Welcome to the sixth issue!
This issue is dedicated to fashion activism, social justice, and innovation in fashion research and practices. The articles and reviews in this issue range from activists’ accounts of reforming and transforming fashion, to researchers’ investigations of innovating fashion studies and fashion research, including critique of academic work that perpetuates the continued existence of Eurocentric, traditional, and colonial fashion research paradigms that we work to decolonize.
This issue was also inspired by the work of the ground-breaking researcher-activist Sandra Niessen, who has mobilized her research on decoloniality, anthropology, and decentering fashion to become a full-time climate justice activist in her retirement. Her creativity, justice-focused fieldwork, and paradigm-shifting research and writing has inspired all of us to be better researchers, thinkers, makers, and citizens.
The Critical Pulse will continue to look at themes concerning the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We will continue to address sustainability and social justice, as well as ethics, inclusivity, diversity, intersectional feminism, and decoloniality because we want to see a transformation in the fashion system and fashion education.
We welcome contributions, such as reviews of books, films, current events, and other relevant topics. Through studying the discourse of design, fashion, and economics, we want to empower and amplify marginalized voices of creatives and young professionals. We only publish well-researched, and well-analyzed information. We hope that our different views give you an objective and critical perspective of the fashion industry, creating a desire to push views, traditions, and conditions forward.
We hope you enjoy this issue and that you join us in disrupting the current fashion practices.
Sincerely, the editorial team of The Critical Pulse
Robin Chantree, Johnathan Clancy, Tenna Johanning Hjelm Mette Kirk, Jess Montgomery, Caroline Serafina Muscato, Mia Petersen, Sandra Rosenkranz Jäger, Emilie Thomsen, Bridgit Trott, Bjørn Utoft Sørensen
Contributions by Sandra Niessen, Sara Arnold, Jasmine Chavez Helm, Jess Montgomery, Tenna Johanning Hjelm, Caroline Serafina Muscato, Alexandre Prince, Natálie Vencovská, Sabrina Saberhagen, and Sandra Jäger.
Mentored and inspired by Dr. Kat Sark
6 DEFINING DEFASHION
14 TUNU: A CLOTH OF NECESSITY, SPIRITUALITY & RESISTANCE
24
MAKE THE LABEL COUNT: IS EU'S UPCOMING LABELING SCHEME FOR FASHION & TEXTILE PRODUCTS GREENWASHING IN THE MAKING?
10
BOOK REVIEW OF DAVID BOLLIER THE COMMONER’S CATALOG FOR CHANGEMAKING.
18
THE FIRST TO BE RESPONSIBLE
REVIEW OF MARIE RIEGELS MELCHIOR’S GUEST LECTURE: FASHION IN DENMARK THROUGH 400 YEARS 30
The word “Fashion” written with a capital letter “F” signals the currently dominant, dystopic, globalized, industrial clothing phenomenon, which produces and advertises new styles of clothing primarily for profit above the well-being of people and planet. While the harm that the Fashion system does to the physical environment is rightly the concern of fashion sustainability (poisons, CO2 emissions, synthetics, waste, etc.), the solutions will not be found solely in revised materials and physical processes. The efficacy of what crowds under the umbrellas of “sustainable/ green fashion” and “circular economy” will be limited, unless there is an accompanying ontological or paradigmatic shift in how we collectively perceive and do Fashion. Humans develop relationships with clothing and these relationships have psychological, emotional, and spiritual facets that shape consumption patterns. The exclusively ‘physical/materials’ approach succeeds in deflecting collective attention away from the core of the problem and enables business as usual. “Defashion” is part of the paradigmatic shift that the activist organization Fashion Act Now (FAN) urgently advocates for a sustainable planet. Defashion is both a material and a mental shift. It is the path toward clothing systems that are post-Fashion.
The word “Fashion” written with a capital letter “F” signals the currently dominant, dystopic, globalized, industrial clothing phenomenon, which produces and advertises new styles of clothing primarily for profit above the well-being of people and planet.
Defashion is an emergency response to the egregious failure of industry to take account of its harmful impacts on the planet as well as the failure of governments to sufficiently deal with
the planetary crises that the industry continues to trigger. So far, the Fashion industry has failed to meet its sustainability goals, or even to sufficiently take stock of its environmental impacts (Kent 2021:8-11). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports reveal the extent of the damage that has been done to the biosphere. Fashion Act Now calls for rapidly dismantling the globalized, capital F Fashion system. This implies a considerable reduction between 75% and 95% in terms of material and energy outputs (Fletcher and Tham 2019:14).
“Defashion” is part of the paradigmatic shift that the activist organization Fashion Act Now (FAN) urgently advocates for a sustainable planet. Defashion is both a material and a mental shift.
Defashion calls for the obsolescence of clothing systems based on colonial extraction and exploitation. The term “sacrifice zone” has its origin in a tacit agreement among holders of power that there is legitimacy in offering up areas of the earth’s surface for the sake of economic growth. As increasingly large segments of the earth are sacrificed to continually expanding growth, these zones are becoming more visible, more destructive, and more controversial. Defashion calls for the elimination of all sacrifice zones related to Fashion. The IPCC’s 6th assessment report points to colonialism as a driver of the climate crisis. Defashion expands the definition of sacrifice zones to acknowledge many more scenes of destruction and waste, including the psychic well-being and cultural pride of consumers. Respect and care must replace greed and growth.
The term “sacrifice zone” has its origin in a tacit agreement among holders of power that there is legitimacy in offering up areas of the earth’s surface for the sake of economic growth.
Indigenous clothing systems are a sacrifice zone of Fashion. This Batak woman is wearing a traditional textile from her region over her shoulders, a textile that is no longer made or worn
Photo by Sandra Niessen, 1 986, Silalahi, North Sumatra
Defashion is an acknowledgement of clothing systems around the world that have been wrongfully erased by Fashion. It encourages respect and celebrates clothing systems deemed “non-Fashion”. They constitute a cultural sacrifice zone specific to Fashion. Defashion recognizes that fashion justice and fashion decolonization must go deeper than better pay for garment workers and representation of BIPOC in the industry, both of which allow for “business as usual”. Their clothing cultures have a right to thrive in an “articulation of contextual histories” (Vazquez 2020:xviii). Cultural survival is severely lacking in conventional strategies for sustainability.
Defashion also facilitates the construction of alternative clothing systems. It proposes clothing commons as alternatives for the Fashion system. The commons are bottom-up systems of endless diversity that are self-organized and maintained by the participants. Commons offer latitude for experimentation, revisioning, and growth that is specific to local needs and circumstances. Commons encourage the (re-) emergence of a range of values (other than monetary) and the diverse benefits are funne-
led back for the well-being of the entire community. If the Fashion system reorients other clothing systems for dependence on industry and the accumulation of capital, commons reverse this process and facilitate a clothing pluriverse. Defashion is about taking back our clothing, freeing creativity and production processes from the hegemony of the globalized, industrial Fashion system. This is not a process of deprivation, but a joyful process of community and individual empowerment in the re-emergence of local caring for local talents and environments.
Kate Fletcher and Mathilda Tham have sketched the transition towards an “Earth First” fashion system (2019). Defashioning is about placing the carrying capacity of the planet in a central position. This means replacing the Fashion industry with alternatives that have wellbeing at their core. Defashion aims for clothing systems that are regenerative, a step beyond accommodating the earth’s carrying capacity. By implication defashion is about recognizing the inextricable connectedness of all things and beings and acknowledging this connectedness as a greater good. Defashion is the process of perceiving the connections between clothing and all living beings and planetary systems. Defashion humbles and fills with gratitude. Defas-
hioning is fundamentally about debunking the myths and illusions on which the Fashion industry feeds. It explodes Fashion’s promulgated fictions and fantasies that seduce consumers into literally and spiritually buying into the system, regardless of the true costs.
Defashioning is about placing the carrying capacity of the planet in a central position. This means replacing the Fashion industry with alternatives that have well-being at their core.
The term “degrowth” is commonly, but erroneously, understood to refer to only the tip of the iceberg. Defashion, like degrowth, rejects GDP as a measure of well-being. According to economic anthropologist Jason Hickel, “degrowth is about shifting to a different kind of economy altogether – an economy that doesn’t need growth in the first place. An economy that’s organized around human flourishing and ecological stability, rather than around the constant accumulation of capital” (Hickel 2020:205). Defashion is either the de-linking of Fashion from this economic system or the obsolescence of that economic system in which Fashion is rooted.
FAN is a member of WEAll: “organizations, alliances, movements, and individuals working towards a well-being economy, delivering human and ecological well-being.” Defashion stands with WEAll’s core beliefs for a new economy based on three core principles:
1. humans are part of nature, and thus dependant on it
2. the economy’s purpose is to support life
3. the measure of an economy’s success is the creation of well-being for all
WEAll aims at engendering systemic economic change so successfully as to make the alliance redundant within a decade. FAN maintains the same timeframe for dismantling the outmoded Fashion industry and having it replaced by clothing cultures that engender well-being.
Defashion is experimental terrain guided by core principles of fairness and respect, as well as the recognition that humans are not separate from the rest of the biosphere, but rather key players influencing its health. The hope is that the concept of defashion will be endorsed and enriched in every corner of the globe by the lively workings of fashion commons. Defashion is a concept whose time is overdue. May its emergence be a harbinger of the needed paradigmatic shift in Fashion.
• Bollier, David. Think like a commoner: A short introduction to the Life of the Commons. New Society Publishers, 2014.
• Fletcher, Kate and Mathilda Tham. Earth Logic: Fashion Action Research Plan. London: J.J. Charitable Trust, 2019.
• Hickel, Jason. Less is More: How Degrowth will save the World. London: William Heinemann, 2020.
• Hopkins, Hop. “Racism is Killing the Planet: The Ideology of White Supremacy Leads the Way toward Disposable People and a Disposable Natural World.” Sierra: The National Magazine of the Sierra Club, June 8, 2020. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/racism-killing-planet.
• Kent, Sarah. 2021. “The Sustainability Gap. The Sustainability Index 2021: The Sustainability gap: How Fashion Measures Up.” Business of Fashion. 2021. pp.8-11.
• Niessen, Sandra. “Interpreting ‘Civilization’ through Dress.” Encyclopedia of World Dress and Fashion. Vol 8: West Europe, Part I: Overview of Dress and Fashion in West Europe. Oxford: Berg Publishers, 2010. pp. 39-43.
• Niessen, Sandra. “Fashion, its Sacrifice Zone, and Sustainability.” Fashion Theory. 2020a. https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/6G88SUT MEEPH5JIDWN4K/full?target=10.1080/1362704X.2020.1800984.
• Niessen, Sandra. “Regenerative Fashion: There can be no other.” State of Fashion. October 28, 2020b. https://www.stateoffashion.org/ en/past-editions/intervention/longreads/long-read-titel/.
• Vazquez, Rolando. Vistas of Modernity: decolonial aesthesis and the end of the contemporary. Mondriaan fund essay 014. Mondriaan Fund, 2020.
Websites
• David Bollier: news and perspectives on the commons. http://www.bollier.org
• Earth Logic. https://earthlogic.info
• Fashion Act Now (FAN). www.Fashionactnow.org
• Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll). www.WEAll.org
Sandra Niessen is an anthropologist who, since 1978, has researched the textiles of the Batak people of North Sumatra. Teaching at the Department of Clothing and Textiles, later Human Ecology, at the University of Alberta (1988 – 2004), she familiarized herself with fashion theory. In 2003 she published, “Afterword: Re-Orienting Fashion Theory” to explore ethnocentrism in fashion theory and the false schism between “indigenous textiles” and “Western fashion”. In the wake of this publication, she has been involved with the Research Collective for Decoloniality and Fashion (RCDF) and has recently joined Fashion Act Now (FAN).
In recent years, the terms “commoning” and “the commons” have become the central tenents of many approaches towards sustainability, yet, fashion activists have shown very little interest in these concepts until now. In an attempt to bridge the commons framework with fashion sustainability Fashion Act Now (FAN), a global fashion activist group that emerged from the London chapter of Extinction Rebellion, decided to organize its first Reading Group around The Commoner’s Catalog for Changemaking (2022) by American activist, writer and blogger David Bollier.
Over the last 20 years, Bollier has been at the forefront of a real “Commons Revolution,” advocating for a society centered around a collective and collaborative management of shared resources (commons) in order to meet everyone’s needs. As a consequence, this process of commoning “enables people to co-create a sense of purpose, meaning and belonging” (Bollier n.d.). The Commoner’s Catalog embodies these ideas in its very form, as it contains examples of various commons initiatives that are currently in effect around the globe. These initiatives are grouped around key topics, such as food and agriculture, stewardship of water, law and the commons, money and finance, racial justice through commoning, arts and culture, and so on. Many of these topics are adjacent to fashion and outline the importance of local wealth, sustainable farming, or the development of smaller art and culture groups.
Although the book is a thorough work whose value for sustainability research cannot be overstated, members of the Reading Group pointed out that fashion is absent from it. They have proposed that this may be due to fashion’s reputation as something not essential, allegedly based in frivolity and excess. Many sustainable approaches whose framework is very close to that of the commons, such as some Indigenous clothing systems or fashion co-operatives, are absent from the book.
Anthropologist Sandra Niessen spoke of her fieldwork among the Batak weavers of Indonesia, which she linked to the content of the book by noting, “...all my fieldwork is really about the commons. Commons brings us back to our dualism: colonial/decolonial. Anthropologists are not plugged into this enough” (Sandra Niessen, Fashion Act Now, Reading Group Minutes, 7).
Some members also reflected on the fact that Fashion Act Now itself is a commons, insisting on a quote by Dutch designer Thomas Lommée : “the next big thing will be a lot of small things” (Bolier 2021:5). This encompasses both the various alternative institutions presented in the books, as well as Fashion Act Now’s modus operandus, acting as a federation of many smaller, localized, and united clothing commons. Through its platform, FAN wants to bridge communities and initiatives to share alternative ways of thinking about fashion culture. Only then will we be able to work alongside all of the other organizations mentioned in Bollier’s book, from education to agriculture, to envision a brighter tomorrow.
If you are interested in building a better future, feel free to join Fashion Act Now and attend our next Reading Group: https://www.fashionactnow.org/.
Bibliography:
• Bollier, David. The Commoner’s Catalog for Changemaking. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2021.
• Bollier, David. “New to the Commons ?” https://www.commonerscatalog.org/new-to-the-commons. Fashion Act Now, Reading Group: https://www.fashionactnow.org/.
Bio:
Alexandre Prince is a Montreal-based historian and fashion researcher, currently pursuing a masters’ degree in Media Studies at Concordia University. He studies how new media can be used as a tool for decolonizing the fashion discourse in zones that are far away from the traditional fashion capitals. He is also an active member of Fashion Act Now.
Tunu cloth is a relatively unknown form of bark cloth from the Mosquito Coast of Nicaragua and Honduras (figure 1). However, its existence has played a vital role in the lives of the Indigenous makers of this cloth, namely the Miskitu and Mayangna tribal groups, as it is part of their original material and dress culture. Tunu cloth comes from the Tunu rubber tree, which is native to the Mosquito Coastthe Atlantic coastal region that extends from southeastern Honduras through the eastern coast of Nicaragua. In this essay, I explore the significance of tunu cloth in the Miskitu and Mayangna communities as a dress object, spiritual entity, and textile of resistance.
Tunu cloth comes from the Tunu rubber tree, which is native to the Mosquito Coast - the Atlantic coastal region that extends from southeastern Honduras through the eastern coast of Nicaragua.
Tunu (Castilla tunu family Moraceae), also known as tuno, is a type of tropical rubber tree that grows in the lush forests of Central America and northwest Colombia. The Miskitu and Mayangna coveted the tree for its fibrous inner bark. From 1945 to 1985, tunu attracted commercial attention from industries in the United States for its rubber, but latex extraction ended in Nicaragua with the Contra Wars (Offen 1998). Tunu cloth production for clothing declined in the early twentieth century with the forceful spread of the Moravian Christian gospel. However, Moravian missionaries who arrived on the Mosquito Coast in 1849 encouraged the Mayangna and Miskitu to create tunu bark cloth handicrafts and tourist items (Tillman 2011).
Bark cloth is an ancient fabric that has been found throughout the world, including in Africa, Asia, the Pacific, and Latin America. It is most often made from the inner bark of the mulberry tree (Moraceae) family - of which the tunu tree is a member. Textile specialist Jennifer Harris explained that paper mulberry produces the “highest quality cloth” and was specifically cultivated for bark cloth production (Harris 2010).
Culture groups throughout the globe made bark cloth for domestic and ceremonial purposes with its primary use for clothing much like the Miskitu and the Mayangna (Harris 2010).
Tunu cloth production for clothing declined in the early twentieth century with the forceful spread of the Moravian Christian gospel.
The Miskitu are the largest ethnic group in the Mosquito Coast. While originally divided into two groups during the colonial period, the Sambo-Miskitu (of African descent) and the Tawira (of local descent), today the two groups mostly identify as one. Meanwhile, the Mayangna are a smaller Indigenous group that primarily inhabit the Northern Atlantic Autonomous Region. In both cultures, women were traditionally in charge of the manufacture of bark cloth with the assistance of their children.
Anthropologist Eduard Conzemius details the preparation of tunu cloth; he explains that first a tunu tree is cut down, stripped of its bark, and soaked in water for a few days (1932). The sticky gum or milk that arises on the soaked bark is scraped off and the sheets of bark are dried. The drying process is referred to as kunsi. In the kunsi state, the bark shrinks and is resubmerged
in water before it is pounded. The bark is then laid on a tree trunk and a short, thick, club-like mallet called a kahka or a para is used to beat the cloth as it softens and slightly stretches into a pliable pale brownish cloth (Conzemius 1932). Conzemius points out the process is similar to the way bark cloth is manufactured in Oceania (1932). A photograph from the 1930s shows a child participating in the tunu drying process (figure 2). The sheets of bark are draped over wooden poles and left to dry outside. Once dried, the malleable sheets can be fabricated into sheets, curtains, and clothing.
The Miskitu and the Mayangna primarily used tunu cloth for clothing during the pre-colonial and colonial periods. Few, if any, images exist of tunu cloth clothing from those eras; however, descriptions of tunu clothing are noted in several colonial texts. Both men and women used tunu cloth for their apparel. Traditionally, men wore loincloths made from tunu bark, while women wrapped tunu cloth around their hips for skirts (figure 3). The earliest known depiction of a Miskitu is a print by Caspar Luyken that illustrates a Miskitu king wearing a loincloth standing before a prostrating figure (figure 4). Based on the date of the print, his loincloth would have likely been made from the bark of the tunu tree. Men were also documented wearing tunu tunics, but women typically went topless. Women began to wear cotton tops due to the influence of Moravian missionaries. The young woman
in a photograph captioned a “typical heathen girl” may be wearing an embellished tunu cloth wrap skirt with a cotton top (figure 5). The skirt has an all-over vertical chevron pattern, with small stripes running along the top and bottom horizontal edges and a large stripe at its center. The variation of values in the black and white photo indicates different colors present on the cloth. The Miskitu and Mayangna utilized a range of natural dyes and pigments to colour tunu cloth.
Sukias, Miskitu healers, were in charge of the spiritual task of decorating tunu cloth. Sukias have a central role in Miskitu and Mayangna culture and they can be men or women. The Sukia role is hereditary. They are not only healers but are consulted for a variety of reasons, Conzemius explains:
“He is consulted in order to find out the whereabouts of a lost or stolen object, and he furnishes remedies to cure ill luck, to influence the heart of a person of the opposite sex, to increase the valor and courage of a man, and the like. He will inform the hunter how to proceed in order to secure plenty of game, for he has generally a good knowledge of the instincts and habits of animals. If he is unsuccessful, he claims that his client has transgressed some prescriptions”(1932).
They can cast spells including “evil” ones. White tunu cloth is also used in spell casting; a Mayangna sukia can inflict disease or death
upon a subject by stabbing a doll or puppet made of white tunu bark. They also can shapeshift into jaguars or snakes. Sukias are also responsible for decorating white tunu cloth using red clay, charcoal, and vegetable juice, imbuing it with sacred energy (1932).
Nineteenth-century British writer, Charles Nappier Bell, grew up on the Bluefields Coast and noted the cloth “had different colors and drawings. Sometimes they were interwoven or embroidered with duck or eagle feathers” (Castro-Frenzel and Lacayo 2011). In response to Nappier Bell’s observation of the decorated tunu cloth, authors Arturo Castro-Frenzel and José Mejía Lacayo state: “this makes us think that the Mayangnas, before the arrival of the Moravian catechists, gave tunu...a functional use as clothing, [and it] gave them freedom of artistic imagination” (2011). Only a handful of extant examples of tunu bark cloth exist in museum collections. However a cotton robe in the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, of Mayangna culture provides insight into Mayangna’s embellishment style (figure 6) (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin). The cloth is embroidered with rows of geometric patterns and goose-down feathers with tassels of colored beads along the top of the robe.
Missionaries often referred to the traditional dress of the Mayangna and Miskitu in a pejorative manner designating it as a heathenish display (figure 6). It is possible that missionaries associated tunu cloth with heathenism due to its close relationship with sukias who were guardians and administrators of traditional Indi-
genous practices. The Mayangna and the Miskitu used textile production and design as a means of personal and ritual expression.
The German Moravian Missionaries arrived on the Mosquito Coast intending to convert the natives to Christianity in 1849. They referred to Miskitu and Mayangna people as “heathens” when they wore their traditional garments and textiles, proving it as an act of resistance. The Moravian Missionaries altered the material culture of the Miskitu and Mayangna and the production of tunu cloth, discouraging its use and manufacture during the late 1800s through the 1900s.
Today, tunu cloth has resurged into manufacturing tourist handicrafts and artworks like potholders, bags, placemats, and more (Tillman 2011). In Honduras, sustainable tunu bark production exists in La Reserva del Hombre y Biosfera del Río Plátano, with Miskitu women at the forefront of tunu production. Artists and designers like Luz Medina Bonta from Honduras and Adilia Alemán Cunningham from Nicaragua incorporate tunu cloth and dying techniques into their work. Additionally, the artist Abner Morales creates drawings and paintings using tunu cloth as his substrate. Organizations like the Center for the Autonomy and Development of Indigenous Peoples (CADPI) have developed community workshops and festivals to support tunu production and education to empower the Miskitu and the Mayangna in resisting colonial structures through their traditional artistic practice.
• Castro-Frenzel, Arturo and José Mejía Lacayo. La tela de Tuno, Revista de Temas Nicaragüenses, 43: 4-14, Noviembre 2011, 7.
• Conzemius, Eduard. Ethnographical survey of the Miskito and Sumu Indians of Honduras and Nicaragua. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology, 1932.
• Harris, Jennifer ed. 5000 Years of Textiles. Washington DC: Smithsonian Books, 2010.
• Offen, Karl. “An Historical Geography of Chicle and Tunu Gum Production in Northeastern Nicaragua.” Yearbook. Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers 24 (1998): 57-73, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25765859.
• Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Online collections database. http://www.smb-digital.de/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultLightboxView/result.t1.collection_lightbox.$TspTitleImageLink.link&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=0&sp=3&sp=3&sp=Slightbox_3x4&sp=156&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F&sp=T&sp=165.
• Tillman,Benjamin. Imprints on Native Lands: The Miskitu-Moravian Settlement Landscape in Honduras. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2011.
Bio
Jasmine Chavez Helm (Pronounced: Hasmeen) grew up in La Puente, CA and New York City. She earned her BA in art history from Cal State University, Fullerton and her MA in the Fashion and Textile Studies: History, Theory, Museum Practice program at FIT. Jasmine has worked as curator and archivist in Los Angeles and New York. She is passionate about exploring the cross-cultural intersections between history, art, fashion, and media. In 2015, Jasmine co-founded Unravel: A Fashion Podcast, which focuses on fashion history. She weekly co-hosts and produces episodes with her team while managing digital content on Unravel’s website. Jasmine’s current research and passion archive @recuerdosdenicaragua focuses on the dress and textile culture of the indigenous and Afro-Nicaraguans in the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua.
Jasmine recently joined the team at The Latinx Project at NYU as the Program Administrator. She is currently working on a manuscript entitled RUFF RYDER: DMX, A BIOGRAPHY ON AN AMERICAN POET. The book seeks to chronicle DMX, Earl Simmons’ life and his literary legacy.
This review is based on an open guest lecture Marie Riegels Melchior gave at SDU Kolding campus on September 13, 2022 following the publication of her two-volume study, Moden i Danmark gennem 400 år - 1900-2020 that was released in Denmark earlier that year.
Marie Riegels started the lecture by presenting her thoughts on why she wrote the book, how she divided the themes, and later went through the time periods addressed in the book. She explained trends in Danish fashion from 1900-2020. As Marie has an ethnographic background, the lecture was based on her findings in pictures, relics in museums, and other empirical artifacts. The goal was to showcase everyday culture through clothes in different contexts and time.
She explained that her interest is in the differences in dress, concerning gender, identity, religion, as well as understanding the clothing industry of a capitalist production system that accelerated over the last century. Marie argued that looking at history, and how people once could be “in style” in Denmark without constantly buying new, might offer ideas or innovation for the issues fashion faces with the climate crisis. The book’s structure is encyclopedic and chronological, focusing on “exclusively” Danish fashion; however, “exclusively” is a loose term, since most of the trends mentioned are documented as getting their inspiration from France, Italy, or Asia.
Unfortunately, early on in the presentation, Marie presented her definition of fashion, which was very traditional and Eurocentric. In her words, “fashion has existed only in the West since the 1300s and that only in the recent globalization of the world has fashion spread to other cultures.” This outdated argument implies that the capitalist, fast-paced, European and Western fashion system is the only one to be labeled as “fashion”. This Eurocentric argument has been disproven by Linda Welters and Abby Lillethun (2018, 2022), Sandra Niessen (2020), Tansy Hoskins (2022), and many others.
At SDU, I have been taught fashion studies from the perspective of decoloniality, using my own academic work to explore fashion in other cultures. When I raised these concerns during the Q&A with Marie, she argued that the historical sources available that she examined showed that the systematic change in style (the way she defines fashion) existed only in Europe and the United States, i.e. the West. Marie was dismissive of other perspectives and possibilities that there are other sources out there revealing another truth, and of the fact that the sources she mentioned have been developed and examined by Western academics, who created the colonized and Eurocentric definition of fashion. Marie acknowledged the work of scholars on de-colonizing the fashion system, and the fact that maybe the definition of the term “fashion” is flawed in its origin, but did not want to incorporate that into her own research.
This is highly problematic, and to support my argument, I refer to sections of Kate Fletcher and Mathilda Tham’s publication, Earth Logic: Fashion Action Research Plan (2019), who are also the founding members of the Union of Concerned Researchers in Fashion, an international network that was founded in response to the continuous green-washing discourse of Copenhagen Fashion Summit (now rebranded as the Global Fashion Agenda).
In the existing fashion system, the dominant focus is economic growth logic and the pursuit of profit. This constitutes a single focus and attention and reinforces human-centred priorities over the needs, and at the cost of, all others. By contrast, the values of Earth Logic explicitly promote plurality and multiple centres of attention and action. The interdependency of human systems with all others makes processes of change real and complex. Interdependency underscores the ways in which individual products or human choices, often made with little concern for or understanding of the whole, combine in cumulative, layered, holistic effects that influence entire systems. Embracing interdependency and multiple centres in unison is about refusing to “be in a bubble,” separate and remote from the unfolding of the real world. It changes both understanding and the purpose of research itself. We need to search, explore, practice, prototype, learn, share insights and make change at the same time (Fletcher & Tham 2022:32-34) [Emphasis by author].
Marie’s study does not engage with Danish imperialism and the colonization of Greenland. It thus draws more attention to what is excluded and why, than to what is actually in the books. For the new generations of fashion scholars, this approach is no longer ethical. As Fletcher and Tham explained,
Decentering fashion can take many forms. We can imagine fashion for hitherto unprioritized clients, by challenging able-bodyism, ageism, and sizeism in fashion. We can start fashion literally from nature, creating a studio in the local park or an area of wilderness. We can grow fashion expression from the craft of use (Fletcher 2016). We can honour fashion in non-Western geographies. We can train the focus of fashion on supporting race and gender equality. Each perspective offers new models and practices for relating with fashion as well as broadening and diversifying the base of fashion expertise. Genuinely giving space for a plurality of fashion voices requires profound attention to the space we allocate to dominant voices, making this space smaller, and genuinely reaching those not currently prioritised. This requires new models for funding bodies, education admission, recruitment to organisations, etc. It also includes sincere attention to citation politics, avoiding replicating the same, dominant narrative (Ahmed 2017). In this landscape it is especially important to remember that the fashion system as we know it today is recent and manmade. There is a pluriverse of possible fashion systems if we set fashion free (Fletcher & Tham 2022:53-55) [Emphasis by author].
The paradox of this traditional view that fashion is essentially a capitalist system, and the suggestion that a solution to overconsumption is looking into history of a time when this mass-producing system was not yet in place is conflicting. As Kate Fletcher and Mathilda Tham noted, “the majority of the environmental issues caused by the fashion sector are endemic, not incidental. They are a consequence of how the current model is structured. The better the sector performs, the worse the problems will get.” (Fletcher & Tham 2022:21). In some ways, it seemed Marie Riegels agreed that there is an environmental toll to capitalist and colonial fashion, but her refusal to connect sustainability and decoloniality is highly concerning. Her insistence to keep the Eurocentric view on what fashion is reinforces old, outdated paradigms and ways of thinking, but moreover, it also legitimizes the neo-colonial exploitation, injustice, and violence experienced in the Global South. This view is keeping up the status quo instead of furthering change for the better by understanding fashion outside of Eurocentrism and capitalism, and imagining new alternative and more just fashion systems.
• Fletcher, K., & Tham, M. (2022). Earth Logic: Fashion Action Research Plan. London: The JJ. Foundation.
• Hoskins, T. E (2022). The Anti-Capitalist Book of Fashion. London: Pluto Press.
• Melchior, M. R. (2022). Moden i Danmark gennem 400 år - 1900-2020 | Chik – Smart – Moderne. Gads Forlag.
• Niessen, S. (2020). “Fashion, its Sacrifice Zone, and Sustainability.” Fashion Theory, Special Issue on Decoloniality and Fashion, Vol. 24: 6.
• Welters, L., and Lillethun, A. (2018). Fashion History: A Global View. New York: Bloomsbury.
Bio:
Sandra Rosenkranz Jäger is a student in the BA in Design Culture and Economics program at the University of Southern Denmark (SDU). She has worked as an editorial member of The Critical Pulse for two years during her studies, as editor, illustrator, SoMe coordinator, and the contact person for the magazine. Her work includes perspectives on decoloniality in the fashion system especially on “sustainability” and gender theory, with earlier publications in the magazine such as “Why is Unisex Clothing so Masculine?” in the 3rd issue. Sandra also designed four covers (to date) for the magazine, as well as other original illustrations and artwork.
Fabric samples
Image by aopsan on Freepik
Lack of holism, useless data, and unreliable tools. In this article, we look at how the recently proposed European environmental labeling scheme for fashion and textile products could potentially end up misleading brands and consumers alike. We also take a brief look at the industry's wider data problem. The idea of a common European labeling scheme for the products we surround ourselves with is by no means new, and many would say long overdue. But while the first pilot projects for the so-called Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) have been underway since 2013 for everything from food to electronics, it is only recently that a more concrete proposal for the labeling of fashion and textile products has entered the agenda.
The PEF is called the Apparel and Footwear Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules and includes footwear. The latest consultation period ran from 7 July to 24 September 2021, but the proposal has attracted limited attention, except for activities in line with the Make the Label Count campaign. This post will therefore be updated should opportunities for action arise at a later date.
Labeling will, by all accounts, depend on a methodology that is utterly devoid of the holism that the EU claims to operate under. And digging a little deeper, it is striking that the secretariat of the proposed labeling scheme is made up of the very same organization that consistently promotes synthetic materials as more sustainable - and does so using inconsistent and unsubstantial data.
Labeling will, by all accounts, depend on a methodology that is utterly devoid of the holism that the EU claims to operate under
The (PEF) should be understood in the context of the EU Green Deal, which seeks to decouple economic growth from increased resource consumption, and the Circular Economy Acti-
on Plan (CEAP), the EU's post-COVID strategy to make so-called “sustainable products” the norm in the EU. The latter in particular has a pronounced focus on empowering consumers to consume in a more circular and so-called sustainable way, especially concerning resource-intensive industries, of which textiles is one. Indeed, the EU rates textile consumption as the fourth largest pressure category in terms of raw material and water use (after food, housing, and transport), and the fifth-largest in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (European Commission 2021). Many underlying initiatives, such as the Sustainable Product Initiative (SPI) Directive, which focuses on products being "...durable, reusable, repairable, recyclable, and energy-efficient" (European Commission 2020), are therefore also under development. However, the PEF is a very specific measure, aimed directly at guiding consumption.
Unfortunately, there are strong indications that the PEF risks falling victim to the same biased data selection that we have seen from the industry's major players in recent years. For example, according to the Make the Label Count campaign, the PEF methodology includes land use, water use, and emissions for the fiber stage of natural materials, while the score for synthetic materials completely omits the impacts resulting from fossilization - and it does not take into account, for example, how natural materials, especially those farmed under regenerative practices, may assist in lowering emissions. At the same time, the PEF also does not take into account long-term microplastic pollution, which again skews the picture in favour of synthetic materials. Then add in parameters such as renewability, recyclability, and biodegradability - all qualities that are to be found in natural materials - and synthetic materials start falling short. However, these parameters are not included in the PEF calculation. And we haven't even started talking about durability and longevity (technical as well as emotional),
which is also largely absent from the PEF (Make the Label Count 2021b). So, the picture is that the PEF's "Cradle to Gate" life cycle analysis will conveniently give preference to the frequently cheaper, synthetic materials used mainly by the industry's fastest movers - and will completely underplay the importance of the clothing's use phase. And this, despite recent research suggesting that different fibers are preferable for different functions (Laitala, Grimstad Klepp & Henry 2018).
At the same time, the PEF also does not take into account long-term microplastic pollution, which again skews the picture in favour of synthetic materials
"If we make a mistake about labeling today, we lose our moral authority to revert to all other forms of greenwashing. And there is an epidemic of greenwash in our industry." (Livia Firth, keynote, Make the Label Count, 2021a)
But there is also something striking about the fact that the PEF is only linked to environmental impact, without accounting for social responsibility, if the aim of the EU is really to move towards more responsible products. Especially since natural materials represent such an important source of income for many of the world's poorest populations (Bates Kassatly & Baumann Pauly 2021). And indeed, the potential unilateralism of the PEF also contrasts with the overarching sustainability definition on which the EU leans: namely, the Brundtland definition, which, while not particularly concrete or operational, emphasizes a high degree of holism. In case it has been forgotten, it goes: "Sustainable development is a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." But as Veronica Bates Kassatly and Dorothee Baumann Pauly point out in a whitepaper for the agency Eco-Age from earlier this year, the definition does not end there: indeed, the Brundtland Report also states that the focus on "needs" is particularly linked to the world's poorest and that these must be given overriding priority (Bates Kassatly & Baumann-Pauly 2021). But here too the PEF does not seem to be of much help.
But there is also something striking about the fact that the PEF is only linked to environmental impact, without accounting for social responsibility
"Apart from the occasional anecdotal evidence, none of them attempt to measure sustainability in terms of meeting the needs of the world's poor. The only area of focus is environmental impact, and almost without exception, brands and initiatives mix ... sustainability with environmental impact." (Bates Kassatly & Baumann-Pauly 2021)
But why does the PEF look the way it does? One explanation could be that it's because of the tools that the EU is using as a template - a tool that has continuously been under criticism for exactly the type of data selection we're seeing now. Here I’m referring to the so-called Higg Index, which has been heavily criticized for its Materials Sustainability Index (MSI). Among other things, the Higg MSI has received criticism about the data used being called "ridiculously outdated and irrelevant" (Grimstad Klepp & Skårdal Tobiasson 2020) and downright unscientific (Bates Kassatly 2020b). An example being polyester scores that are supposedly calculated according to European best practice, even though the vast majority of the world's polyester is neither produced in Europe nor the result of best practice manufacturing, while cotton scores are calculated according to a global average (Bates Kassatly, 2020a; Wicker 2020).
At the same time, coverage by Apparel Insider reveals that the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), which is behind the Higg Index, has not even consulted with leather, alpaca, or silk manufacturers to obtain data for their respective materials, and that a case has now been brought against SAC/Higg (Apparel Insider 2020). And when comparing the MSI scores for regular cow leather (176/kg), alpaca (320/ kg), and silk (1086/kg) with the scores from their synthetic substitutes polyurethane (37.2/ kg), acrylic (48.7/kg), and acetate (79.6/kg), the picture shows the MSI giving preference to synthetic materials (Wicker 2020). The lower the score, the lower the environmental impact, it seems. But again, the MSI, like the PEF, is only Cradle to Gate, meaning it does not take into account the impacts that stem from usage and end of life, just as it is selective about what is included in the cradle parameters. The argument for using Higg's methodology anyway is most often that it is currently "the best we have"but honestly, should we really be reliant upon a tool that leaves out so many crucial parameters when it comes to something as comprehensive
as the legislation and, in fact, labeling that will direct our consumption?
“We believe that anyone supporting the Higg MSI is running a serious reputational risk. Given its addition to the online database used by global law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute questionable business practices, the trustworthiness of the SAC is irrevocably tarnished.” (Bates Kassatly & Baumann-Pauly 2021)
If we look at who has been appointed as the technical secretariat of the EU PEF, it is the very same SAC, the organization behind the Higg Index and the MSI, that has been left in charge. In other words, the same organization that is under fire for dubious business practices is running the show. And the voting members of the preparation of the PEF? They include H&M, Inditex (Zara, etc.), C&A, Nike, VF Corporations (Vans, The Northface, etc.), etc. Of course, this is not much different from BESTSELLER being appointed by the Ministry of Business as head of the task force for sustainable transformation of the Danish fashion industry, despite their criticizable cancellation of already produced orders in 2020 (see Worker Rights Consortium 2020) - but it still creates a doubt about which interests are being served.
“The Higg Index is only "cradle to gate" - what happens when that garment is worn and ultimately disposed of, is not included. In short,
the Higg Index can only claim to deliver a holistic overview of all fabrics that behave in the same way when used and disposed of. And we know they don’t.” (Bates Kassatly 2020a - also Laitala, Kirsi, Ingun Grinstad Kleep & Beverley Henry 2018)
However, it is not only with the Higg Index and now, presumably, the PEF that the fashion industry has a data problem. In the report "Cotton: A case study in misinformation," published in early October 2021, it appears that some cotton is designated as "preferred" or "better" on shaky grounds and that the fiber report on which the industry broadly bases its decisions is deeply flawed (Transformers Foundation 2021). But we'll save that for the next post. Thanks for reading along.
Update: Since this article was initially published, multiple brands have been forced to remove consumer facing usage of the Higg MSI in multiple countries, whereof Norway is the most prominent case, authorities have concluded that the current material claims made under Higg are, in fact, greenwashing. How and whether this will affect the EU’s development of the PEF remains to be seen, but this author, as well as the team at Make the Label Count are working hard to ensure that future legislation will, in fact, be a matter of ensuring sustainability over profitability.
• Apparel Insider (2020): Challenging Higg: the options for natural fibres industries
• Bates Kassatly, Veronica (2020a): Was it polyester all along?
• Bates Kassatly, Veronica (2020b): Statement on the Sustainable Apparel Coalition's response to the Leather Industry
• Bates Kassatly, Veronica & Dorothee Baumann-Pauly (2021): The Great Greenwashing Machine Part 1: Back to the Roots of Sustainability
• European Commission (2021): EU Strategy for Textiles, Roadmap, ref. Ares(2021)67453
• European Commission (2020): Sustainable Products Initiative, Inception Impact Assessment, Ref. Ares(2020)4754440
• Grimstad Klepp, Ingun & Tone Skårdal Tobiasson (2020): Ecolabelling of clothes has catastrophic consequences for the environment
• Laitala, Kirsi, Ingun Grinstad Kleep & Beverley Henry (2018): Does Use Matter? Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Clothing Based on Fibre Type
• Make the Label Count (2021a): Campaign Launch
• Make the Label Count (2021b): EU PEF Overview - new labelling proposal
• Sustainable Apparel Coalition (2021): About PEF
• Transformers Foundation (2021): Cotton: A case study in misinformation
• Wicker, Alden (2020): Higg Says Natural Fibers Are Worse for the Environment than Synthetics. Is That True?
Bio:
Tanja Gotthardsen is an independent researcher and owner of the sustainability consultancy Continual, based in Aarhus, Denmark. She specializes in the intersections between cultural history and communication, human rights, conflict theory, and sustainability. She is an approved consultant under the Danish government funded corporate social responsibility (CSR) program, “Textile Demands of the Future”, and has worked extensively with the Danish independent consumer council, Forbrugerrådet Tænk, on strengthening sustainability-related consumer law.
There is a line in Bruno Latour’s book Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime (2018), that summarizes the great responsibility the global apparel industry holds in leading the way towards a model of sustainable production and consumption. Down to Earth is a short book that, like much of Latour’s work, is simple in concept and complex in approach. In it, the French philosopher grapples with what he sees as the connecting force between issues of inequality, deregulation, and globalization – namely a powerful sect of the population no longer feels it is beholden to the ruse that we are all equal, all commonly connected. In response, Latour argues for a return to Earth, for policies and political actions that are Earth-focused, rather than nationalistic or geared towards the abstract ‘global.’ In the final pages of the book, as Latour works through his vision of a plausible way forward, he states that “Europe, because of its history, has to plunge in first because it was the first to be responsible” (Latour 2018:104). Sociologist Juliet Schor states that clothing is at “the cutting edge of a set of unsustainable consumer practices” (Schor 2010:27). The global fashion industry is a poster child for the values that have powered the global economic system through to the 21st century and holds a responsibility to lead the way in reprioritizing values that support a just and equitable system of production and consumption.
The global fashion industry is a poster child for the values that have powered the global economic system through to the 21st century and holds a responsibility to lead the way in reprioritizing values that support a just and equitable system of production and consumption.
By this point, the detrimental impacts of the global apparel industry are rote: this is an industry that is responsible for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions; it is heavily reliant on fossil fuels, from the petrochemicals used to manufacture synthetic textiles and fabric dyes,
and the plastic that ships garments around the globe, to the gas and oil used to power transportation; it is responsible for 20% of annual plastic production; the chemicals used to dye, treat, and set textiles are often highly toxic, harming the individuals who work directly with them, but also contaminating local water systems and thus negatively impacting the land, the humans, and the living creatures who ingest this water or foods grown with the water; the industry also consumes vast amounts of fresh water (to grow cotton, treat textiles and so on) and contributes to soil degradation and the decimation of precious rainforests (Geneva Environment Network 2021). In North America, 10.5 million tonnes of textiles (including clothing but also other household and commercial textiles) are thrown out every year (Waste Reduction Week in Canada 2022), which not only adds to the Earth’s massive waste problem, but renders all the environmental harm caused in producing all these clothes entirely pointless. When it comes to major industries that are harming the planet, the fashion industry is one of the worst. Moreover, it is an industry that we all participate in, which means we are all complicit.
In Down to Earth, Latour refers to the responsibility Europe holds, as the harbinger of an imperial worldview that encouraged inequality and the urge to colonize, to lead the way in enacting what a society that prioritizes equity and upholds social and environmental justice can look like. As a primary actor in creating the current system – which, according to Latour’s argument, is not working – Latour suggests that Europe holds the majority share of the burden of creating a new system. A counter argument would suggest that Europe’s time is over, and instead we should look to the communities that have been silenced for our models of what a new system could look like. But, I empathize with Latour’s argument because, to me, it speaks to a basic concept of fairness. When we are children, we are taught to clean
up our messes, to admit when we are wrong, to apologize and make amends when we have hurt someone. Since the fashion industry is one of our most polluting industries that has led the way in modeling what an unsustainable system of production and consumption looks like, does it not hold the majority share of responsibility to reimagine what a fair and ethical system of production and consumption could look like?
If the fashion industry is one of our most polluting industries, that has led the way in modeling what an unsustainable system of production and consumption looks like, does it not hold the majority share of responsibility to reimagine what a fair and ethical system of production and consumption could look like?
The linear model of “take, make, use, lose” (Raworth 2017:181) is not unique to the apparel industry, but rather describes the contemporary relationship to industrial output in general. However, fashion can, in many ways, be used to exemplify this model. As Juliet Schor describes, the concept of fashion, meaning goods that can become undesirable due to their style or
because they have become “too widely available” (Schor 2010:31), has overtaken the market, where fashion now plays an important role in the desirability of everyday objects from “the pencil holder on the desk to the teapot on the stove, never mind the cell phone, its case, and its ringtone.” (Schor 2010:31). The role that fashion has in the movement of everyday objects is part of what Schor terms ‘the materiality paradox,’ in which consumer goods have become more widely available to more and more people, therefore “the goods themselves become less important, and their social meaning more salient, [while] their physical or material impact on the planet intensifies” (Schor 2010:27). Schor argues as consumer goods themselves have become increasingly disposable, their symbolic meaning has become the thing that holds actual value. But this value is determined by the whims of fashion which, paradoxically, we participate in because it communicates our access to wealth through our ability to be wasteful.
When we talk about the negative environmental impacts of the fashion industry on this planet, we are talking about the relationship
between humans and the Earth, but, more specifically, we are talking about the likelihood that we will be able to limit global temperature-rise to 1.5oC. We care about greenhouse gas emissions, soil degradation and water contamination because these things determine whether or not we will meet the goals that will make climate change survivable. We measure this temperature rise against “pre-industrial” temperatures, so temperatures before the Industrial Revolution. There were many factors that contributed to the emergence of the Industrial Revolution, including the invention of the steam engine and the adoption of the use of coal (Meadows 2004:267). One of the most significant factors was the step away from cottage industries to factory production, aided by the invention of various machines that upped efficiency and productivity. One of the industries that was most affected was the textile industry, where “in the space of a little more than 40 years, from 1733 through 1775, innovations such as the flying shuttle, spinning jenny, [the] water-powered spinning frame and cotton carding machines [announced] the age of mechanized production was launched” (Lavergne 2015:25). The Industrial Revolution is credited as the beginning of a turn towards technology as the most effective fix-all, but it also marked a psychological turn. Commerce was offered as the solution to humanity’s ills, “the capitalists […] promised that, through the technological domination of the earth, they could deliver a more fair, rational, efficient and productive life for everyone.” (Donald Worster quoted in Meadows 2004:268). With the textile industry leading the way, the Industrial Revolution mechanized production, thus increasing the amount of textiles that could be produced, but also introducing the mass-manufacturing of garments themselves. Next came the invention of synthetic dyes and the proliferation of department stores, and the former middle-class could start affording more fashionable clothing with greater regularity.
These were the early days of increased access to fashion goods for many in the Global North. Where those who lived a generation beforehand would have been dressed in hand-medowns, people could now, suddenly, afford to buy themselves something new and reasonably fashionable. There is a tendency to create a relationship of cause and effect between access and consumption and think people began to desire more because more was made available to them. However, as Frank Trentmann illustra-
tes in his exhaustive global history of consumption, the desire for things is almost untraceable since it has so long been a part of the human experience (2017:21-173). We are desiring beings, so while greater access may encourage greater depths of desire, the access itself does not create the desire. As Dana Thomas writes, “In Europe, most reigning monarchy had been abolished, but not the aspiration to emulate it” (2007:25).
Limits imposed upon an individual’s ability to consume due to economic disparity is felt as a failure, a shame, a profound slight to one’s dignity
The desire for things (and now, increasingly, for the lifestyles) that those above our own status possess has not left us. J.B. MacKinnon describes an American study into which brands were considered the most ‘high-status’ in the 2010s. Including Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Rolex, Chanel, Prada, Armani and Versace in the top ten, the study found that “those brands are more often mentioned on social media in parts of the United States that have wider gaps between rich and poor” (MacKinnon 2021:102). Tansy E. Hoskins describes the looting of clothing and shoe shops that accompanied riots that swept Britain in 2011. The riots, prompted by “police violence, social exclusion, poverty [...] illustrate the tense disconnect between society’s messages. People are taught: “I shop, therefore I am,” that shopping equals success and that they should go to any length to consume” (Hoskins 2014:51-52). The ability to consume has become tied to an individual’s sense of self-worth. Consequently, limits imposed upon an individual’s ability to consume due to economic disparity is felt as a failure, a shame, a profound slight to one’s dignity. It is also representative of a social and economic system in which some individuals will never be able to access the very thing society tells them they are owed, that which they require to be seen, by themselves and by others, as successful. This kind of looting, particularly of goods that hold high symbolic value, is not uncommon, and was seen again during the protests that ripped across the United States following George Floyd’s murder in 2020.
In the late 1990s and into the early 2000s, the apparel industry began its ‘race to the bottom’ in which manufacturing jobs (including cotton farming) were rapidly transferred out of North American and Europe and into the developing
nations (Lavergne 2015:34-73). This is a supply chain practice now common among most apparel brands, from fast-fashion to high-end designer. As Kate Fletcher writes, “just as the textile industry led the Industrial Revolution, fashion and textiles have been among the first sectors to be part of today’s international division of labour. […] Apparel companies largely have moved their manufacturing facilities from industrialized to lower-wage countries overseas, resulting in an already complex supply chain now having a wide geographic spread” (2014:168). This was presented as a win-win by parent companies; countries in the Global South would be raised out of poverty thanks to the economic boom that industry provides, and consumers in the Global North would reap the rewards through lowered purchase prices (Lavergne 2015:34-73). Sustainable fashion advocate, Aja Barber, begins her book Consumed (2021) with an open letter to the CEOs of fast-fashion retailers in which she demands that they take personal accountability for the social and environmental harms their companies engender upon the world (Barber 2021:ix). Her letter gives voice to a growing area of concern around responsibility. For while the traditional argument lobbied by industry suggests we, the consumers, made our choices known when we took advantage of these lowered prices by upping our consumption levels by over 400% (Sustain Your Style 2022), citizens like Aja Barber are raising their voices in dissent. In the debate between individual responsibility versus corporate responsibility,
Bibliography
wherein one party holds all the information and actively obscures this information through slick greenwashing campaigns, can it truly be said that there is a fair playing field?
In the debate between individual responsibility versus corporate responsibility, wherein one party holds all the information and actively obscures this information through slick greenwashing campaigns, can it truly be said that there is a fair playing field?
In many ways the textile and apparel industry has led the major trends in the manufacturing industries, from the mechanization of production, to the adoption of communications technology that allowed jobs to be exported to the Global South. From an increased access of goods for a growing percentage of the population, to the social shift that prioritizes symbolic value over use value, the fashion industry has a dangerously large footprint and plays a significant role in perpetuating the causes of climate change. It has also provided the blueprint for a deeply unsustainable model of production and consumption, which other industries have adopted. The fashion industry, therefore, holds an extra burden of responsibility to not only correct its unethical and unsustainable practices, but more significantly, to lead the way towards a model for the 21st century, wherein the objects we produce and consume do good by people and the planet.
• Barber, Aja. Consumed: The Need for Collective Change: Colonialism, Climate Change and Consumerism. London, Brazen, 2021.
• Charpail, Mathilde. “What’s Wrong with the Fashion Industry?” Sustain Your Style. 2017. www.sustainyourstyle.org/en/whats-wrongwith-the-fashion-industry. Accessed 10 June 2022.
• “Environmental Sustainability in the Fashion Industry.” Geneva Environment Network. 19 November 2021. www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/sustainable-fashion/. Accessed 10 June 2022.
• Fletcher, Kate. Design Journeys: Sustainable Fashion and Textiles. 2nd Edition. London, Routledge, 2014.
• Hoskins, Tansy E. Stitched-Up: The Anti-Capitalist Book of Fashion. London, Pluto Press, 2014.
• Latour, Bruno. Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climactic Regime. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, Polity Press, 2017.
• Lavergne, Michael. Fixing Fashion: Rethinking the Way We Make, Market and Buy Our Clothes. Gabriola Island, New Society Publishers, 2015.
• MacKinnon, J.B. The Day the World Stops Shopping. Toronto, Random House Canada, 2021.
• Meadows, Donella, Jorgen Randers and Dennis Meadows. Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. White River Junction, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2004.
• Raworth, Kate. Doughnut Economics: 7 Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist. White River Junction, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2017.
• Schor, Juliet B. Plenitude: The New Economics of True Wealth. New York, The Penguin Press, 2010.
• “Textiles Tuesday.” Waste Reduction Week in Canada. wrwcanada.com/en/theme-days/textiles-tuesday. Accessed 10 June 2022.
• Thomas, Dana. Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster. New York, Penguin Books, 2007.
• Trentmann, Frank. Empire of Things: How We Became a World of Consumers, from the Fifteenth Century to the Twenty-first. London, Penguin Books UK, 2017.
Bio:
Jess Montgomery is a Vancouver-based writer, educator and public speaker. She holds a BFA with Distinction in Art History from Concordia University and a MA in the History and Theory of Contemporary Art from San Francisco Art Institute. Jess’s work focuses on the intersection between material culture, consumption and climate change; her 2019 talk for TEDxCHilliwack focused on the social and environmental impacts of clothing overconsumption.
Episode 40 – Answering Your Questions – Part 2
Episode 39 – Answering Your Questions – Part 1
Episode 38 – Moussa Mchangama from In Futurum
Episode 37 – Tansy Hoskins
https://anchor.fm/chic-podcast
