Buying for Equality: A Different Take on Ethical Fashion

After the Proposition 8 debacle in California, I'm adding support for LBGT concerns to my list of facets of ethical fashion. As always, it pays to be vocal. Let manufacturers know why you are supporting them -- or not. I have been leaning on the "making progress" firms on my list, to encourage them in that direction. The Human Rights Campaign has a great website that makes activism easier.

Needs and wants: the euphoria of retail therapy

I came across this old news item in a waiting-room magazine. It's about a study (funded by T.J. Maxx) that indicated that the euphoric jolt of finding a designer item at a discount price is more pleasurable than "eating a piece of chocolate". Depends on the chocolate, I say, but that's another study.

The pleasures of shopping are a fascinating topic; I recall some theorizing some time ago that women enjoy shopping because we are wired to get a charge out of spying the elusive berry, from our prehistoric "gathering" days. Shopping has been much on my mind lately, as the days grew colder and I noticed some gaps in my winter wardrobe. Facing a year on half salary as I write my book, I'm trying to limit spending, and on a strictly pragmatic level (number of items of each type), I didn't need anything.

However. My everyday wardrobe was boring, and not quite warm enough for my chilly house, without layering to the point where I felt restricted. Not only are the colors bland (lots of white, black and brown) but my shirts were tactally unsatisfying flat knits: T-shirts (short-sleeved, long-sleeved, v-necks) and turtlenecks. Each morning, I'd open my shirt drawer and think "who cares?", pull something out, put it on and forget about it. Once dressed, I forgot what I was wearing. To some extent, that's good. I am trying to focus on daily progress on a huge task. But that downer moment with the open drawer was bothering me.

I was also starting to have the jones for shopping. Usually, it's satisfied with a trip to the library or my weekly grocery shopping, but the desire to find that perfect, ripe, sun-warmed berry and pop it in my mouth was undeniable. What's a Nice White Lady to do?

Solution #1: A trip to my favorite thrift store, where, after forty minutes of careful searching, I scored a brand new J. Jill fleece pullover in Neopolitan coconut candy colors (pink, white, brown) for $15 (original tag: $70). It is a particularly fluffy kind of fleece, nearly weightless and very cozy. I have worn it three days in a row, over T-shirts and turtlenecks. Now that's euphoria!

Solution #2: Realizing that I need a sensory blast once the leaves are on the ground and the days get darker, I sat down and ordered two new fleece turtlenecks in bright colors from Land's End.

Bottom Line: I need to add an item to my "ideal consumption" wish list.

My clothes should make me happy, not just covered.

Transparency in Standards: BuyGreen.com

Not everyone wants to broadcast their green habits with printed slogans (think "This is not a plastic bag" totebags). Personally, I just want some assurance that the things I buy and use are in line with my own values, and if the Whole World Wants to Know what those are, they can read my blog. But that requires that manufacturers and retailers not be shy or disingenuous about their products, so I can make an informed decision. I've already identified some suppliers who make an effort at transparency in labelling and selection standards, and here's one more: BuyGreen.com. Their published standards are not only clear and detailed information about their products, but a nice starting point for thinking about ethical fashion in general.

Consumption: How much and what kind?

No Impact Man, one of my very favorite green bloggers, poses a nest of discussion questions about our consuming habits.

Doesn't reducing consumption make perfect sense? Why is it the elephant
in the living room? Are people too selfish to consume less? How do we
move towards a less consumptive society? How much would it help with
the climate crisis?

What I know best is clothes, and I can see what ideal consumption might look like,for me:

• 80% of my wardrobe would consist of basics (underwear, socks, classic skirts, jeans, plain tops) that would form the backdrop and foundation for the 20% of my wardrobe devoted to really special pieces (accessories and festive clothing)
• the 80% basic wardrobe would be made by fairly paid workers, using environmentally sound materials and methods
• the 20% "special" wardrobe would artisan-made, either by me (in my ample free time) or a fairly-paid craftsperson.
• a robust textile products recycling system, including refashioning, second-hand clothing and raw material recycling similar to existing paper, metal and plastic systems.
• expansion of clothing rental programs for women -- wedding dresses, formals, high-end maternity wear.
• better labeling so consumers could easily identify green, ethical and fair trade products.

This wish list makes me very aware that when it comes to reducing the impact of clothing, the rate of consumption is key. To really make an impact in this area, consumers will need to buy new styles less often, wear their clothing longer before cleaning, launder it responsibly, mend or alter clothing to extend its life, and dispose of it responsibly.

The fashion industry (manufacturing, promotion and retailing) needs to shift its focus away from fast fashion (short trends and rapid obsolescence), and this will be the hardest part. There are millions of contractors and workers in this industry, and it is highly competitive. A sudden shift in America's demand for cheap T-shirts and trendy clothing will be felt by many, many low-wage workers around the world. I don't know the answer to that. I do remember a talk by an ILGWU representative thirty years ago, when a similar question was asked about preserving jobs in American clothing factories. She said, "Almost none of our workers want their kids following in their footsteps. These are not great jobs". But they are jobs.

Election Connection

I've been AWOL for some time, thanks to a combination of good research/writing mojo and the distractions of the election. Today I was reading a blog about Senator Joe Lieberman's future and his possible "punishment" for supporting McCain, and happened to notice that one of his chairmanships is this one: Chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection (under the committee on Environment & Public Works). You'd think this might be a body with some interest in greenwashing and such, but they are not THAT interested; their last posted hearing is November, 2007. Given that, I'm all for replacing Joe with someone who might actually do something. After all, if the new President wants to empower and engage individual action on the important issues of our time, this subcommittee might want to get up to speed.

Ethical fashion in historical context

I am attending a regional meeting of the Costume Society of America, the organization for professional (and serious amateur) scholars of fashion. The theme is "The Many Layered Meanings of Costume" and we are meeting in Williamsburg, Virginia, the epicenter of colonial American material culture studies. To my surprise, there have been three presentations on various aspects of ethical fashion. By far the most interesting has been Sarah Woodyard's "'Made in Clean and Healthful Conditions': The Study of a White Labeled Garment", which focused on the labeling efforts of the National Consumers League between 1898 and 1918. The "White Label" in a garment was the equivalent of today's Fair Trade label or the once-familiar ILGWU's "union label", guaranteeing that the item was made by fairly-paid workers under safe and humane conditions.

The short summary, we have been here before. The Progressive Era produced many of our modern consumer and worker protections, often in audacious movements that reveal great trust in the goodness of the American consumer, who only needed accurate and adequate information to do "the right thing".