"Fashion Forward? Reflections on the Environmental History of Style”

Monday, February 18th, 2019

Follow this link to watch Dr. Adam Rome’s presentation on YouTube.

For our first Speaker Nite of 2019, we featured Dr. Adam Rome, professor of environmental history at the University at Buffalo. His talk, "Fashion Forward? Reflections on the Environmental History of Style” explored the environmental impact of a world driven by style rather than necessity.

The timing of Dr. Rome’s talk could not have been more appropriate. In the recent weeks, how many of us had our social media feeds taken over by friends posting their own attempts at a Marie Kondo style whole house clean? It seemed everyone was inspired to empty their closets, pile all their clothing, and take stock of exactly how much they actually owned. For most people, this turned out to be way more than they realized. The obvious implication of owning more than we need is a cluttered house, but do our shopping habits have an impact on the world around us as well? That was the question Dr. Rome sought to answer. While his presentation was not an endorsement of any particular organizational method or lifestyle choice, his talk helped explain why we own more than we need and what the impact of that overconsumption is on the environment.

Dr. Rome began by explaining that our dangerous infatuation with style is, in fact, not a modern problem. We have a long history of pursuing the latest fashion regardless of the consequences. And, in many cases, it’s the environment that bears the brunt of our ambition. From a nearly three-century long love affair with beaver skin hats that nearly caused the extinction of the animal in North America, to a highly decorative hat industry that nearly depleted the populations of exotic birds, the demand for the latest style was met regardless of the ramifications. Part of this problem is the ever-changing notion of what is in style. As long as the styles keep changing, even if only subtly, the fashion-conscious feel compelled to replace what they already own with the latest edition. Thus, generating an enormous amount of waste.

If people only threw away unstylish pieces of clothing, fashion would still be a powerful force of creative destruction. However, what we wear is only part of the problem. Over time, production methods improved and more goods could be produced at a lower cost. The increased availability of stylish goods democratized style and expanded the number of available consumers. It also allowed more consumer goods to offer fashionable options. Interestingly, one of the drivers of this shift was General Motors. The Ford Model T came in any color so long as it was black and even after Ford began to introduce model changes, they were not based on style. GM thought people would rush to buy more stylish cars and in 1927 started releasing annual model changes and created the “Art and Colour Section.” The gamble paid off. Consumers flocked to GM to purchase the newly available “Harbor Blue - Valley Green – Boulevard Maroon” cars and GM quickly overtook Ford as the number-one automaker.

After the Second World War, the economic boom America was enjoying accelerated this process further. With a greater amount of disposable income, Americans were beginning to replace items simply because they felt like a change. With a population of willing and eager consumers, companies increased the pace of model changes and style updates. While style has always evolved and changed over time, the 1950s were dominated by the idea of intentionally planned obsolescence. Car and appliance companies debuted new styles every year that were distinctly different from the designs of the previous years. The goal was to make the consumer feel the model they owned was out of date within a year or two of purchase. One of Ford’s designers claimed, “we design a car to make a man unhappy with his 1957 Ford ‘long about the end of 1958.” Household appliances also followed suit. A wider variety of color offerings, stylized handles, and design features encouraged consumers to update their kitchens almost as frequently as their cars.

This rampant consumerism placed an enormous burden on the environment. The process of creating more and more goods to meet the demand meant more resources mined, more rivers and skies polluted, and more land degraded. Compounding the damage was the fact that after all that effort, goods that were still useable were finding their way to landfills. While the steel and iron in cars could be recycled, many of the other components had to be burned or shredded, a process which released a host of toxic substances. By the 1970s, Americans were throwing away 25 million appliances a year and almost none of the component parts were salvageable or recyclable. The result was a huge burden on landfills. This environmental destruction did not go completely unnoticed. Critics of the postwar consumer culture called America “a throwaway society” and attacked the wastefulness of planned obsolescence. To some extent the campaign against consumer wastefulness helped slow the breakneck pace of purchasing and repurchasing.

However, America’s infatuation with fast fashion continued. The world we live in today is still influenced by what is hot, trendy, or new. While bigger ticket items like cars and appliances have slowed their pace of planned obsolescence, newer smarter features continue to entice consumers to trade in what they own sooner than necessity would dictate. Worryingly, the fashion industry has reached dizzying speed. The days of two distinct fashion seasons a year are long gone. Instead, some larger retails are introducing new styles literally every day. Many do not bother restocking their best-selling items because they want the consumers to feel like what they just bought is already out of style. The effect of this aggressive pace is billions of textiles being thrown away every year. If disposing of these textiles was the only issue, that alone would be cause for concern. However, the process of producing them is also environmentally destructive. Cotton is one of the most intensive and resource demanding crops to grow, and the synthetic alternatives are even worse. Textiles are also dyed and chemically treated to make them brighter, softer, and generally more appealing. This process has enormous consequences on the environment. and relies upon exploitative labor practices. Quite simply, it is not sustainable.

All of these things paint a pretty bleak picture, but Dr. Rome offered a glimmer of hope. Knowing that over consumption is a problem can help consumers make better decisions when shopping. Brands like Patagonia and H&M are shifting their marketing campaigns to encourage thoughtful purchasing or textile recycling. New niche companies like Rent the Runway are offering the fashion conscious the opportunity to rent what they need for only as long as they need it. Individual consumers are also finding ways to buck these trends themselves, by repurposing old clothes to give them new life or by partnering with friends to swap clothes to freshen up wardrobes. While on the micro level, these changes start to help address the situation, larger industry wide changes will need to follow in order to change the consumer culture.

After listening to Dr. Rome’s presentation, it’s easy to see how people have come to own more than they realize. As we look at look at those massive piles of clothes either from our friends’ closets or our own, before asking if it sparks joy, really take a look at how much is there. How much was bought because with a closet full of clothes, it felt like there was nothing to wear? Moving forward, we need to be mindful and  begin to shift toward more sustainable consumer practices.

Tags: , ,

« Back to Blog