Ethics meeting Aesthetics: Coexistence of Fashion
and Sustainability
INTRODUCTION……… 1
CHAPTER 1: SUSTENANCE- MAINTAIN- ABLE……… …………7
CHAPTER 2: SEMIOTICS OF FASHION ……… 17
I. Clothing to Fashion……… 19
II. Values to Myths……… 23
CHAPTER 3: REPURPOSING FASHION………31
I. Fashion to Sustainability……… 33
II. Sustainability to Luxury Brands ……… 35 III. C2C to Fashion System ………38
IV. Sustainability to Luxury Brands ……… 42 CHAPTER 4: IDEOLOGY OF FASHION ………47
I. UNIFORM’ for DSNY SS17………48
II. Stratification of Taste ……… 50
III. Stratification of ‘UNIFORM’ ……… 53
CONCLUSION ……… 56
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1: The Rag Bag (Prototype), Uniforms for the Dedicated (NORD DDB STO) (2014)
In 2014, the Swedish fashion label Uniforms for the Dedicated (NORD DDB STO) introduced the Rag Bag, a biodegradable bag that promotes textile recycling (see fig.1 above). Aiming to alter consumer behavior through the repurposing of a ubiquitous everyday item, the shopping bag, the Rag Bag manifests a practical stand for sustainable fashion and social
responsibility by highlighting the significance of the second life of
garments with smart product design. In doing so, the Rag Bag also makes visible the tensions and anxieties within the consumption-oriented
postmodern marketplace by destabilizing the buy/donate, visible/invisible, slow/fast logics. It is here that the Rag Bag serves as an ethical demand, prompting the consumer to alter their consumption practices through shifting the attention from the birth of a garment to its disposability. In other words, the Rag Bag aims to highlight the second-life of a garment and, thus, implementing the crucial importance of recycling within fashion production. Fashioned simply out of black and white biodegradable plastic, the Rag Bag offers its consumers a simple, yet powerful formula (see fig. 2 below):
Remove the purchase. Flip the Bag inside-out.
Place a used garment in the bag and put in the post box. The garment will be then mailed to a charity.
The postage is paid by the brand.
Figure 2: The Rag Bag Instruction, Uniforms for the Dedicated (NORD DDB STO) (2014)
The instructions that come with The Rag Bag not only repurpose a
standard, disposable shopping bag but they also give garments a second life. That is to say, the Rag Bag offers an easy way for consumers to not only dispose their unwanted garments in a sustainable manner, but also allow these garments to reach to people, who do not possess financial means to purchase garments. Uniforms for the Dedicated instigated this project as an effort to not only promote recycling but also to redefine the role of the consumers – in their capacity to make a change - within the devastating landscape of fashion industry. Just as clothes are an extension of our bodies, the shopping bags have become the extension of our
clothes. In other words, a world without fashion is as unimaginable as a world without shopping bags. Uniforms for the Dedicated not only
recognizes this extension-like relationship between consumers and the products they purchase but also the extension of the purchased products: shopping bags.
Most of the garments we purchase from a clothing store are delivered by certain packaging. This packaging, often given to consumers in a plastic bag, contains not only the bought item but also an extra-layer that
reproduces the branding of the store, which made the purchase possible. Similar to the way any garment carries a label that states the title of the
brand, the shopping bags also functions as an extra layer to highlight the brand for marketing purposes. When the consumers carry the item(s) they have purchased, they do not only carry the commodity but also carry the supplementary packaging that accentuates the brand’s identity. Walking around the city, after a long day of shopping, the consumers do not merely stroll around, feeling satisfied or excited by the idea of freshness (or newness) that the item has brought to their life, but also produce a self-image that is in direct alignment with the shopping bag’s identity and status. It is often the case that one shops from a certain store or a brand, merely to merge one’s identity with that of brands. Manifesting
sustainable parallelism between clothes and shopping bags, the Rag Bag brings forth not only the importance (as well as the mandate) of recycling but also the power of repurposing an everyday item that can allow an alternative discursive production of the way we understand sustainable fashion.
The subject of sustainability, disregarding its contemporary popularity in the Western landscape, is not a recent phenomenon. Since mid-1960s, the notion of sustainable fashion began to receive publicity in relation to rising concerns over the human’s detrimental impact on the planet, including topics such as animal rights, labor relations and mass-production of clothing (Gordon & Hill xvii). Reflecting a highly complex and fragmented supply chain- from the cultivation of the raw fiber to delivery of the
finished garment-, the fashion industry has gained notoriety by being one of the most polluting industries in the world (Joy et al. 272). While the fashion industry, on one hand, multiplies human’s carbon footprint on the planet, it also, one the other hand, triggers consumers’ inclination for a desire to change by the constant speed of seasonal cycle of trends. The fashion industry incites short-term imaginary desires within consumers’ minds, while damaging the environment on an irreversible and inciteful manner. In line with this predicament, it is extremely crucial not only to understand the way the fashion industry operates but also to analyze the possible creative solutions -in this case, repurposing and recycling- within sustainable fashion production. While used interchangeably,
recycling-converting disposed garment into reusable one- and repurposing -converting the previous purpose of a garment into a new one, has become an integral part of many high luxury brands, which provides a powerful leadership within the topics of sustainability. Leaving aside fashion’s primary connotation with outer aesthetics and creativity, the fashion industry (or the fashion system) has come to represent highly institutionalized structures of control and, thus, a form of ideology. In line with Kawamura’s definition of ideology as “set of beliefs, attitudes and opinions, which are either closely or loosely tied together”, fashion is deeply shaped by institutional structures that tie together human agency as well as structural forces, which forms what Kawamura names as
fashionology (43). Describing the interrelationship between highly fragmented forms of production and equally diverse and often volatile patterns of demand, the fashion system encapsulates the intraplay
between the notions of social hierarchy, mobility, mutability and identity, which characterizes the building blocks of contemporary fashion
production. Together with a deconstruction of these building blocks, this thesis highlights the significance of integrating sustainability within the institutionalized fashion system.
However, before delving into the possible solutions of enactment within the sustainable fashion and their relation to socio-political anxieties (that rises from the fashion system), it is crucial to conceptually differentiate clothing and fashion. While clothing manifests material production, fashion holds a symbolic production (Kawamura 60). That is to say, clothing is mostly concerned with human’s survival needs, such as
sheltering, protecting. Fashion, on the other hand, is a symbolic extension of clothing that links humans to time and space, while dealing with socio-emotional needs as well as senses of belonging (Kawamura 61). From Fletcher’s lens, fashion can be what is set in motion when a designer presents a new collection but equally, fashion can be the moment when a teenager crops a pair of jeans or paints her Converse pumps (208).
Fashion systems transform clothing into fashion. The moment clothing is manufactured in a sustainable and conscientious manner, the collision of
fashion and clothing can result in transformative changes by uniting practical and aesthetic sides of fashion. That is to say, sustainability can emerge together with an awareness of fashion’s immaterial repercussions on the society that is manifested in a materially tangible way.
In the same light with this long-awaited and ultimately necessary collision, this thesis will highlight the significance of sustainability within the
institutionalized structures of the fashion system by analyzing Heron Preston’s ‘UNIFORM’ collection, launched in 2016. Parallel with my belief that luxury brands can foster values on quality and sustainability- thus, could provide leadership on issues relating to sustainability, this thesis provides a textual and visual analysis of Preston’s collection that
redesigned (thus, repurposed) uniforms of the City of New York
Department of Sanitation (DSNY) workers by handpicking donated clothing and upcycling the garments with screen printing and embroidery. To shed light onto projects of sustainability within high luxury street brands, the first chapter- Sustenance-Maintain-Able- introduces the crucial significance of sustainable fashion production by shedding light onto its historical background and contemporary activities surrounding it. After providing a comprehensive basis of sustainability, the second chapter- Semiotics of Fashion- delves into conceptual frameworks through Roland Barthes’ semiotic analysis of fashion by highlighting not only fashion’s distinction from clothing but also its disclosure as a system of signification,
unraveling fashion’s place within the world of symbols. Decoding fashion’s inevitable link to signs, followingly, chapter three -Ethics of Fashion-
focuses on the role of high luxury brands and their role within providing trickle-down leadership on sustainable fashion and clothing production. Following the understanding of the overarching building blocks of the fashion system through semiotic analysis as well as the sustainable leadership that can be enacted by luxury brands, my fourth chapter- Ideology of Fashion- deconstructs Heron Preston’s ‘UNIFORM’ collection through Kawamura’s fashionology concept. Viewing fashion production as a form of an ideology, my object of analysis- ‘UNIFORM’- not only
underlines fashion as a postmodern phenomenon, blurring the boundaries between cultural and social boundaries.
Lastly, the relevance of undertaking this research is to provide an alternative discursive vision towards sustainable fashion production, through the practices of repurposing and recycling within a contemporary, yet historically manifested lens. Not only this research is meaningful in the context of sustainable fashion, but it also sheds light onto socio-political and environmental intricacies that are inevitably linked the meeting point of clothing and fashion production. Thus, this research is highly relevant not only in our understanding of the contemporary fashion world, but also the current socio-economic imagination and operation of the Western society, manifesting itself through the symbolic production of fashion.
CHAPTER 1: SUSTENANCE- MAINTAIN- ABLE
The definition of sustainability refers to an ecological system that is designed to maintain an equilibrium, conveying that no more should be taken from the environment than can be renewed (Gordon & Hill xv). In specific, sustainable fashion describes the process of aligning the fashion system with social justice and environmental integrity. Specifically,
sustainability is also be understood in three overarching ways; firstly, being an activity that can be continued indefinitely without causing harm; secondly, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you; and, thirdly, meeting a current generation’s needs without compromising those of future generations (Fletcher 2008; Partridge 2011; Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Tucked inside the
word sustainability are three other main words: sustenance, maintain and able. Interchangeably used with other words, “eco”, “green” or “organic”, sustainability covers a territory that exceeds human’s sole relationship with the environment (Gordon & Hill xii). As Seidman notes: “it is about our relationship with ourselves, our communities, and our institutions” (58). That is to say, sustainability involves complex and changing environmental dynamics that affect human livelihoods and well-being, with intersecting ecological, economic, and sociopolitical dimensions, both globally and locally. Through the term sustainability’s direct connotation with the integrity of the environment, sustainability is not typically
associated with fashion by young consumers (Joy et al. 278). While fashion connotes internal and symbolic operations of an individual’s
self-expression through clothing, the environment connotes external operations of the planetary system. In line with the lack of visibility between internal and external factors of fashion production and integrity of the environment, the issue of sustainability is a challenge that has to be overcome by the industry itself. Employing over forty million people, thus making it one of the largest industries (and polluters) in the world, the fashion industry is not only coming under increasingly intense scrutiny but also mandates an immediate mental shift within both producer’s and consumers’ mind towards a demand for sustainability (Friedman). Fashion industry manifests an inherent interconnection between production and consumption. Similar to the way production influences consumption, consumption also affects production. In the same vein, the issue of
sustainability aims to foreground this interconnection by enforcing social responsibility by both ends.
Although sustainability has been becoming increasingly crucial, newsworthy as well as popular, through technological inventions and accelerations, the roots of sustainable fashion movement can be traced back to 1960s, in correspondence to rising concerns over the environment and human’s responsibility within (Gordon & Hill xv). Often viewed as the foundation of the environmentalist movement, Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring (1962), specifically referenced the use of pesticides in fiber
growth and the environmental damage caused by finished fabrics (Gordon & Hill xvii). Presenting an outlook on nature compromised by synthetic pesticides, Silent Spring (1962) was highly influential by shifting the mindset of human’s towards nature, as the idea of humankind poisoning nature received public recognition. This form of recognition did not only concern humankind’s destructive practices towards nature, but more nature’s possible rebound on humankind, which incited fear. Thus, to overcome this fear, not only consumers aimed to alter their consumption habits but also producers realized the necessity of transforming their production mechanisms.
Reimagining the meaning of technological innovation and its relationship to disruption of the natural system, a shift occurred not only within
producer’s operative practices towards social responsibility but also within consumer’s decisions towards the garments they purchase. For example, towards the end of 1960ss the “natural look of hippies” was associated with the word environmentalism and elements of their clothing –earth tones, patchwork, hemp fabric- were considered blueprints of today’s sustainable fashion. In line with sustainability’s historical link with the environmental movement, an understanding of the connotational differences between environmentalism and sustainability is crucial.
Although the word sustainability attaches to environmentalism, it denotes less of intensity in relation to responsibilities that consumers are
pressured to embody to minimize the ecological footprint. While environmentalism evokes the concept of no, sustainability refers to a lesser version of no (Walker 11). That is to say, regardless of the
parallelism between environmentalism and sustainability, the concept of sustainability denotes importance as well as an agency of humans, while environmentalism places nature above the human by second-placing the human agency. This second-placement of human agency results in
indifference towards the integrity of the environment. In line with
sustainability’s aim to foreground human agency, an implementation of a framework that aligns technological innovations with the capacities of nature is significant. As environmental problems, such as the spread of
pollution and diminishing of natural resources, increasingly evolve, so do their possible solutions. The invention of electric cars, such as Byton’s M-Byte electric vehicle (see figure 3 on the following page), or biodegradable products, such as Lia’s biodegradable pregnancy test (see figure 4 on the following page) are only a few examples of increasingly evolving current technological innovations towards sustainability. While Byton’s M-Byte electric vehicle reduce carbon emissions by increasing energy security, Lia’s biodegradable pregnancy test promotes plastic-free, biodegradable design. Concerning the fashion industry, while the choice of organic fabrics seems to be a straightforward and conventional method, a manifold of alternative sustainable solutions is claiming their presence within the market. Knyttan, the London based on-demand- startup, is a recent and highly revolutionary example of developments within
sustainable fashion, supported by technological innovation.
Referred as “the factory of the future” (Dezeen 2015), Knyttan offers the opportunity for their customers to customize a scarf or a jumper via a web app and have it produced by their complexly built software-based knitting machine at Somerset House (see figure 5 on the following page).
Developing a new piece of software and integrating it within standard industrial knitting machines, Knyttan produces a scarf in less than an hour and a jumper less than two hours. More importantly, the customers can customize their own unique clothing piece by designing the patterns and colors via the web app. Exemplifying a shift from mass-production to mass-customization, Knyttan is challenging the fast fashion industry through consumer-centric, on-demand production. This technology
proposes a new way of thinking in relation to the meeting point of fashion and technology towards sustainability.
Figure 3: Byton’s M-Byte electric vehicle
Figure 4: Lia, biodegradable pregnancy test
Moreover, in line with the distinction between clothing and fashion, Knyttan shifts the attention of consumers from fashion to clothing by shrinking the distance between production and consumption. While mass-production obscures the origin of the garments we are purchasing and wearing, mass-customization, enacted by Knyttan, proves the possibility of producing garments without exploiting third world countries, where most of our mass-produced garments are manufactured (Nixon 4).
Imagining a future in which every individual produces their own clothing at home
(rather than purchasing it at department stores), the immateriality of fashion will manifest a collision with the materiality of clothing. Thus, merging immaterial with the material will evoke an awareness regarding clothing’s inherent link with necessity and
Figure 5: Knitting machine at Knyttan's shop in London, DeZeen magazine fashion’s link with excess. However, prior to the manifold of possibilities that lie within sustainable fashion development, it is significant to grasp how fashion begins to manifest itself through clothing by evolving into a cultural symbol and maintaining a status function. In order to grasp the evolution of fashion manifesting itself through clothing, a historical
perspective is crucial to highlight the institutionalized mechanisms of the fashion system.
Before the institutionalization of fashion in France in 1868, fashion has been analyzed from the perspective of those who consumed fashion. Reflecting a form of social hierarchy and regulation, fashion created a criterion for distinction between upper and lower classes. As the notion of fashion emerged from the upper-class, aiming to express their economic capital through social capital, the consumer and the producer shared the same origin (Kawamura 51). Before the Industrial Revolution, neither social mobility nor fluidity between social hierarchies were possible. Thus, socially disadvantaged segments of society did not have the possibility to
utilize fashion but clothing. However, following the Industrial Revolution, thus, destabilization of social hierarchies and boundaries, fashion slowly started to become available for all classes. Therefore, fashion no longer manifested a trickle-down process but a ‘trickle-across’ one, as Spencer suggested (70). That is to say, imitation, one of the key aspects of fashion, became possible due to the advent of the fashion system and its means of controlling status expression. Through the transformation of clothing industry into the fashion industry, the fashion system deprived the upper-classes of their privilege to directly assert their wealth through fashion, but they were also now forced to continually adopt new styles to reclaim their distinction from inferior classes (Kawamura 47). That is to say,
fashion no longer holds the ultimate power of distinction between varying stratifications of social classes. However, regardless of the
democratization of fashion, the significance of social hierarchies only diminished within immaterial boundaries and not in material ones.
Through fashion’s origin rising from the anxieties between social classes, it is important to conceptualize the fashion system not only as a form of aesthetics and creative production but also as a form of institution that revolves around profit-based monetary values (Moorhouse S1948). The more fashion systems blur the line between aesthetics and
institutionalized production, the more the understanding and
implementation of sustainable fashion should gain importance. This understanding necessitates the recognition of the high interconnection between the production and the consumption of fashion. That is to say, in the contemporary world of fashion systems, producers and consumers hold different sides of the same coin. In other words, it is not only the consumer’s responsibility to buy less, recycle or reuse, but also the producer’s duty to operate and manufacture within the ethical and transparent regulatory basis. 2013 Rana Plaza collapse is an archetypal example regarding the relationship between producers as well as the power of consumers. This tragic accident not only went viral on social media platforms but also, more importantly, resulted in an outrage of consumers speaking against unsafe working conditions of factory workers
(“The True Cost”). Due to an overwhelming amount of outrage against retailers and their (absence of) ethical values, discussions surrounding corporate social responsibility (CSR) became highly widespread across global supply chains. Following the outrage and pressure of consumers on producers to enact a change towards social responsibility, the topic of CSR not only gained significance but also became a mandatory element within most of the fashion company legislation. Through the integration of CSR- a corporate ethical policy or strategy- gained worldwide recognition and importance within conspicuously institutionalized fashion companies, such as Primark, Zara, and H&M (“The True Cost”). Not to mention the
disastrous experience of numerous victims, Rana Plaza collapse, in the aftermath, has proven the power of consumers’ choice and agency to enact a change towards sustainable fashion production, elimination of slave labor and unsafe working conditions. This form of social awakening concerning detrimental consequences of the fashion industry was made possible through the use of social media, operating as a democratic tool by allowing both producers and consumers to freely (re)produce,
acknowledge and spread information. Regardless of one’s socio-economic status, accelerated availability of information intimated not only the
voices of the garment workers in Bangladesh but also the consumers, who began to recognize the inhuman working conditions within the factories. Thus, manifesting a shift from trickle-down to the trickle-across process of fashion, the industry no longer operates in a society where class
structures are rigid and intact, but is mobile, fluid and adaptable.
Preceding Rana Plaza collapse, CSR was not only absent within the policies of fast-fashion giants, such as H&M, Primark or Zara, but was also absent within worker’s self-recognition of their labor rights and conditions.
Although a transformative change does not (should not) require an occurrence of a tragic event and loss of many lives, Rana Plaza collapse significantly incited public awareness by placing the consumer’s agency and power forward. Ethical transparency encompasses both high/low and fast/slow fashion logics within the era of Anthropocene, which foregrounds human’s significant impact on the ecosystem. Thus, CSR, holding a big
part of sustainability, has become more than an emergency to enact an environmental, thus, a socio-governmental change. Following the Raza Plaza collapse, today’s consumer society has forced companies to work towards a sustainable society (Axellson & Jahan 2) in which corporate social responsibility (CSR) became the core element within this
sustainable demand from consumers. Emerged in the 1950s as a modern era concept, the connotations of CSR have been constantly developing, as consumer’s understanding of ethics, economy, legality, and philanthropy is also constantly evolving. Thus, to understand the operative
mechanisms of CSR, Archie B. Caroll’s pyramid, developed in 1991, is helpful to visualize, thus, conceptualize the importance of ethical
transparency within sustainable fashion production (see figure 6 on the following page). Caroll’s pyramid consists of four distinct, yet intertwined areas of responsibility: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. Through an active engagement within four areas of responsibilities, it is believed that not only companies will manifest transparency within their social and environmental ethical engagements but also will allow a transparent and nurturing relationship between producers and consumers. That is to say, parallel with the consumer’s right to purchase a garment, it is consumer’s right to have access to the purchased garment’s origin within each step of the supply chain. Sustainable fashion requires ethical transparency within every layer (from the materiality of the garment to its delivery to the customer) of the supply chain. When clothing production transformed itself into fashion production, the distance between the producer and the consumer grew wider. This dissociated form of distance deprived
Figure 6: Caroll’s (1991) Corporate Social Responsibility Pyramid
the consumer of their right to get access to information about the production process of the garments that they carrying on their bodies. Thus, in line with this distance, it is extremely crucial to crystallize the crucial role of producers, providing accurate information about each stage of the fashion supply chain to not only maintain a nurturing relationship with their customers but also to maintain a commitment towards
sustainable fashion production. In order to integrate sustainable thinking and production within the consumption-driven fashion industry,
sustainability in fashion requires transformative changes in the practices of all involved: designers, manufacturers, marketers, and consumers (Reiley & DeLong 63).
In other words, sustainable fashion requires a strong, nurturing and transparent relationship between consumer and producer (Fletcher 125). The main challenge of placing sustainability at the very core of the fashion industry unfolds many difficulties, yet no impossibilities. For example, the fashion industry supply chain is highly fragmented and inherently
complex- together with the labor used to manufacture the garment, its transport from factory to retail outlet, and ultimately the garment’s aftercare and disposal (Beard 448). In order to understand the intricately complex mechanisms within the fashion industry, a conceptual
deconstruction of fashion, differing from clothing, is necessary. Although the notion of fashion is inherently linked to materiality (such as the act of
purchasing a physical item), understanding fashion as a symbolic
production that is manifested through clothing is extremely crucial to not only recognize how the fashion industry operates but also how
sustainability can be integrated into that industry. Through the lens of Barthes, my next chapter, offers a semiotic analysis of fashion through Mythologies (1957) as well as The Fashion System (1967), to not only differentiate clothing from fashion production but also to define fashion as a myth that unfolds the hidden sets and conventions behind an ideology. In a similar vein, Kawamura’s reading of fashion as a form of an ideology, which she calls fashionology, will complement this understanding by crystallizing the interplay within the symbolic and structural mechanism that orient the fashion world.
CHAPTER 2: SEMIOTICS OF FASHION
On the 5th of October 2019, the first museum on sustainability, Fashion for Good, opened its doors to the public in Amsterdam. This interactive
museum is divided into three physical and conceptual floors. That is to say, the basement, the ground floor, and the first floor are consecutively divided as the past, present and the future of sustainable fashion. Only a month after its opening, I had a chance to visit the museum, which is founded under five key frameworks: good materials, good economy, good energy, good water and good lives (fashionforgood.com). The author of the book Cradle to Cradle, and the co-founder of Fashion for Good, William McDonough writes: “the Five Goods represent an aspirational framework we can all use to work towards a world in which we do not simply take, make, waste, but rather take, make, renew, restore”
(https://fashionforgood.com) Fashion for Good presents the significance of sustainable fashion production within an interactive museum environment
that teaches the visitors about current innovations within the fashion and textile industry. At the core of the museum lies the Innovation Platform, which connects the people (or companies and start-ups) working on sustainable innovation with brands, funders or shops to convert the nicheness of sustainability into a norm. These innovative research
practices circulate around the areas of raw materials, dyeing & finishing, manufacturing, retail, end-of-use, transparency, and traceability. Under each category, the visitors learn about the current innovative practices and technologies. For example, Stella McCartney is one of the latest brands to join Fashion for Good and work with one of the start-ups supported by Fashion for Good’s accelerator programme. McCartney’s dress (see figure 7 on the following page) is made of organic cotton and dyed with Colorfix – a sustainable pigment made from engineered microorganisms- to not only shed light onto the shift from clothes to fashion but from fashion to sustainable innovation. While the
Innovative Platform on the second floor of the museum presents a multitude of
Figure 7: Stella McCartney and Fashion for Good Collaboration 2019
innovative technologies surrounding fashion, the basement presents visitors the history of sustainable fashion to offer an all-encompassing experience concerning the historical narrative of sustainability.
Moreover, on the ground floor, the visitors can not only find current sustainable brands and but can also purchase the garments from those brands.
Providing an interactive and informative space, Fashion for Good not only elevates the importance of sustainable fashion in visitor’s minds but also triggers a sensory experience to enact a change within their fashion
consumption habits. Through the use of ‘Action Bracelets’ (see figure 8 on the following page), the museum allows the visitors to digitally interact with the space by committing to actions (with the use of the bracelet) and
earning badges to personally build a personalized sustainable action plan, which is sent to the visitor’s email address following the end of the
museum experience. Merging this personal experience with the socio-political anxieties that rise from fashion production, the visitor (or the consumer) not only recognizes the overarching institutionalized
production behind fashion production but also their power to enact a change within that production. Following my visit to Fashion for Good, I have become deeply interested in the highly complex supply chain of fashion production as well as the ideological tensions that can unfold from it. Moreover, completing my Action Plan, the recognition of micro-personal commitments leading to macro-societal consequences became clearer. And this explication process forced me to grasp further the micro-macro levels that lie within fashion production, which, I believe, has to transform itself into a sustainable one.
Figure 8: Good Fashion Action Plan guide
As fashion does not equate to clothing but offer a symbolic landscape in which consumers embody imaginary identities and, thus, form a sense of
belonging and reclamation of an identity, it is of high importance to reclaim fashion’s place within sustainability. fashion operates within symbolic boundaries, sustainability in fashion can also provide an imaginary landscape through repurposing and recycling in which the consumer can decouple aesthetics from the institutionalized way of producing clothes.
Clothing to Fashion
The concept of fashion often translates into clothes and appearances; the process of image-making. Because of its close relation to materiality, fashion is often treated as a material object, rather than a
symbolic/immaterial one. Concerning this their close interlink, the terms “fashion” and “clothing” tend to be used synonymously throughout their etymological backgrounds (Kawamura 3). Although their
interchangeability denotes a form of similarity, fashion conveys an immaterial and intangible object, while clothing denotes a material and tangible one. Clothing indicates raw materials from which fashion is formed. In other words, fashion manifests an operation within imaginary boundaries, as Kawamura notes: “items of clothing must go through the process of transformation to be labeled as fashion” (1). That is to say, fashion is a belief system that manifests itself through clothing, which is the generic raw materials of what a person wears. In Fashionology (2004), Kawamura coins the term fashionology to describe the study of fashion, which differs from the study of clothing. She defines fashionology as “a sociological investigation of fashion, and it treats fashion as a
system of institutions that produces the concept as well as the
phenomenon/practice of fashion” (1). Redefining fashion as a form of ideology (or a belief system), Kawamura attempts to unfold the social production process behind fashion production as well as the symbolic -immaterial- existence of fashion in consumer’s minds. Moreover,
fashionology challenges the notion of the creative fashion designer as a genius. In Kawamura’s words, “fashion is not created by a single individual
but by everyone involved in the production of fashion, and thus fashion is a collective activity” (2). That is to say, because fashion is not created by a single individual but a collective whole- from the manufacturer in the factory to the designer of the items-, a certain item of clothing can only transform itself into fashion only if it is adopted by a large segment of society. In other words, fashion has to embody a collective body rather than an individual one. A particular style has to be widely diffused and accepted within a society to be labeled as fashion. For example, during mid-nineteenth-century, buying second-hand clothing was widespread, yet stigmatized (Gordon & Hill 2). However, in the latter half of the twentieth century, wearing second-hand clothing became a fashion statement within subcultural styles, such as hippies and punks. As a way to express their rejection of mainstream values concerning consumerism, the second-hand market began to develop simultaneously (Gordon & Hill 26). By the end of the 1960s, the term “vintage” emerged to distinguish a specific segment of the second-hand market. In line with the diffusion and acceptance of the vintage style, the fashion system labeled vintage as fashionable by removing its historical stigma. An object, in this case, the vintage style, has to be labeled as fashion before reaching the consumption stage (Kawamura 2). This form of labeling differentiates the materiality of clothing from the immateriality of fashion.
Parallel with fashion’s relation to materiality, in Fashionology (2004), Kawamura diverts the view on fashion as a material object towards an immaterial one. Merging an interplay between the words fashion and ideology, fashionology claims that fashion is a form of ideology.
Fashionology, in Kawamura’s words, brings together symbolic
interactionism and structural functionalism (micro and macro) aspects of fashion. As Kawamura writes, “fashionology integrates both micro and macro levels of social theories, that is symbolic interactionism and structural functionalism because it focuses on a macro-sociological analysis of the social organization of fashion as well as a
fashion” (40). That is to say, on a macro level, the structural-functional lens of fashion agglomerates the production, distribution, and
consumption of fashion’s goods and services, which communicate the highly fragmented and complex fashion supply chain. A society in which fashion has been institutionalized, production, distribution and
consumption of garments has to manifest a cyclically interdependent pattern. Producing fashion through clothing not only affects the everyday lives of the society by distributing job opportunities, but also affects the inner motivations of individuals to reclaim their status through self-expression. The fashion system maintains its existence by the repetitive patterns of production, distribution, and consumption, which encapsulates Kawamura’s understanding of structural functionalism. Symbolic
interactionism, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with individual’s, such as fashion designers, particular stories, motivations and decisions (Kawamura 42). Disregarding external forces and shifting the focus towards internal mechanisms within fashion production, symbolic
interactionism places the individual and their agency first and the social structures second. Altogether, the significance of fashionology rises from the intertwined dialogue between these two systems of thinking, including the debates revolving around the problems of how structures determine individual’s actions and how the individuals perpetuate the sustenance of the system. Through this interdialogue between internal and external mechanisms surrounding fashion, Kawamura believes that the
institutionalized production of the fashion system establishes a form of an ideology, a belief system. She writes: “when I say that fashion is an
ideology, I do not mean in a Marxist aesthetics sense, locating the works of the designers in the social and political environment” (43). That is to say, Kawamura does not view fashionology as a tool that deprives consumers of their agency. Although fashionology claims that fashion is shaped by institutional structures- structural functionalism-, it also highlights the role of human agency- symbolic interactionism-thus, the individual, as a study of focus (42). Furthering her definition on
as a set of beliefs, attitudes, and opinions, which are either closely or loosely tied together (43). In line with aligning ideology with myths, she inevitably refers to Roland Barthes’ understanding of myths, which refers to myths as a system of communication that unfolds the hidden sets and conventions behind an ideology. For Barthes, “myth is a type of speech” (131). That is to say, myth is not defined by the object of its message but by the way in which it utters this message. Together with this utterance, myth does not evolve from “the nature of things” but from a historically constructed foundation, which permeates through media, politics,
entertainment, etc. Thus, myth describes a way of communicating a particular ideology or ethos in society. In line with Barthes’ thinking, myths, in Kawamura’s words, are the embodied collective experiences of social conscience (43). That is to say, fashionology, for Kawamura, not only ties fashion with ideology but also the individual with the collective. In order to unravel the intricately complex mechanisms underlying fashion production, an understanding of fashion as a symbolic production is
crucial. Semiotics is a tool that assists with the decoding of the meaning of garments in the fashion industry. The next section crystallizes the reading of garments as a system of signs that are imbued with multilayered meanings.
Values to Myths
The study of fashion is referred as hybrid subjects by some scholars, as it manifests an interdisciplinary approach, including those from
anthropology, art history, cultural studies, design studies, semiotics, sociology and visual culture (Skov & Melchior 3). Since the late 19th
century, studies surrounding fashion tended to stay within the boundaries of one discipline. It was only the last decades of the 20th century that an interdisciplinary approach towards fashion was adopted (Skov & Melchior 4). One of the leading names of fashion studies was the French critic Roland Barthes, who influenced the study of clothing/fashion through semiotics in a significant way. In the Fashion System (1967), he presents a semiotic analysis of fashion magazines, such as Elle and Le Jardin des
Modes. Arguing that fashion signs demonstrate explicit messages about the impositions of the fashion world and implicit messages about the ideology of fashion itself, Barthes analyses fashion and clothing through the lens of semiotics to decipher the link between words and images communicated through fashion. However, Barthes’ interest lies within the role of fashion as an object of appearance, which “flatters our modern curiosity about social psychology, inviting us to go beyond the obsolete limits of the individual and of society” (20). In other words, fashion participates in the greatest depth of widest sociality by yielding not only aesthetics that are embraced by a collective group but also an
institutionalized production that confuses the symbolic notion of fashion through material attachments. However, within his analysis of fashion, neither the production of clothing nor consumer practices are analyzed. As semiotics offers tools to decipher the intricate meaning of an object, in this case, fashion as a form of public appearance and individual
expression, Barthes’ analysis focuses on a system of signification, rather than signification of a system itself.
The significance of fashion studies lies within the crucial meeting point of everyday aesthetics and institutionalization of those utilitarian aesthetics. Fashion encompasses invisible elements included in clothing that are socio-historically constructed. In The Sociology of Fashion (1963) Brenninkmeyer defines fashion as an existing usage of clothing that is adopted for a certain time period. For example, the transformation of the term second-hand clothing into vintage represents how the fashion
system instigates the labeling of vintage as fashion. In Brenninkmeyer’s definition, he not only marks the mutability but also the fluidity of fashion, which is determined by the fashion system. Adopting certain usage of clothing (which later transforms itself into fashion) results in acceptance and recognition of certain cultural values that are open to rapid influences of change (Kawamura 4). Nonetheless, fashion as a concept requires deeper scrutiny because it signifies an additional as well as enticing imaginary values attached to clothing, which makes it attractive for consumers. In After a Fashion (1996), Finkelstein argues that consumers
purchase “fashionable” items to acquire these imaginarily added values that the society deemed stylish for a certain time period, which operates in precarious lines. Because clothing and fashion are inevitably linked, yet signify differing meanings- material vs immaterial-, Barthes’ theory on myths (the elevated form of Sausserean semiology) is important to
elucidate the alluring values attached to clothing, which later transforms itself into fashion.
The discipline of semiotics (or semiology) originates from the linguistic theory of Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist, who postulated the existence of semiology. Semiology refers to the study of sign and of meaning-making by stressing that signs are arbitrary and generate their meanings only from oppositions. In Saussure’s system of signs, he
establishes general principles of linguistics, which consists of three major elements: sign, signifier and signified. That is to say, he defines the
signifier as the sound-image and the signified as the concept (see figure 9 below). When a sound- image and a concept unite, the meaning of the sign is formed. This
Figure 9: Ferdinand de Saussure’s explanation of the formation of the linguistic sign
interlink between signifier and the signified manifests the backbone of every individual’s meaning-making process. For instance, when one imagines the concept of the Italian high luxury brand Gucci, the mental linguistic sign –the sound-image- of the famous double G logo- two interlockings, bold “Gs”- evokes in one’s mind (see figure 10 on the
following page). This double entity -signifier and the signified- is the basis of Saussure’s semiotics.
Moreover, for Saussure, there is no inherent link between the signifier and the signified. That is to say, the relationship that exists between them is purely arbitrary. For Barthes, semiology is not only the backbone of meaning-making, but it also covers a “the great signifying unities of
discourse” (11). Taking on the Saussurean semiological system, Barthes interest does not simply lie within the formation of meaning but its
deconstruction through his analysis of ‘myths’, which marks the elevated form of a signifier. In other words, myths describe the hidden set and conventions behind an ideological landscape, which can be unfolded through semiotic analysis.
Figure 10: Gucci Brand Logo
To re-conceptualize Saussure’s meaning-making process, Barthes named the combination of sign, signifier and the signified as a “tri-dimensional pattern” (113). This “tri-dimensional pattern” is not only constant in its form but is also actualized in different ways by deconstructing and deciphering, in Barthes’ words, the peculiar system of myths (114).
Derived from a semiological chain, Barthes’ theory on myths encompasses this pattern.
Written in 1957, The Mythologies is a collection of essays split into two sections – ‘Mythologies’ and ‘Myth Today’. The book offers an account of how myth functions as a system of representation and how it can be analyzed through semiotics. Myth, for Barthes, is the elevated form of a signifier and belongs to the “second-order semiological system” (113). He explains, “we can see that the signification is the myth itself, just as the Saussurean sign is the word” (Barthes 120). That is to say, the sign in the
first- order system becomes a mere signifier in the second-order. For instance, while Saussure’s associative total of a concept and sound-image belongs to first-order, Barthes myth demonstrates the elevated version, in other words, the second-order, of Saussurean semiological system. For instance, while the famous double G logo of Gucci is the signifier in Saussurean first-order, Barthesian second-order elevates the signifier to highlight the hidden ideologies that lie within high luxury brands and their role within the fashion system. In the first section of The Mythologies, Barthes gives an example of French toys and their function as modern myths. He writes that “toys prefigure the world of adult,” to argue that French toys produce children as either owners or users, but fail to produce them as creators (53). Revealing a world, which adults do not find
unusual- “war, bureaucracy, ugliness, Martians, etc.”- toys prepares the child to accept such realities before he or she can think about it (53). Deconstructing the world of toys, Barthes uses the sign or the image of toys and elevates this image to the level of myth in which toys transform themselves into hidden codes within social value systems. Essentially, he deconstructs a cultural product (in this case, toys) through the second-order semiological system by not only imbuing the cultural object with meaning and ideology but also drawing a distinct line between denotation (of the sign) and its connotation. While toys essentially denote, in Barthes’ words, “the microcosm of the adult world” by functioning as a form of childhood entertainment, the connotation that rises through the second-order semiological analysis is the overarching toy industry that prepares children for an adult life in which war, bureaucracy, ugliness, Martians etc. deemed unusual (Barthes 53). The myth arises when cultural products are subjected to a close-reading that surpasses the product’s denotation that belongs to the first-order semiological system. Myth is a mode of
signification as well as a system of communication that aims to discern disguised intricacies behind cultural objects.
Later in the Mythologies, Barthes establishes myths as a system of communication by defining myth “as a type of speech” (107). In other
words, he announces the inevitable dependence of semiology on
linguistics. In line with the definition of a Barthesian myth, every cultural object has a potential to be a myth if it’s communicated through a
discourse. Arguing that myth’s impossibility to evolve from the nature of things, he stresses the idea that myth is a result of society’s conversion of reality into speech (Barthes 108). Every myth has a historical foundation and, yet, myth, as “a type of speech”, is not solely confined to the speech act alone. Stressing that speech can be expanded into “written discourse” as well as into “photography, cinema, reporting, sport, shows, publicity” in that they all support mythical speech, Barthes brings in the objects such as “the Inca quipu, or drawings, as in pictographs” to emphasize the historical precedence of visual communication over written speech (109). To further his argument, Barthes explains that “pictures, to be sure, are more imperative than writing, they impose meaning at one stroke, without analyzing or diluting it” (108). This statement not only testifies to the superiority of images over written discourse but also implies that images provide a platform in which the audience breaks free from the
presupposed restrictions of the author’s stream of consciousness and, therefore, reaches a free flow of personalized interpretation. This free flow of interpretation achieved through images (rather than written discourse) goes parallel with the unlimited dissections that lie within fashion, which is primarily linked to aesthetics and representation. However, this reality should not distort our systematic differentiation between images and written speech (linguistic sign).
Barthes analysis of myths resides in the world of semiology in which it challenges the “problem of meaning” (Barthes 110). Just like, “a
photograph will be a kind of speech for us in the same way as a
newspaper article”, a repurposed garment, for instance, Martin Margiela designed jacket made of ski gloves for 2006 Fall Artisanal Collection (see figure 11 on the following page) transforms into a myth. Through this lens, Barthes’ conceptualization of myths goes beyond the everydayness of artifacts and subjecthood of French society. Myths encapsulate the hidden 27
set and conventions within that everydayness. A prominent example emerges from his semiotic analysis of the cover of Paris-Match in the 1950s, Barthes explains how meaning is produced and encoded in the image of a young black soldier saluting the French flag. He reads the image in which the signifier is “a black soldier giving a French salute” and the signified is the “purposeful mixture of Frenchness and militariness” (115). Presenting the image of the oppressed (regarding the colonial
history of France) on the Paris-Match cover, the image signifies the
constructed potency of the French army and its self-promotion under her flag.
In parallel, yet empirically differing lines, Martin Margiela designed jacket made of ski gloves can be read as a myth in which the signifier is “a jacket made of ski gloves” and the signified is “the alternative sustainable
discursive production of fashion through repurposing”. That is to say, the garment will not only operate as a speech (evolving through a pictorial representation of fashion) but also destabilizes the interlink between the signifier and the signified by unfolding complex tensions that can reside within a myth. To crystallize, a jacket made of ski gloves could possibly carry two signifiers: a jacket and a ski glove. When a fashion magazine publishes an article regarding the repurposed jacket of Margiela’s 2006 Fall Artisanal Collection, the denotation of a ski glove imbues itself into a connotation of a jacket. This destabilization within two differing signifiers
(a jacket and a ski glove) resulting in the same signified (a jacket) unfolds a culmination of a myth in which not only the signifier is elevated but two (or more) signifiers are merged in one.
Barthes’ concept of myth combined with Kawamura’s view on fashion as a form of ideology is essential to make sense of the hidden set and
conventions that lie behind fashion production. To analyze clothes and their transformation into fashion (thus, later into sustainable fashion), a conceptual framework that deconstructs ideological intricacies within fashion production is necessary. Just as fashion is not merely about
aesthetics but also about ideological anxieties, the issue of sustainability also necessitates a comprehensive reading, which will connect the
structural-functional lens with symbolic-interactionist one. Thus, to attain this connection, the next chapter, firstly, introduces historical and ethical details of sustainable fashion production. In unison with the structural-functional understanding behind sustainable fashion production, the notions of repurposing and recycling are highlighted to offer a symbolic-interactionist lens by high luxury brands to provide trickle-down
CHAPTER 3: REPURPOSING FASHION
Last year at the beginning of July, BOTTER, the Dutch fashion label, presented its Spring-Summer 2019 collection at Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week. The collection explored the problem of ocean pollution in
developing countries by presenting the garments accessorized with pool inflatables and fishing nets that resemble marine life (see figure 12
below). Drawing a personal connection to their roots in the Caribbean, the designer duo behind Botter aesthetically critiqued the environmental damage caused by oil exploration and global consumption back at their home in Curaçao (Dezeen 2018). By repurposing pool inflatables to hats and scraps of plastic to neckties, the collection manifested an alternative discursive production of fashion to underline sociopolitical anxieties that arise from global consumption, which, consequently, result in
environmental destruction. Transforming cultural objects (pool inflatables, scraps of plastic), which have direct socio-cultural association with neither clothing nor fashion, into objects of aesthetic expression, BOTTER’s
collection provides a stage in which this transformation is allowed solely by the power of luxury fashion. The capability of transforming cultural objects into fashionable garments hints at not only the dominant influence of the fashion system on society but also its power to (re)aestheticize fashion.
Figure 12: Mercedes Benz Fashion Week 2018, BOTTER Spring Summer 2019
In line with Kawamura’s fashionology, any item of clothing or a cultural object is capable of being transformed into fashion, only if the system -which consists of subsystems comprised of a network of designers, manufacturers, wholesalers, public relation officers, journalist, and advertising agencies- labels the clothing as fashionable. She writes: “Fashionology suggests that any item of clothing is capable of being appreciated and can be turned into fashion. Not every attempt to label something fashion may be successful, but there is nothing more to making something fashion than christening or legitimating it. It is the institutions of fashion that do that. The designers must be recognized by the other participants in the cooperative activities through which their works are produced and consumed by others” (45).
Fashion, a manufactured cultural symbol, constitutes a sphere in which novelty and change operate as defining factors. Societies in which the social system is fluid and mobile, fashion emerges as a form of social equalization. In other words, fashion manifests an inherent link to the process of imitation. Primarily, fashion, as a concept, rose from the attraction of class differentiation between high and low stratification system (Kawamura 35). However, as the social system became more democratic, not only the people were free to wear whatever they pleased but also the social system allowed imitation to occur. Before the
institutionalization of fashion, imitation took place between high and low classes. Following the Industrial Revolution and construction of ‘the’ fashion system, luxury brands, such as today’s Chanel, Prada or Gucci, adopted the role of high classes, while fast-fashion companies, such as H&M and Zara, adapted the role of imitators.
Within the landscape of fashion, attempting to convert the environmental problems into solution-based practices, the term sustainability emerged to offer many ways to go “eco” or “green” (Gordon & Hill xvii). The challenges designers face today -such as breaking free from fast-fashion giants and moving towards artisanship production- dates back to the Industrial Revolution, when
technological advancements favored mass and quick production, while overleaping quality and environmental consequences were regarded as non-human-interest territory (Nixon 8). Although the roots of sustainable (or eco) fashion can be traced back to the 1960s and 1970s, the issues surrounding topics such as labor relations, animal rights and the mass-production of clothing have long been subjects of discourse (Gordon & Hill xvii). Problems related to the fashion industry manifests a surge throughout the twentieth century. By the 1940s, a number of designers started to experiment with synthetic fibers by leaving behind a footprint, thus, taking it many years to biodegrade. Natural fibers (especially cotton), on the other hand, began to use a large number of pesticides, which polluted the water and soil
resources tremendously. Therefore, ‘natural’ fibers became almost as harmful as man-made fibers through the use of petrochemicals (Arthur 48). Merging natural fibers with synthetic materials, the fashion
industry aimed maximum results with minimum effort and care for the environment. Moreover, animal products, especially furs, became increasingly fashionable luxury commodities that reflected the consumer’s socio-economic status. As a reaction, throughout the United States, garment workers’ unions urged a healthy balance
between fair wages and working conditions. These induced reactionary responses from consumers for exploiting workers in third-world
countries, who worked under inhuman working conditions, not to mention their minuscule wages (Nixon 2).
As the issues surrounding sustainable fashion production has been subjects of scrutiny since the rise of the mass-production system, the main challenge of sustainable fashion designers today, is to not only
provide environmentally products but also to market the products in an accessible, affordable and aesthetic way to reach out to a bigger public (Gordon & Hill 11). Today, the fashion industry is no longer solely concerned with the production of pleasant and adequate clothing. Contrarily, it is concerned with the constant production of new styles and mass-produced innovations that satisfy the image of fashion, which is dominantly determined by the system itself. Although the fashion system represents an institutionalized way of production by reducing the agency of consumers, the topic of sustainability is increasingly gaining importance within the fashion world. For example, in 2012, a consumer study has found that over 6,000 people surveyed, two-thirds were aware of the importance of sustainable fashion
(Beverly 42). These results manifest that the notion of sustainability is slowly moving away from being a niche concept to more of a familiar one. Disregarding non-sustainable operations of the mass-production-induced fashion system, the recognition of the significance of
sustainability is a step towards enacting a change. Although
awareness of sustainable fashion production does not equate with action, once viewed as a subculture, sustainable fashion today is exponentially becoming not only influential (as a part of the environmentalist movement) but also a mandate (through big
corporations placing social responsibility at the core of their business models by consumers’ demand).
However, the implementation of sustainability within the fast-fashion induced system requires consistency as well as a shift within the consumer mind state. Recognizing this difficulty within a collective commitment, the sustainable fashion leading academic, Sandy Black, the author of Eco-Chic: The Fashion Paradox, believes that sustainable fashion is inherently paradoxical.
Fashion is guided by a cycle of style change, in which the old is rapidly replaced by the new. As seasons change, our styles change. And as our styles change, our consumerist tendencies also change (or intensify). This vicious cycle has become not only the core template
for our everyday life but also the backbone of the fashion industry, which is “the system of planned obsolescence” (Gordon & Hill xvi). Black writes: “at all stages of design and production decision-making there are trade-offs to be made, reconciling fashion and style with available materials, costs and time constraints” (46). Since the fashion manifests an institutionalized mass-production system, as opposed to diligence-required artisanship one, Black presents a skeptical
perspective on shifting the mind states of consumers towards
sustainability. As integrating human well-being with natural integrity is one of the biggest challenges of sustainability, it is of great
importance to delve into the core of human well-being to understand what is actually needed rather than wanted. The process of
transforming the fashion industry into a sustainable, self-nurturing model necessitates a long-term commitment, which requires an ultimate shift within personal, social, and institutional mindsets. To unfold the anxiety behind the visions concerning sustainable fashion landscape, the difference between fast and slow fashion has to be clarified to attain a bigger picture of the (im)possibilities within sustainable fashion.
Fast to Slow Fashion
The term fast fashion refers to low-cost clothing collections that mimic current luxury fashion trends (Joy et al. 273). Embodying
unsustainability, fast-fashion aids the consumerist desires among (mostly) young consumers by providing them with a constant change of seasonal styles and, thus, new trends. In other words, fast-fashion is, by its very nature, a fast-response system that encourages
disposability (Fletcher 208). Preceding the dawn of fast-fashion, the turnover time for a garment (by luxury brands) from its presentation at a catwalk to consumers would take about six months. However, now, by big fast-fashion retailers, such as H&M and Zara, duration of couple months has been compressed into a matter of couple weeks (Tokatli 23). To keep customers coming back, thus heighten their
profits, retailers cyclically introduce new trends and replenish their stocks. As fast-fashion retailers profit through fast cycles that encompass “rapid prototyping, small batches combined with large variety, more efficient transportation and delivery, and merchandise that is presented floor ready on hangers with price tags already attached”, not only the labor and manufacturing prices reduce but also the quality of the garments that are produced in higher volumes in turn (Skov 554).
Similar to the tech-industry-that constantly produces ever-improved and seemingly more attractive products- fashion industry presents the mass-produced garments within a limitedly available selling point (through the rapid change of trends and showcases) (Reiley & Delong 64). As consumers are bombarded with continuous new styles,
aesthetical possibilities to present themselves, not only an impulsive behavior but also planned obsolescence is developed within their mindsets. Embracing obsolescence as a primary goal and exploiting the disposable income of consumers with of-the-moment designs, fast-fashion retailers accentuate immediate gratification, yet reduced satisfaction. Building upon Ritzer’s concept of “McDonaldization”, fast-fashion has been referred as “McFashion” to describe the speed of mass-produced garments and short-term gratifications attached to the purchase (Joy et al. 276). In Ritzer’s words “speed, convenience, and standardization have replaced the flair of design and creation in cooking” (Ritzer 371). Although his departure point was fast-food chains in the United States, which later were used as a metaphor to critique the changes within capitalist economies that are built upon speed, efficiency, and rationality, “McFashion” is an appropriate term to conceptualize the fast-fashion industry. But, it is critically important to imagine an alternative system, it is important to draw a line
between artisanal craft (which high-fashion brands embody) and mass-production. The term ‘craft’ denotes highly skilled and thought-through labor that produces unique items, one item at a time. The Hermes Birkin bag is a great example of artisanal fashion production
in which the customers might wait several years to acquire a
particular bag that is accessible solely affluent customers (Teulings and Baldwin 72).
With fast-fashion, on the other hand, new styles constantly replace the old, consumers develop ever-evolving desires and new notions of the self. In line with Binkley’s argument, the concept of “multiple selves in evolution” is central to fast-fashion followers (Binkley 602). The more styles emerge, the more the possibilities of individual identities
evolve. Thus, replacing originality, craft, and exclusivity with
“massclusivity” and planned spontaneity, fast-fashion feeds the souls of consumers, who thrive on constant change, resulting in an inherent dissonance among fast-fashion consumers’ concern for the
environment and their practices (Tokatli 35).
Counteracting the increased demand for fast-fashion, the slow fashion movement manifested a public interest and recognition within ethical consumers. Taking its cues from popular slow-food movements –which encourage local and seasonal food production- slow-fashion has
manifested a discursive production within the apparel and textile industry in the last few years. The concept of slow fashion does not directly refer to time (as opposed to the “fast” in fast fashion, which most assuredly does refer to time), but rather to a philosophy of attentiveness (Pookulangara & Shephard 200). This form of attentiveness, placing quality over quantity, results in the
consciousness behind the impact of fashion production on workers, consumers as well as the environment. In other words, slow fashion is not only about slowing down the production process but incorporating social responsibility, sustainability, transparency within the fashion industry (Fletcher 202). While fast-fashion manifests a forced shift from the materiality of fashion to its symbolic production, slow-fashion attempts to bring importance to the materiality of fashion. Through the anxiety between fast and slow fashion logic, the fashion system makes millions of people’s lives depend on the cyclical system of fashion, from manufacturing the garment to its transportation.
Through this inevitable economic dependence on the fast-fashion system, the imagination of a sustainable system becomes almost unimaginable. In order to offer an unobstructed vision of sustainable fashion system, the next section highlights William McDonough’s Cradle to Cradle (C2C) theory. In addition to the initiative of Fashion for Good, C2C manifests a visionary template in which fashion can leave behind its destructive practices and move towards a model that aligns with the integrity of nature.
C2C to Fashion System
Cradle to Cradle (2002) is a highly influential book (and a manifesto) that presents a new way to design products, ranging from food to fashion goods. Also referred as the ‘Cradle to Cradle’ (C2C) or ‘Cradle to Cradle design’, this design concept encapsulates a biomimetic approach to consumable products and systems by aiming to model human industry on nature’s processes. Built on mimicry of nature’s regenerative cycle by engraving it within human industries, C2C
encapsulates a sustainable business strategy. In their book, Braungart and McDonough undertake their highly influential theory (see figure 13 on the following page) by identifying the Industrial Revolution as the starting point of not only the disruption of nature’s cycle but also the inception of concerns surrounding sustainability. At the beginning of the book, authors rhetorically initiate a systematic list by imagining a design of the Industrial Revolution, which inevitably instituted the disruption of our planet. The rhetorical list reads like this:
Design a system of production that
o puts billions of pounds of toxic material into the air, water, and soil every year
o produces some materials so dangerous they will require constant vigilance by future generations
o results in gigantic amounts of waste
o puts valuable materials in holes all over the planet, where they can never be retrieved
