Random Fashion Thoughts (Part 3: Style farmer strikes back) - our general discussion thread

[dieworkwear]

I take your point about excessive cynicism, and yes, guilty as charged. What's your theory of how this works though--the downstream effect on voting behavior? Or put differently, what's a theory of how this would work? I find the evidence on public opinion frankly damning on this point: the relationship between opinion and policy is tenuous, even incidental. "Democracy by coincidence," if you know the reference. I'm also very skeptical of the political psych findings on nudges and the like, and don't think there's much there to support the hypothesis either. I'm trying to think of a parallel to having a gay canvasser come to your door --> making you more supportive of LGBT issues, but am coming up blank. If government regulation over production is going to happen, I think it's going to happen despite of interest groups and regardless of public opinion. Movements + advocacy + institutions, not consumer innovations + public opinion change.

Not sure what you're asking. Are you asking how a rental service would make consumers more environmentally conscious? That's not what I meant when I wrote what I wrote. I was saying that such discussions may still be useful. It may still be useful for consumers to think about the environmental impact of their choices, even if individual choices don't make that big of a difference.

Finally, I think your Uber comparison above is the wrong one to make, but ironically supports the point I want to make. People flocked to Uber because of cost, not environmentalism...but that cost was kept artificially low by VC capital making up for huge losses while Uber tried to destroy public transit and change laws to allow their drivers to be classified as contractors instead of employees...in order to keep prices low. In this case, more Uber may not exactly be "better" than more cars, especially once the true costs are borne. And even if it is better, it's worse than better public transit. (I'm pretty sure you agree with this).

Yes, I would not dispute this. I don't think I claimed that consumers make choices based on the environment. Just a question of whether certain types of productions are greener than others.

 

[jaaz16]

wait how is this contradictory? poasting doesn't negate the material reality

I think the contradictory thing was the "haul" aspect - - as in, it's still a posture of excessive consumption. I guess it's not contradictory if we assume there's more than enough used clothes to go around. Admittedly the joke sort of conflates the ideas of buying less + buying used aspects of the sharing/reusing clothes economy.

Not sure what you're asking. Are you asking how a rental service would make consumers more environmentally conscious? That's not what I meant when I wrote what I wrote. I was saying that such discussions may still be useful. It may still be useful for consumers to think about the environmental impact of their choices, even if individual choices don't make that big of a difference.

I'm asking what makes you think having consumers think about the environmental impact of their clothes will make them more supportive of pro-environment policies. I don't think that's true, and even if it were, I don't think that would make a difference in terms of passing pro-environmental policies. The simplest parallel to our conversation here is gun violence: Getting people to think about gun violence affects public opinion, but does not have an effect on gun (or violence) related policies. Public opinion has been stubbornly stacked in support of a variety of gun-related regulations, and yet...

I agree that it's not bad if we all thought harder about how our interest in clothing affects the environment, and additionally, if we thought of ways we could be better. I don't think there's much evidence to support the expose people to an idea---> change public opinion--->policy change chain of events. That's all.

 

[dieworkwear]

I'm asking what makes you think having consumers think about the environmental impact of their clothes will make them more supportive of pro-environment policies. I don't think that's true, and even if it were, I don't think that would make a difference in terms of passing pro-environmental policies. The simplest parallel to our conversation here is gun violence: Getting people to think about gun violence affects public opinion, but does not have an effect on gun (or violence) related policies. Public opinion has been stubbornly stacked in support of a variety of gun-related regulations, and yet...

I agree that it's not bad if we all thought harder about how our interest in clothing affects the environment, and additionally, if we thought of ways we could be better. I don't think there's much evidence to support the expose people to an idea---> change public opinion--->policy change chain of events. That's all.

Policy change is multi-factorial. Gun policy, for example, is packaged with other things, such as party identification and other interests. So even if someone is for gun control, their party identification can override those interests or they may vote against this specific interest because a politician is packaged with other things.

But exposing people to an idea is certainly important. Even on an international level, discussions about human rights have helped set norms, which has influenced outcomes. Omar Wasow also published a study last year about how Black protests in the 1960s helped sway public opinion and thus tip an election.

 

[jaaz16]

Policy change is multi-factorial. Gun policy, for example, is packaged with other things, such as party identification and other interests. So even if someone is for gun control, their party identification can override those interests or they may vote against this specific interest because a politician is packaged with other things.

But exposing people to an idea is certainly important. Even on an international level, discussions about human rights have helped set norms, which has influenced outcomes. Omar Wasow also published a study last year about how Black protests in the 1960s helped sway public opinion and thus tip an election.

I love that paper, though I think the punchline is more about public perception of protestors, which was as much about nonviolent social movement strategy as it was about the "getting people to think differently about Black rights" thing. People were more sympathetic to demands when the protestors were getting violently suppressed by the state, as compared to when the protestors were engaging in property destruction. And Democratic vote share =/= policy change, unfortunately. Though I think the clothing stuff we're talking about does have a lot of similarities, yes.

Good point as well about the global diffusion of norms, which I think matters a lot in this discussion of clothing and the environment. I was definitely being too US-centric! A recent study on the global diffusion of pro-LGBT policies shows that it's most likely a both/and: You need norms, but you also need advocacy groups to be doing targeted work to translate those norms into policies that stick.

Absent any tie-in to something bigger, I think the effect of the sharing-clothes economy on the environment would likely be negligible, but not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Sir Jack II]

Anything that gets even a few SF people to stop buying an insane amount of clothing has to be better than nothing, haha. Some of the people here could clothe a small nation.

 

[erictheobscure]

bro but you don't like korean food when you're korean

WHOMST ARE YOU TO JUDGE

Thanks for reminding everyone of just how impartial I am

 

[BlakeRVA]

Is it greener to pay for Spotify or buy CDs for every album you want to hear?

Is it greener to pay for Uber services (assuming they ever pay drivers what they deserve) or for everyone to own a car?

Is it greener to pay for Adobe services online or to drive to a store and purchase the boxed installation disks?

None of these is perfectly analogous to clothes because clothing occupies a different space. But it's weird to hear someone rant about the evils of capitalism while, at the same time, saying that people should buy physical goods instead of sharing them. Or convert the industrial economy into a services economy.

Yes to all three. You can manufacture a CD, using gross, severely outdated processes in Industrial China, then ship it across the world to North American retailers, who feature the CD in a large, air conditioned retail space, before the CD is bought by a customer, listened to a few times, then often forgotten and never used again. Conversely, you can listen to a CD only when you want to, accessing it through low-power, renewable energy infrastructure.

In an ideal world, nobody would own cars. In this way, car production would be real-time with demand. There would be no idle cars sitting in driveways or garages. So yes, Uber is more environmentally-friendly than every American owning two cars.

Lastly, yes once again why wouldn't it be better to download a software (that already exists) from the Internet, using low-power servers and network bandwidth, rather than manufacturing it, uploading it to your computer, then throwing it away for it to sit in a trash dump for a hundred plus years?

Streaming, ride sharing, and software are all on-demand examples that thwart over-production and only consume what they use. It's the same idea with renting clothes. In theory, nobody should have new, unused clothes sitting in their closet. Everything should be used, or returned for someone else who wants to. The business and logistics aren't refined yet, but in the future it's a more practical, environmentally-friendly model.

 

[double00]

Streaming, ride sharing, and software are all on-demand examples that thwart over-production and only consume what they use. It's the same idea with renting clothes. In theory, nobody should have new, unused clothes sitting in their closet. Everything should be used, or returned for someone else who wants to. The business and logistics aren't refined yet, but in the future it's a more practical, environmentally-friendly model.

hm, how does innovation figure into this theory? no more development of technique or novel product? what about wholesale shifts in consumer taste that obviate existing wares?

 

[BlakeRVA]

hm, how does innovation figure into this theory? no more development of technique or novel product?

No, quite the opposite. There is extreme inefficiency in our industrial supply chains, resulting in a plethora of idle, unused goods. In the future, we should aim to have such efficiency, innovation, and refined practices that this doesn't happen.

Perfect example, almost every single clothing brand operates on a Northern Hemisphere schedule of Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter. The clothes are practical for 6 months out of the year, but remain in storage when they aren't. Meanwhile, people in Australia, Africa, South America are forced to buy clothes "out of season" and store them until it's appropriate for them to use (i.e. buying coats in December when it's 90 degrees for them). What if, we are able to innovate, and people only have these clothes when they're appropriate? It's a logistical nightmare, which is why it's not been done, but it's a very interesting problem to contemplate solving.

 

[mak1277]

No, quite the opposite. There is extreme inefficiency in our industrial supply chains, resulting in a plethora of idle, unused goods. In the future, we should aim to have such efficiency, innovation, and refined practices that this doesn't happen.

Perfect example, almost every single clothing brand operates on a Northern Hemisphere schedule of Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter. The clothes are practical for 6 months out of the year, but remain in storage when they aren't. Meanwhile, people in Australia, Africa, South America are forced to buy clothes "out of season" and store them until it's appropriate for them to use (i.e. buying coats in December when it's 90 degrees for them). What if, we are able to innovate, and people only have these clothes when they're appropriate? It's a logistical nightmare, which is why it's not been done, but it's a very interesting problem to contemplate solving.

What about people who have absolutely no desire to wear clothes that someone else has worn previously?

 

[danneskjold]

What about people who have absolutely no desire to wear clothes that someone else has worn previously?

I think that Blake is implying that those folks should be caught and shot, of course.

 

[BlakeRVA]

What about people who have absolutely no desire to wear clothes that someone else has worn previously?

Personally, I've never been a fan of second-hand clothing sites, thrifting, or even "door buster sales". I acknowledge it's a pure indulgence to buy all my clothes new. However, with each generation there's attitude shifts and new norms. My parents think Uber and Airbnb are weird. Millennials and Gen Z think it's hyper-practical. What will our grandkids think about renting clothes? Will they care? I don't know.

 

[dieworkwear]

My mom doesn't understand why I wear vintage clothes and why I sometimes pay so much money for them. When she was growing up in Vietnam, only poor people wore second-hand clothes. Or kids whose parents didn't care about them. Supposedly, some Vietnamese people also think wearing second-hand clothes can bring bad luck, as the garment might have a "ghost" in it.

She also doesn't understand why I prefer older buildings, older cars, dusty records, etc. She prefers everything to be modern and new -- new buildings, new cars, new clothes, well-known luxury brands, etc. I associate vintage things with cool people I grew up admiring. I think it's completely cultural.

 

[Fuuma]

My mom doesn't understand why I wear vintage clothes and why I sometimes pay so much money for them. When she was growing up in Vietnam, only poor people wore second-hand clothes. Or kids whose parents didn't care about them. Supposedly, some Vietnamese people also think wearing second-hand clothes can bring bad luck, as the garment might have a "ghost" in it.

She also doesn't understand why I prefer older buildings, older cars, dusty records, etc. She prefers everything to be modern and new -- new buildings, new cars, new clothes, well-known luxury brands, etc. I associate vintage things with cool people I grew up admiring. I think it's completely cultural.

From Retromania by Simon Reynolds (I also liked his book on post-punk).

Book was published in 2011, I bet rappers must be into vintage houses and neo-foodie dining by now. If someone has an article on post-Kanye middle-class taste rappers I'd love to read that.

 

[XWT]

My mom doesn't understand why I wear vintage clothes and why I sometimes pay so much money for them. [...] Supposedly, some Vietnamese people also think wearing second-hand clothes can bring bad luck, as the garment might have a "ghost" in it.

Tell her the ghost is worth a premium.