Ethics of Fashion

[Belacqua]

I think people buying in thrift stores know that the used stuff may have been produced unethically. The point is that this damage has already been done.

If you buy something used, the damage has been done once. If you buy something new, it has been done again. The goal is to reduce the damage. 

Can you expand what you mean by damage here? Initially, I thought your analogy still applied to new items—whatever bad environmental practices went into producing some jeans from Zara, were done before you made your purchase.

Sorry -- I wasn't clear.

I meant to say that producing and selling the thing originally is what harms the environment and the laborers. Once the thing is in circulation that damage is in the past. Therefore buying used items has two benefits:

1) two people (at least) get the benefit of the clothes without increasing the production costs, and 

2) the clothing doesn't go into the landfill. 

So if you have a chance to buy something old instead of something new, you are covering your body without having to repeat the initial production issues.

If we could somehow quantify the harm done, we could say that making a new pair of jeans causes harm rated at 100.

If 30 people each buy new jeans, then the damage is at 3000. But if 30 people wear, in succession, the same pair of jeans, the damage remains at the original 100. 

(Maybe I just made it even less clear...)

[Belacqua]

If you want to be environmentally friendly, whether biologically male or female, wear skirts, as they require fewer washings than do pants or shorts.  I wash mine once a season; they also dry easier.

Before sewing machines were introduced to Japan, kimono were all hand stitched very loosely. Except for spot cleaning they were never laundered, but every few years the ladies would completely unstitch them and wash the parts in a river. Then sew them together again. 

The fabric was generally so well made that they could be passed down for generations. In fact it's kind of a joke in Japan today that every family has a chest full of grandma's kimono which look like new, but nobody wears. I wish they would come back into fashion.

Today we all wear Uniqlo T-shirts that last one year if you're lucky, but at home we have a chest full of 100-year-old fabric that has another century of life left in it.

[John 6IX Breezy]

If we could somehow quantify the harm done, we could say that making a new pair of jeans causes harm rated at 100.

If 30 people each buy new jeans, then the damage is at 3000. But if 30 people wear, in succession, the same pair of jeans, the damage remains at the original 100.

I think the argument you are making makes sense, but I have some issues with the analogy. The 30 people producing 3,000 damage points makes sense only if the items are being custom made. But in a situation where Zara already produced the 30 jeans, the harm is already done, and now it's a question of whether someone gets to wear them or not.

The second issue is perhaps more important: Since we are talking about personal responsibility, I'm not sure the 30 people can hide behind each other. For example, I personally buy expensive jeans, and I'm able to do so because it's pretty easy to resell them. Now, if I'm contributing to the unethical practices of the manufacturer because my purchase keeps them in business, can't that reasoning be extended to whoever buys my jeans secondhand who is likewise funding my unethical consumer behavior? If nobody purchased my jeans secondhand, I wouldn't be able to sustain my lifestyle.

ps. I don't my think my jeans are made unethically, but then again one never knows.

[Belacqua]

The 30 people producing 3,000 damage points makes sense only if the items are being custom made. But in a situation where Zara already produced the 30 jeans, the harm is already done, and now it's a question of whether someone gets to wear them or not.

I'm certainly no expert here -- just guessing as we go along.

But I suspect I know what the ethicists would argue. All businesses still run more or less by supply and demand. Fast fashion is famously data-driven, so they know day by day exactly what is selling and what isn't, and their fast development times mean that they can adjust inventory within weeks, to give the budget fashionista what he wants.

So if the ethicists had their way, and we all stopped buying new, it would mean a few week's worth of dead stock gets shipped to landfills in Africa. But the math majors at the head office would make sure that such a loss is minimal, and production would change to adjust to demand. The fewer Zara jeans people buy, the fewer jeans Zara makes in the coming season. 


They want profit, so if we all became more conscious of cost/benefit, and were more efficient about it, Zara might even introduce a line called "Heirloom" or something, which cost 3x more but lasted 10x longer. It would mean changing people's habits, and backing away a little bit from instant gratification. 

My experience in thrift shops has been that Sears and Penneys clothes from the '60s and '70s are a lot like that -- way more durable than Uniqlo or Zara. I don't know how much Sears cost at the time, in inflation-adjusted dollars, but they were considered the family budget options. 

The second issue is perhaps more important: Since we are talking about personal responsibility, I'm not sure the 30 people can hide behind each other. For example, I personally buy expensive jeans, and I'm able to do so because it's pretty easy to resell them. Now, if I'm contributing to the unethical practices of the manufacturer because my purchase keeps them in business, can't that reasoning be extended to whoever buys my jeans secondhand who is likewise funding my unethical consumer behavior? If nobody purchased my jeans secondhand, I wouldn't be able to sustain my lifestyle.

ps. I don't my think my jeans are made unethically, but then again one never knows.

Yes, if we discovered that a certain company was unethical, the ideal would be to stop wearing them tout court. Get them out of circulation.

Even being seen in the logo would make a person feel dirty. 

No doubt there are extreme Gandhi type ethicists who think that to save the world we really ought to grow and weave our fabric locally, and make at home anything we wear. (And they may be right!) But I can imagine something of a realistic compromise, in which the producers and consumers are conscious of and minimize the negative aspects. They'd want things made locally with union labor, so as to minimize worker exploitation and international shipping costs. 

This all seems very doable to me, but the main thing that would have to change then, from the consumer's perspective, is FASHION. Decisions about how you look would have to be made differently. Zara prospers because when a movie star wears something today, Zara has it on shelves in Ohio next week.

It could be a lot of fun, though. Imagine if the people who set the fashion were local kids (not international stars), working with local materials. It would mean that fashion on the east side of Osaka could evolve to be wildly different from New York or London, which would each have their own trends and pleasures and playfulness. 

I wouldn't mind giving this a try.

[Belacqua]

The less you eat, drink and read books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save - the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor dust will devour - your capital. The less you are, the more you have; the less you express your own life, the greater is your alienated life - the greater is the store of your estranged being.

― Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

"Estranged being" is another word for cash in the bank.

The guys don't mention nice clothing here, but I see it as relevant. They want us to have rich lives. They want us to enjoy our time on this earth.

So Marxian criticism of the fashion industry is quite predictable: class exploitation, resource allocation, etc.

But this in no way means we should all dress in boring clothes. He wants us to go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence. And I would add: dress up. It would be silly to wear jeans and T-shirts for all of these things.

I think this means that we do it ourselves, for pleasure.

[The Grand Nudger]

I’d imagine that it would be better to pressure retailers into avoiding unethical brands and products…than to insist we all go thrifting. IDK how successful any push would be. Walmart is huge, and people have practical reasons for desiring inexpensive clothes.

[bennyboy]

I have very little interest in fashion.

However, I do recognize that it's a type of art, and that this particular type of art is highly malleable year by year.

I'd say most things could be called useless-- music, movies, and so on. They are functionally useless, and yet they are an expression of the mind and soul of the time. So, though I don't much care for it, does fashion, methinks.

[The Grand Nudger]

The issue of fast fashion isn't something you have to be interested in for it to have an effect. You're wearing fast fashion right now. "But I'm just in my cheap fruit of the loom plain white"....yup - that's the stuff.

[John 6IX Breezy]

This all seems very doable to me, but the main thing that would have to change then, from the consumer's perspective, is FASHION. Decisions about how you look would have to be made differently. Zara prospers because when a movie star wears something today, Zara has it on shelves in Ohio next week.

It could be a lot of fun, though. Imagine if the people who set the fashion were local kids (not international stars), working with local materials. It would mean that fashion on the east side of Osaka could evolve to be wildly different from New York or London, which would each have their own trends and pleasures and playfulness.

Hmm but is this a negative when it comes to Zara? In many ways I get the sense that the fashion scene has moved away from the massive trends that used to sweep the culture (like everyone buying a furby for Christmas or wearing a specific kind of shirt), to smaller more individualized trends defined by subcultures. Fashion used to envelop an entire generation—we know what defines the 80s for example. But it's harder to define newer generations. There's been a splintering effect in the market that grows with every generation.

So if I could make an argument in favor of Zara and other fast fashion brands. They have the benefit of being many things to many people. They allow for diversity of style in ways that a smaller more niche brand cannot.

I think given the choice between improving the practices of Zara, and getting rid of Zara, having Zara-like stores around is good for consumers.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you improve the business practices of zara you will have turned zara into un un-zara like store.