random fashion thoughts

[dji]

spot on casem, it's the system that needs to be changed. I mean, what happens to the economy and peoples of said third world country if consumers boycott items manufactured there altogether?

[DudleyGray]

Institutional changes come about because of individuals, though. Chipoltle wouldn't be doing what they do if there wasn't this big movement to spread awareness about the food industry.

For fashion forum that is well aware of the industry's repercussions, I think it's necessary to bring these issues to light regularly. As clothing junkies, we should absolutely see the impact of clothing on people and the environment and hold that shit. I own a pair of Nikes, but it was from before I knew any better, and I'll certainly be opting for USA New Balance when these wear out. It's honestly partly because of SZ that I now choose not to support sweatshop labor. If I can afford a thousand dollar jacket, I can surely make room for 10-dollar socks.

I know that won't change the system, but it's not even about that. It's about valuing myself and the money I work hard for. I don't accept lowball offers because it's disrespectful, and I think that goes both ways, I don't make lowball offers either. Buying sweatshop goods is like the ultimate lowball. But the fat cats at Nike, they're using you the consumer, abusing the workers and environment, and laughing to the bank. They're making a sucker out of you.

[guardimp]

Is it really capitalism's fault that people buy clothing made in sweatshops? The distance between the consumer and the means of production is at best a mitigating factor. The consumer has free will and can choose to buy whatever they want. Regardless of whether they choose to research what they buy they are culpable for their purchases. If everyone chooses to support bad causes it does not make the cause any less bad (nike/fast fashion). I do agree from a practical perspective things will not change, I just don't think this means that people are not culpable for their actions.

[yay]

basically everyone and every institution and business is at fault in some way, no absolution in any direction should be given. althought with the insanely high profit margins of the big clothing companies and the fact that what they do is (semi-)legal it seems just insane that they don't atleast care about the working conditions, which seems like the absolute minimum they could do. just safe workconditions is pretty much all that is needed as a first step. even the child labor part wouldn't be that bad if the hours were not so brutal and the conditions not so dangerous and toxic. making soccer balls for 4 hours a day to afford education would be great for them, but we all know that's not how it is at this point. but then again, everything that is possible/legal will be abused to the max.

[Faust]

oh i should've been more clear, i meant specifically for shoes, something like jogging shoes or soccer shoes etc. i'm sure they exist SOMEHWERE too, but i definitely can't just go into my city right now in a sports store and get sweatshop free jogging shoes.

Not sure if it's still the case, but flagship models of soccer shoes used to be made in first world countries. My old Adidas Copa Mundials are made in Germany. At the time they cost twice the average pair, but I took the plunge and needless to say they are the best shoes I've played in.

[Faust]

Absolutising in either direction is dangerous. Individual action can't usually make a dent in the kind of systemic issue seen here. But at the same time, acknowledgement of the systematic pressures shouldn't and doesn't excuse us from individual action. Such action is, occasionally, enough on its own to bring some small measure of change--and larger, systemic reform almost never happens without it.

Since you motherfuckers didn't read this the first time, I'll repost it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/opinion/sunday/that-handmade-scarf-wont-save-the-world.html?_r=0

Yes, you are responsible for your own choices. But the bigger problem is your* hipster smug self-satisfaction actually takes away energy from where it should really be directed - putting pressure on companies and government agencies. Additionally, sustainability has been mostly used by the capitalists to invent a new way of selling. The only meaningful way to sustainability is buying less. So, the hipsters are twice-culpable - self-satisfaction + support for the capitalist system they think they are opting out of.

We are for the most part powerless in the face of these things. All our talks of "empowerment" through consumer choices are bullshit, just like in politics all of our talk about democracy as government by the people is bullshit. The only truly exercise in democracy we engage in is when we go vote. The rest is not done by us.

I'm not saying don't make intelligent and ethical consumer choices. Just know what it is exactly that you are doing - get the full picture. And most importantly, ease up on people. There are so many poor people in America. For many of them fast fashion and IKEA are the only ways to have elements of a decent life. Or have you all slept through the minimum wage battles that have been going since last year? This is also systemic, but don't fault the people wholesale.

*some abstract "you", not you, fmc :-)

[stagename]

Consumer responsabilization and the moralization of markets have been pointed out as features of neo-liberalism, actually supporting the system rather than "fixing" its flaws. As mentioned, these are systemic issues, and as capitalism has been pointed out as an hegemonic system, any (individual/individualized) counter-action that has as its root a systemic opposition will ultimately lead to its reproduction. At least in most of the current theories on the market/neo-liberalism/capitalism.

That being said, I'm a fervent believer of the change potential of the accumulation of micro-level actions. I'm uncertain, though, whether this can destabilize such a firmly rooted ideology.

Some books/papers on the subject:
papers:

http://ser.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/1/3.abstract

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/677842

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/339919

books

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273

http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Cool-Counterculture-Consumerism/dp/0226260127

http://www.amazon.com/Rebel-Sell-Joseph-Heath/dp/1841126551

Also in the news today (book excerpt):

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/may/09/oprah-winfrey-neoliberal-capitalist-thinkers

[Faust]

Also a good excerpt by Thomas Frank that I used to teach at Parsons.

Why Johnny Can't Dissent

[Fuuma]

Since you motherfuckers didn't read this the first time, I'll repost it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/opinion/sunday/that-handmade-scarf-wont-save-the-world.html?_r=0

Yes, you are responsible for your own choices. But the bigger problem is your* hipster smug self-satisfaction actually takes away energy from where it should really be directed - putting pressure on companies and government agencies. Additionally, sustainability has been mostly used by the capitalists to invent a new way of selling. The only meaningful way to sustainability is buying less. So, the hipsters are twice-culpable - self-satisfaction + support for the capitalist system they think they are opting out of.

We are for the most part powerless in the face of these things. All our talks of "empowerment" through consumer choices are bullshit, just like in politics all of our talk about democracy as government by the people is bullshit. The only truly exercise in democracy we engage in is when we go vote. The rest is not done by us.

I'm not saying don't make intelligent and ethical consumer choices. Just know what it is exactly that you are doing - get the full picture. And most importantly, ease up on people. There are so many poor people in America. For many of them fast fashion and IKEA are the only ways to have elements of a decent life. Or have you all slept through the minimum wage battles that have been going since last year? This is also systemic, but don't fault the people wholesale.

*some abstract "you", not you, fmc :-)

Actually, since the money you do not spend is saved and lent to other people the only way to sustainability is even more radical: it is to earn less.

[Verdandi]

The prices for old Helmut Lang stuff have really gone through the roof. I know, supply and demand, but it is still strange to see the womenswear catching up with the menswear, both, demand and I guess price wise.

And whoever wrote on here that ebay brings out the worst in people was spot on.

[Faust]

That is bizarre. But an interesting thought it brings to my mind that this is going counter to fashion's reputation for being ephemeral.

[yay]

reputation is more cyclical i'd say, so i guess that would make more sense then? just have to wait for the people buying all the old lang to dump it again in half a year

[DudleyGray]

The commodification of counterculture aside, I think rebels have always been few and far between. The vast majority of people I have encountered are afraid of something, death, insanity, rejection, abandonment, insignificance, etc. and let that fear determine their actions and lives. The idea of counterculture seems to be a paradox even, like anarchy or nihilism, words best used descriptively rather than prescriptively. Or maybe there have always been a lot of real rebels, and you only hear about the ones who "won" or sold out, because that is profitable. I don't know, it's hard to gauge how much "fuck you" a person has when indifference and acceptance of one's self and situation can be considered rebellious as well.

[stagename]

it's hard to gauge how much "fuck you" a person has when indifference and acceptance of one's self and situation can be considered rebellious as well.

Some would argue that it just doesn't matter how much fuck you a person has, or how much you rebel. Both the rebel sell and the conquest of cool make it very clear that the individuality we express has been fueling consumption, starting with the sixties counterculture. And not because of co-optation/the commodification of counterculture (which is very clear in Frank's book, where he posits the thesis that producers actually helped in establishing the counter-cultural movement as tehy were undergoing similar changes within theri industry), but because of the values embedded within the movement, which has pushed us in looking for unique ways to differentiate ourselves from one another. So it could be that the more fuck you a person has, the more it contributes to consumption.

[yay]

what is and isn't rebellious and what is and isn't viewed as rebellious are often very different things. a kid who grew up in a trailer park with drunk parents who became a neuro surgeon and now lives in some suburbs with a white fence seems to be much more rebellious in reality than the guy who died his hair blue because his parents are a bit too square for him.