by nuclear energy that also must be reckoned with. december | eurovisie | page 7
eurovisie | may | page 7
However disastrous nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima were, thepale in comparison to the damage caused by fossil fuels. Counter-intuitively, nuclear power has one of the lowest fatalities per unit of energy. This does not include the future deaths that will occur due to Chernobyl and Fukushima, but neither does it include the future victims of fossil-fuel induced climate change.
“The “low-risk”, low-carbon promise of nuclear energy has proved more enticing in recent years, as pressure to reach net zero mounts.“ Pro-nuclear rhetoric positions the energy source as an alternative to fossil fuels. According to nuclear power’s proponents, this safe(r) and stable source will support renewables in providing a ‘base’ upon which fluctuating wind and solar power can build. Anti-nuclear rhetoric compares nuclear energy to renewables themselves in providing low carbon alternatives to fossil fuels. Renewables are cleaner, safer and cheaper. The problem of renewable intermittency can be solved with the development of battery technologies, or by a back-up source, unfortunately usually fossil fuels. The use of renewables is clearly Plan A in the fight against carbon emissions. Why then, has the tired nuclear debate re-emerged?
as ‘green’, ‘safe’ and ‘sustainable’. Camps emerged within the EU at COP26 - and Austria, Luxembourg, Germany, Portugal and Denmark have formed an anti-nuclear alliance. A crucial factor in the COP26 renaissance of nuclear energy is time. The risks of climate change are much greater than those of nuclear power, but positioning nuclear as a hero, or even as a second best solution is greatly disappointing. Time is running out. If nuclear power is the best we could do to alleviate the climate crisis, there is no victory to be celebrated. The framework of energy dependence transfer, from fossil fuels to renewables, nuclear or a combination of the two is an inevitable loss. Every ‘solution’ releases its own specific Pandora’s Box, and we are left with an impossible choice. This framework is limited however, and does not recognise the potential for energy conservation and energy efficiency. We need to rethink our level of energy consumption, in order to be able to rely more on renewable energy sources. Finding new ways to electrically sustain humanity’s penchant for expansion, growth and greed will prove impossible. Acceptance of an eventually fixed level of consumption is necessary for life on a fixed and finite planet. There can be no hero of the climate crisis.
For countries with established nuclear power - such as France, a denuclearisation process would prove expensive and ineffective. Their traditional stance in favour of nuclear energy is justified. The building of nuclear power reactors in low-nuclear countries such as Romania may distract from renewable energy, the original hero, the plan A of the climate fight. Nuclear energy was presented as a hero of the climate crisis at the COP26 Summit in Glasgow. Studies presented there by the International Energy Agency demonstrated in the four model scenarios that nuclear power must double in the next 30 years to limit temperature increase to below 2 degrees. US and Romanian officials used the summit to arrange their nuclear power alliance, while France and Eastern-Europe have banded together to include nuclear energy in the EU’s taxonomy. This would see nuclear energy categorically defined december | eurovisie | page 9
eurovisie | may | page 9
The Ethical Act of Eating ÓRLAITH ROE
T
here is a certain magic that is attached to the memory of food. It engages all our senses in quick succession, cementing itself into the mirage of memorable meals in our brain. We smell its aromas, the sweetness and saltiness, the almost intoxicating flow of its movement, dancing and fuming in an upwards fashion into our embrace. We see and touch it. We can hear it sizzling and frying and singing. And in abundance, we taste it. Some of my earliest memories are rooted in food. Childhood birthday parties with crumbly shortbread. A slightly lopsided Victoria Sponge awaiting demolition at the sticky hands of children. Afterschool toasties with oozing cheddar cheese and crackling bread, bowls of fresh cucumber and snappy carrots. Steaming hot tomato soup on Saturday mornings after freezing football trainings, inhaling the contents of the bowl with golden silence as our fingers and toes defrosted. The reliable pasta salads in sticky summer months, hearty stews as the evenings darkened, and creamy, fluffy potatoes to sooth any bad day. Even now I still think about the final dish of ratatouille served up in Ratatouille or the copious amounts of butter that Julia Child lathers on to anything that might even pass as edible in Julie and Julia. As humans we revolve around our next meal. Some have the luxury of approaching this as an act of choice, others as an act of survival. Food is not simply food. It can take political form, artistic form,
economic form, and environmental form. I love food in all its complexities. Cooking, giving, creating, and failing at it. But I also know that my ability to discuss food in these forms comes from a place of privilege, of being able to have a choice in what I eat and how I eat it. In the aftermath of the recent COP26 conference in Glasgow, our struggle with the worsening climate crisis is looming ever larger and approaching ever faster. The vast majority of our leaders are failing to do the bare minimum, leaving us in the lurch and feeling powerless. It is in these moments that I try to ground my spiralling mind, re-focusing my actions to the things I actually have control over. How do we contribute to the worsening state of our environment, and in what capacity can we alter our relationship to consumerism? One doesn’t have to be strictly vegan or vegetarian in order to better their relationship with food and the environment, but we do have to start changing the way we eat if we are to provide a healthy and long-lasting future for our eating and agricultural habits. The politics of our plates may not always be overt, but understanding them is essential in enhancing the ethics of our eating. By 2050 the world’s population will hit the 10 billion mark. As this number increases, the planet’s necessary resources are beginning to dwindle. In order for each one of us to be fed and nourished sufficiently, we have to start pay-
ing attention to the minute details of everyday consumerism. The production, packaging, and carbon footprint of our food. The small actions that will enable us to be food heroes, requiring the bare minimum of effort. It is beyond time for the widespread recognition of the negative effects of large-scale meat production on the world’s carbon emission rates and its hefty use of the planet’s resources. Food production accounts for 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, and the methane and deforestation associated with cattle bolsters the detrimental effects of meat-eating, especially in richer countries. Our approach to food and its culture is also a factor in our carbon footprint contribution. A recent study in The Guardian details the meatier diets of men as being responsible for 40% more climate-heating emissions than those of women. Various studies in recent years have shown an inclination to regard vegetarian/vegan lifestyles as more feminine (additionally, there is a myth surrounding vegetarian and vegan eating as more expensive. It has long played to the arguments of the diet’s detractors. In reality, it is a cheaper diet). The absurdity of such facts is an issue for another day, but we cannot deny the huge push required in shifting our cultural perceptions surrounding food in order to improve our ethical relationship with how and what we eat. In the second episode of Netflix’s Chef’s Table, they profile American cook and restaurateur Dan Barber, a sustainable food expert. His ethos is simple: eat with the seasons. Barber believes serving up things like a meaty steak and a pork chop should be reserved solely for special occasions and
holidays. For those who can afford it, cheap and poorly produced foods should be avoided. On the topic of the western world’s tendency to embrace fast food and emission guzzling meals, he brings it back to the essential mantra of ensuring quality, “Why become a culture of great cooking when you have the abundance to make steaks and eat tremendous amounts of meat?”. This idea that because we have access to ‘endless’ swathes of rich meats and vast arrays of cuisine strips away the possibility of approaching food in its natural environment. Just because we have the abundance, does not mean we should sacrifice living with food in its most organic of forms and cooking it well. As nice as it would be to consume produce such as strawberries all year round, it is impossible to do this sustainably. The freight-related carbon emissions stemming from the importation of seasonal foods is dire, and the water-shortage problems are only worsening. Poorer countries growing seasonal produce for regions like north-western Europe often dedicate more water to crops than they have available for the local people.
“For far too long we have shunned the idea of embracing local produce in the western world.” Importation is often necessary, but were we to cut out the vast majority of the unnecessary aspects, emissions would fall insurmountably. Seasonal food is available in abundance, we just require a shift in thinking and producing for it to become the norm. By incorporating sustain-
able cooking and consumption into our education systems, we would be equipping our youth with the knowledge necessary to cook well, healthy, and ethically. There is simply not an important enough emphasis placed on cooking and food for today’s young people (and the divide between boys and girls in this field is even more pronounced). With globalisation rapidly expanding, for better or for worse, we have lost sight as a society on how to live seasonal. The more sustainable we are with the creation of our plates, the sooner our everyday conscious choices become widespread heroism. In a world of mounting political divisions, failing environmental policies, and diminishing natural resources, eating becomes an ethical act. There is only so much we as normal citizens can do every day. But while political leaders fail us and policy makers remain unambitious, we don’t have to remain stagnant. Altering the acute details of our day to day lives can lead to a collective shift in changing the future of consumerism and the agricultural sector. Go vegetarian or eat less meat. When you can afford to do so, buy organic and environmentally friendly produce. Eat seasonal. Bettering our relationship with food does not have to mean miserable meals and flavourless offerings. We can cook in blissful and beautiful abundance, food palettes bursting with colour and flavour, nutritious and delectable dishes. We can do all this and more without contributing to the failing state of the land on which we harvest. Treat the act of eating as a love affair with food, a relationship that goes both ways. The greater and more ethically we love, the longer and more sustainably we will survive.
The Capitalist Paradox of Piracy ARIANNE ZAJAÇ
P
irates have been icons for centuries, either to be revered or reviled. Be it from ancient Greece to the celebrity of Blackbeard, pirates have captured not only our imaginations but also impacted our world. There have been many centuries of piracy across the globe; China historically has dealt with formidable pirates. However, in the European imagination, it is the image of the ‘golden age’ of piracy which is so often invoked in our minds. Ranging from the 1650s-1720s, we envisage captains and sailors living on the waters of Central America, the yo-ho-ho life and a bottle of rum, pirates (quite literally) of the Caribbean. Often portrayed as outlaws, we are uncertain about whether we can trust pirates. They are criminals but are charming and glamourised, perhaps we are jealous that they lead their own lives packed with independence and without the commitment and responsibility of everyday life. However, the traditional rebellious depiction of piracy is more nuanced than first thought. There is a complicated relationship between piracy, the state, and economics which is in constant flux and can be both conflicting and reinforcing all at the same time. To understand this intricate relationship, it’s necessary to understand how most pirates came december | eurovisie | page 12
into being. Within the European conception, pirates were more often than not privateers or sailors first. To become a pirate, one often had to be middle class and educated as it was a skilled profession. The role of a privateer was to be a hired mercenary of the state and carry out state sanctioned war like actions on enemy ships. The use of privateers was highly popular in the British Empire and featured heavily in the Spanish War of Succession. Once the War of Succession was over, many did not want to give up the life they had led as a privateer. Piracy became increasingly attractive. Sailors often struggled with extremely poor living conditions and low wages that were often ‘taxed’ by senior ranking members. While the majority of successful pirates would receive, at least once in their lifetime, payouts that would reach into the millions. It is not hard to see why piracy began to flourish. This was the case of Benjamin Hornegold who enjoyed training up idle sailors; he took both Edward Teach and Blackbeard under his wing. Furthermore, piracy had a strong egalitarian aspect. Its spoils system was redistributive, and it was the most egalitarian form of employment of the era, meaning even low-ranking pirates took home substantial amounts. If the state played such a pivotal role in the conception of ‘golden
age’ pirates, why is it that the state sought so hard to eradicate them? It is at this point when economics comes into play. On the one hand, rather than perceiving pirates at the margins of society, and therefore the margin of the economy, it is possible to view piracy as an extension of capitalism. There are many lenses of which pirate capitalism could be viewed; pirates were often socially pushed into piracy due to poor living conditions, which is still a main driving factor today, Sugule Ali – a pirate who, in 2008, captured the Ukrainian ship Faina – claimed ‘[w]e only want money so we can protect ourselves from hunger’. Arguably, pirates are punished due to their anarchistic resistance against the crush of capitalism. However, they can also be viewed as a fully functioning arm of capitalism. Amilcar Cabral stated that ‘imperialism is piracy transplanted from the seas to dry land’, which fits with Marx’s dialectical theory of the economy, in which imperialism is the highest form of capitalism. It is for this exact reason that piracy is so despised by the state, as it demonstrates what capitalism truly is. Private accumulation of capital can be described as an ongoing process of state violence used to police and reinforce the separation of producers and the means of production. What is unique to piracy, is that it actively en-
gages in this practice. During this process, the weaknesses of the state are exposed, as piracy demonstrates the state’s inability to govern outside of its own territory, but it also exposes the state’s power to determine who is or who is not the enemy of mankind. State use of private accumulation assumes that capital works seamlessly with the state to enclose the commons – be that land, production, or resources. Piracy makes explicit the violence in this process. This is the necessary violence of capitalism utilised in capital production and circulation. Consequently, the state seeks to punish pirates as to defend and protect its own vested and coercive interests in capitalism. Once more, we can turn to the modern-day example of the pirated Faina. We see that, although the pirates made the headlines as criminals, threatening the stability of society, conveniently little was said of the suspicious Ukrainian company making ‘underground arm shipments’ into a war zone in violation of international law.
“As markets and the economy continue to develop, the liminal distinction between piracy and capitalism becomes increasingly blurry.” It is not unusual that we now see pirates occupying more and more spaces in our world, such as cyberspace. Rather than viewing pirates as criminals or vandals, terrorising each step of development, it is possible to view pirates as norm-generating entities directing the next step of the economy. It is not by accident that at every stage of capitalist expansion pirates have
emerged. Be it, when they were attacking monopolistic companies trading routes in the 17th century or challenging ownership on the internet. Pirates tend to emerge at points when there are questions about legitimacy and tend to advocate for general access to monopolised areas. But, again, we see the co-option of piracy into capitalism through the appropriation of innovation. If pirates are used as navigators of the future of the economy, it is not surprising that their innovations become privatised and monetised – the majority of ideas in history have begun either as illegitimate or illegal. Today online piracy has driven technological advancements. For example, through creating a large open-source pool of knowledge, online piracy has driven the evolution of file-sharing technology. In fact, the public does not consistently view online piracy as a crime. When significant barriers are placed on consumers, the majority accept or engage in piracy themselves! Simply consider the amount of times music, TV shows, or films have been illegally streamed or downloaded. Throughout the ages, pirates have been perceived as criminals and champions as well as senseless assailants or conscious activists. It seems that, as piracy continues to spread beyond its traditional shores, pirates’ roles in society will become ever obscured. As piracy has developed both in opposition to and as a part of capitalism, it is unlikely we see any disentanglement any time soon. Instead, the state will continue to be complicit in the conditions that create piracy, and it will be up to us to determine whether pirates deserve to be heroes or villains.
Outplaying role models in retail The true cost of cheap prices FREDERIQUE DE RIDDER
T
he celebration of the holidays without its holiday shopping spree in advance, has for many become impossible to imagine. Clothing stores’ advertisements online and in the streets, feed the need to look presentative, in a flawless foolproof outfit during the social events of the holiday season. After having normalised the “working from home” setting, the possibility to break from anything that is related to the pandemic, is universally desired. To which the retail industry responds. Comparable to new year’s resolutions, flourishingly renouncing the old, inevitably brings the introduction of an infallible new. It is however being overlooked that this is distinctively taking place during the celebration of a year ending. A kept-together life reveals its legitimacy in properly kept together outfit. In full regalia, every week. The perception of seasons according to the logic of “seasonal collections” in fast fashion does not follow the 4 yearly indicative periods, since new collections of leading fast fashion industry companies tend introduce new collections 50 times per year. The alluring launches of over 500 new weekly designs by Inditex stores such as Zara, Berschka and Pull&Bear i.e. deprives its consumers from maintaining a fixed interior of their own wardrobes. Even if one would consider personally not to find their clothes outdated after one week, the freshly-bought items will make that decision for them by showing signs of damage. Buttons are missing, the fabric overstretched, zippers are a disappointment and its color vanishes after one day of laundry. This vicious circle encourages Zara, besides to remain leading in speediest sell outs, to allow the necessity to start a every week anew. Last weeks’ standards are namely literally outworn.
Consumers are trapped in a loop, on the unspoken weekly established guilt to renounce damage by introducing “clean sheets”. Based on a fabricated obsession with new. The Spanish multi-billionaire Amancio Ortega, was surprised by sounds of sirens when ambulances were entering his street on the 28th of March 2020. The initiative was taken to congratulate Ortega with his birthday bombastically, including a praise clapping-celebration which was held on the balconies in the neighborhood of his house in A Coruña. It is fair to say that Amancio, the former CEO of Inditex, is considered to be a national hero in Spain after having outplayed the game of being a retailer strategist. This glorification was thanks to his actions concerning Covid-19 complications which were threatening to affect lives of the Spanish population, including Inditex employers who are working in the Inditex stores and distribution centrals. As a result of having closed more than 3000 stores during the midst of the pandemic, Ortega pivoted from controlling his fashion empire to launch the supply of medical equipment worth of millions from China. This led to the imposing purchase of medical material worth of 63 million euros to contribute to combatting
the Corona-virus. Including 1450 respirators, three million masks for health workers, million testing kits and other medical equipment. The generosity stops however when crossing the European continental border. At the locations of the actual manufacturing industries, exploitation namely surfaces.
“Workers put in 11-hour shifts six days a week earning 3.50 to 4.74 dollar per day.” Meanwhile, the list of factories it sources clothing from, remains hidden. In other words, the people who are actually paying for the low prices in fast fashion industry are kept out of sight and remain therefore out of proper concern. While people were praising and singing “happy birthday” on the balconies in A Coruña, the voices of the manufacturers on the other side of the world remained silenced. When more than 500 workers in the two Inditex factories in Myanmar voiced the demand to be supplied with masks to wear during their shifts, they faced the response of being fired. Alongside, every single member of the workers union was fired after reports came in from a woman who
had been sexually harassed last year. The possibility to organise however, is non-existing since physically rising up collectively would go against the measure of keeping social distance. In other words, the western weekly constructive wardrobe changes of consumers go at the expense of the continuation of the manufacturers oppressive working environments. Renouncing damage does not have to revolve around an imposed rupture which is directed by a market. Considering the moment of proposing new year’s resolutions, it could be a convenient time to re-evaluate the implication of “clean sheets”. What fit is considered to be “fresh”, when people who are selling them are having blood on their hands? There is a tendency in which the glorification of heroes, overshadows the essential actors who are allowing the hero to be one. A new year could start fresh, if there can be start in acknowledging those essential actors, by ignoring that presentation needs to revolve around showing up anytime polished and sleek. Frankly said, why don’t we start this week?
december | eurovisie | page 15
eurovisie | may | page 15
Keep up to date with SES through becoming a member on their website! You will receive the weekly newsletter with all sorts of interesting updates, discounts, and much more. You will also receive the Eurovisie newsletter, meaning you can keep track of our editors’ recommendations and the latest editions.
ses-uva.nl
Doesn’t appeal to you? Then consider writing an article for Eurovisie! Simply email WANTeurovisie@ses-uva.nl TO WRITE FOR EUROVISIE? SEND YOUR ARTICLE TO EUROVISIE@SES-UVA.NL
eurovisiemag.com
(c) studievereniging europese studies 2021