I Shop Therefore I Am
I’m a huge fan of the work of Juliet B. Schor, the author of The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don’t Need and Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture, so of course I devoured her piece on consumerism, “Cleaning the Closet: Toward a New Fashion Ethic,” in Sustainable Planet: Solutions for the Twenty-first Century (which, quite ironically, I’m now tempted to purchase because its writers sum up the state of our planet so plainly, accessibly, and stirringly that you want to have all of their hemp- and organic cotton-diapered babies.)
OK, how do I quote the choice parts of her essay without regurgitating it in its entirety (it’s that good!) After discussing the environmental and social impact of our disposable culture (in part due to a system of low prices and high volume), Schor describes another extreme found in the developed world:
At the high-end, thousand-dollar handbags, dresses running to the many thousands, even undergarments costing a hundred dollars are the rule. A look at the nation’s distribution of wealth provides one clue to why high-priced clothing is flying off the shelves: The top 10 percent of the population now own a record 71 percent of the nation’s total net worth, and 78 percent of all financial wealth. (The top one percent alone own 38 and 47 percent of net worth and financial wealth.) The existence of such an upscale market is a troubling symptom of a world in which some people have far too much money and far too little moral or social accountability in terms of what they do with it.
But the high-priced venues serve another purpose as well. Designer merchandise becomes available at discount stores at a fraction of its top retail price. This affordable exclusivity is part of what keeps middle-class consumers enmeshed in the system. Clothes cascade through a chain of retail outlets, prices falling at each stage. The system has led many consumers to purchase almost mindlessly when confronted with irresistible “bargain basement” prices of highly regarded designers and to spend much more on clothes than they intend or even realize.
(Emphases are mine.)
Seasonal fashion cycles based on climatic needs now turn over far more rapidly, so that “new” may only last for a couple of months, or even weeks (think of athletic shoes, for instance.)
The exclusivity that is relentlessly pushed by marketers also contributes to high levels of spending—the product is valued because it is expensive. As it becomes more affordable, its value declines. Similarly, when the consumer aspires to be a fashion pioneer, she seeks rarity. The impacts of these core features of the fashion industry are profound. Many middle- and lower-middle class youth are working long hours to buy clothes. For poor youth, with limited access to money and jobs, the designer imperative has been linked to dropping out of school (because of an inadequate wardrobe), stealing, dealing, even violence. Failing to keep up with the dizzying pace of fashion innovation undermines self-esteem and social status.
But it is not only fashion-orientation that accounts for the enormous volume of clothing that is sold in this country. Shopping for clothes, footwear, and apparel have become habits, even addictions, especially for women. Just something to do because we do it.
Schor doesn’t advocate we all start pulling on grey sweatsuits, however, and she admits that dressing and adornment are vital to the human experience, and can be both utilitarian and aesthetically pleasing. “This is why any attempt to push them into a minimalist, utilitarian box will fail,” she says. “Clothes embody far more than our physical bodies; they are also a measure of our basic values and culture. So, while we may not all take great pleasure in what we wear, we should all recognize that clothes do matter.”
What she proposes are the basic principles of “ecology and frugality” that prior generations maintained: “take only what you need, use it until it is no longer useable, repair rather than replace, refashion to provide variety.” By valuing “quality over quantity, longevity over novelty, and versatility over specialty,” we can be satisfied with a smaller, less varied, closet, but one for which we can spend more per garment so that our clothes are better constructed, will last longer, and have less of an impact on our environment.
Paying more per piece could also support a new structure of labor costs. Workers would work less, produce fewer but higher-quality items, and be paid more per hour. Such a change would help make ecologically clean technologies economically feasible.
Invest, then, in classic items of clothing that will never go out of style—and are in it for the long haul— instead of cheap, ill-made, sweatshop-produced apparel that only last a few washes. When you turn the idea of consumption on its head, $48 for this top doesn’t seem so bad if you’re spending judiciously only when the need arises.
And on that note, this semi-related nugget, by the by, makes me want to hurl. C’mon society, at least pretend to work with me here.
cindy said,
April 16, 2006 at 2:59 pm
i have been thinking about this alot. i’m thinking of slowly replacing everything in my closet with sustainable fibers. they make really gorgeous clothing out of hemp and organic cotton these days. thank you for the links to the book. the book looks excellent by the way. maybe you could ask the library to get it? when i think of my neice and nephew and how much they spend on clothing, everything is designer and brand-named. when i was a teen all my friends and i would buy our clothes from thrifts shops and vintage clothing stores. we were sure to look like individuals and we didn’t have to spend so much money.
Bellen said,
April 16, 2006 at 7:31 pm
I also read everything I can by Schor, and, it makes me thankful my boys were not into the name brand stuff - just thrift stores, Goodwill & yard sale. I did, however, make sure their clothes were well made, still had lots of life in them, and whenever possible bought items made of sustainable fibers. A new shopping center is opening on the west coast of Florida and the LOCAL NEWS started their report on it with (are you ready?) get out your credit card and get ready to shop till you drop!!! We can’t get a break on responsible shopping anywhere - besides, there really wasn’t any need for more shopping and the people that frequent these stores don’t give a flying fig if they shop responsibly - unless it has a hip brand name. Sorry, it just really upset me - especially since I think some of that money could have gone to rebuild what was destroyed by Hurricane Charley - yes there are still lots of homes not rebuilt yet.
Laura said,
April 16, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Great post, I’ll keep these ideas in my thoughts for a long time.
mim said,
April 17, 2006 at 10:47 am
I gotta see if my library has any of those great sounding books. Excellent post and I must admit that skirt in the window is pretty cute…but I would try to recreate it fomr thrfit store finds.
eireann said,
April 17, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Nice post, as usual. :) I am always astounded when I hear/see people talking about ‘needing’ clothes/shoes/bags that eat up a large part of their income. What? I’m not being condescending; I really don’t understand it. Rent vs. new skirt? Is there even a choice? For me, spending 25.00 at the thrift store still kind of feels like a splurge, and I still worry about owning more than I need.
When I was living in Italy this summer, some of my Italian friends told me that it’s much more common for Italians to buy just a few (expensive) new clothes each year (or a few for summer, a few for winter) and to use them until they’re no good anymore. Better model, I think. Anyway, thanks for your words. That’s what I really mean to say.
The Worsted Witch » They Live! said,
April 18, 2006 at 9:27 pm
[...] A postscript to my previous post on conventionally grown cotton. From the Organic Consumers Association, quoting The Non-GMO Report: Superweeds spreading in genetically engineered cotton fields Pesticide-resistant weeds are introducing a new problem to cotton farmers. Traditionally, herbicide resistance is dealt with by simply changing the herbicide. But according to North Carolina State weed scientist Alan York, farmers are running out of options: there are no more effective pesticides to switch to. The majority of farmers in the Cotton Belt are now growing Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready cotton, which is resistant to glyphosate pesticides. As a result of the heavy use of glyphosate in the area, varieties of pigweed have developed an immunity to it. Tests at the University of Georgia showed that the pigweed Palmer Amaranth has developed amazing resistance to glyphosate. Scientists doused the weeds three times with a quadruple concentrated dose of glyphosate, but the pigweed continued to grow and multiply. “If you grow cotton in the Southeast, and you have Palmer amaranth in your fields, looking at side-by-side comparisons of resistant and non-resistant pigweed should scare you to death,” York says. [...]
The Worsted Witch » The Good Life said,
April 24, 2006 at 10:31 am
[...] Something I don’t quite get about the environmental movement is the way some self-purported tree-huggers take the market trend toward eco-friendly, socially conscious goods as a kind of carte blanche to splurge unnecessarily. In essence, their modus operandi hasn’t changed—the only difference is that their habits have become, in the words of William McDonough and Michael Braungart, “less bad.” But is it enough to just be less bad? If sustainable living is about treading lightly and leaving behind as small an ecologic footprint as possible, doesn’t that also include rethinking the role material and hedonistic excess play in our lives? [...]
The Worsted Witch » Charge for Change said,
May 22, 2006 at 1:27 pm
[...] This Treehugger post made me rethink the plastic in my pocket, and how I could get my expenses to align even more closely with my ideologies. (My Amex gets regularly put through its paces because I’m quite lax at remembering to withdraw enough physical greenbacks. Since I’ve decided to live more frugally, however, my desire to splurge those accumulated points on the latest knitting hardcover or gift certificates to the Gap has all but petered out. Frankly, it’s been absolutely liberating.) [...]
The Worsted Witch » The Canary Project said,
July 12, 2006 at 3:18 pm
[...] If you can’t see that, then you’re thicker than I thought. And I already have a dismally low opinion of global-warming naysayers and devil-may-care narcissists who have far too much money and far too little social and moral responsibility. [...]
The Worsted Witch » Charmoné said,
July 20, 2006 at 4:04 pm
[...] Hmmm. [...]
felicia sullivan said,
July 31, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Applause, applause. I’m a minimalist with regard to my wardobe and I buy very few things, but they last for years. And although they’re quite expensive, the price actually reduces every time you wear the item. A Calvin Klein cashmere coat that I bought in 1998 which costs $800 is a steal now because I’ve owned it for eight years and continue to wear it. I get my shoes re-heeled, clothes mended and if they’re past their prime, I either reuse them (shorts from jeans, vests from sweaters with unsightly sweat stains) or donate the fabric, items to needed folks.
Every season I buy 1-2 things to add to the wardobe and I value my wardrobe that much more and feel I’m adding less to the obsessive consumerism which dominates our culture.
my two cents :)
The Worsted Witch » World Overshoot Day said,
October 17, 2006 at 10:31 am
[...] Related articles: 1. What is “Voluntary Simplicity”? 2. The Golden Rule 3. Simplicity and Consumption 4. I Shop, Therefore I Am [...]
The Worsted Witch » Clothes Call said,
November 17, 2006 at 4:31 pm
[...] BEST: Don’t buy anything. (No foolin’!) Refuse to wrap your identity within the temporarily gratifying bounds of material consumption and be “possessed by your possessions.” Like Juliet B. Schor, author of The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don’t Need and Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture says, choose quality over quantity, longevity over novelty, and versatility over specialty. If we’re satisfied with a much smaller closet, we can spend more per garment so our clothes are better constructed. “Workers would work less, produce fewer but higher-quality items, and be paid more per hour. Such a change would help make ecologically clean technologies economically feasible,” she says. [...]
The Worsted Witch » Think Before You Plink said,
December 12, 2006 at 2:12 pm
[...] Related articles 1. Simplicity and Consumption 2. I Shop Therefore I Am [...]
The Worsted Witch » Fast Clothes Nation said,
March 5, 2007 at 2:05 pm
[...] Related articles: 1. I Shop Therefore I Am: Consumerism and Fashion 2. Clothes Call [...]
Enthusia said,
March 5, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Sustainable planet–that’s the book that really solidified for me what “it’s all about.” That said, I’m fashion maven in that I love style, fabrics, etc…I keep myself in check by reading blogs re: reconstructed clothing, fabric reuse, etc. I think what I’ve figured out for myself is that I do like looking at lovely fabrics, new textures and designs, but visually the “real energy” it takes to make something of value curbs my immediate desire to acquire. Does that make any sense?
I do love your blog. I guess I’m delurking.
The Worsted Witch » Stop Shopping or the Planet Gets It said,
April 12, 2007 at 4:37 pm
[...] Related articles: 1. Simplicity and Consumption 2. World Overshoot Day 3. I Shop Therefore I Am [...]