Somewhat appropriately timed to fall
right after the orgy of excess food, cheap chocolate and plastic
wrapping that characterises the modern celebration of Easter, today
we mark a newer annual tradition: Earth Day. Instigated in 1970 by
a United States senator as a day of environmental education, the
event spread worldwide by the 1990s. Now individuals and
organisations all around the globe stop and pause for a moment,
consider the impact they are having on the Earth’s delicate
ecosystem, and use this moment - when the fickle mind of the world’s
media is briefly focused on environmental issues - to promote
awareness, start and accelerate campaigns ranging from tree-planting
to eating less meat, and generally pledge to focus less on themselves
and more on the future of the planet.
If you happen to be in possession of a vagina, chances are that the way in which you are usually asked to ‘do your bit’ to help the environment is to consume. That sounds odd I know, but bear with me. Aside from a few revolutionary products which, after a one-off purchase, are designed to actually reduce consumption, such as the Mooncup, or more traditional reusable items like linen nappies, women are often informed that in order to be ‘green’ they should purchase more, not less. Products such as the Mooncup or reusable nappies are often treated in the media with kneejerk squeamishness and tarnished with an unmerited ‘ewww’ factor that prevents consumers from gaining meaningful information about the use of these products and mainstream discussion of alternatives to the disposable sanitary products that have been internalised as the norm. While these products are dismissed as environmentalism ‘gone too far’ or even ridiculed, what has been embraced, in contrast, is the idea that women shouldn’t stop buying things, heavens no, instead they should replace their bad, unsustainable wardrobes with ‘good’, ethically produced and ‘green’ products and somehow, magically, the world will be saved. From ‘green’ clothing ranges to ‘green’ beauty products, the answer to the problem of climate change given to women seems to be not the more obvious ‘don’t buy so much’, but ‘buy this instead’.
This is not to say that environmentally
friendly clothing and products are a bad thing, on the contrary, they
are categorically a GOOD THING, and the ultimate hope must be that
one day in the not too distant future ALL products and clothes will
be environmentally friendly, or at least less environmentally
damaging than the vast majority are at present. The problem is
rather that the growing provision of green fashion and green beauty
products has not been accompanied by overt challenges to the
predominant narrative of perfectionism and the attendant required
consumption with which women are bombarded in the modern world.
There is little suggestion that women should not worry so much about
maintaining a perfectly stylish and fashionable wardrobe at all
times, or indeed about spending a sizeable proportion of their
salaries on beautifying products to live up to the image of groomed
female beauty. These requirements are the necessary ones; being
green in the pursuit of these is more optional.
To be clear, the subtext here is not
that to truly ‘care’ about being green, women should renounce all
worldly goods, stop caring about buying clothes that they like or
indulgent products that make them feel good. This would just
represent a throwback to the old stereotype of environmentalists as
hemp and sandal-wearing, strange-smelling oddballs, and prevent the
spread of green issues into our mainstream, daily consciousness which
is to be unreservedly welcomed, and which stylish green brands should
be praised for championing. Nevertheless, the recognition that being
green does not mean exclusively attiring yourself in old potato sacks
and replacing your facial moisturiser with mud from your back garden,
should go hand in hand with an emphasis that not having clothes that
match the latest trends or the latest ‘must-have’ alphabet-based
make-up (here’s looking at you, ‘CC’ creams) is not actually
that important in the scheme of things. I am as guilty as any woman
of succumbing to the niggling suggestion of adverts and media, and
have gone through stages of being perfectly happy with my wardrobe,
feeling that I have all the clothes I could possibly need for every
eventuality, from paint-balling to the reading of wills, only to have
this rare moment of consumption satiety shattered by an article on a
new style of shoe which I suddenly wonder if I might need for the
office, as we are heading into summer after all...
Some of the new ‘eco-lifestyle’
brands replicate the fundamentally non-green (brown?) idea portrayed
by lifestyle brands in general - that to live up to some idea of what
life should be like and what you should be like as a woman, you must
possess more and more things, rather than focus on your achievements
or interests. On top of which, they are (by dint of more ethical
production) usually much more expensive than their non-eco
counterparts. For instance, a standard T-shirt from Primark costs a
maximum of £4 (and usually goes for about half that), whereas a
quick search of available environmentally-friendly wear on the
internet finds the cheapest going for £10.95. Now that might not
seem like much of a jump for those on decent salaries and in secure
employment, but for those on minimum wage, in short-term contracts,
or even students, it is a price hike that all too often you cannot
afford. Women are still told that they should buy the new
shirt style for the season, and those who can’t afford to buy the
green version of this are given one extra thing to feel guilty and
inadequate about, alongside their appearance, wardrobe, figure,
social life, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. The divide that
is becoming more pronounced between rich and poor in areas of
physical and mental health, rates of obesity and life expectancy
risks is just being replicated in the area of ‘environmental
health’. We do not want to entrench a situation in which only the
rich can afford a low carbon footprint, in effect by purchasing one
to order.
It is of course not realistic for those
companies that have (rightly) prioritised ethics and sustainability
to attempt to replicate the ridiculously cheap prices of shops
specialising in fast, throwaway fashion (and dubious manufacturing
and employment practices). And of course, those who have the funds
should categorically buy from these green brands rather than other
more wasteful luxury brands. But we should also take more of a leaf
(figurative, of course, leave that valuable plant-based eco-system
alone) from the way that men can have, say, one suit, and it is
perfectly acceptable to wear said suit to work, to family occasions,
on evenings out for years and years, rather than having the
disquieting feeling that wearing the same dress to two events in a
row somehow means ‘giving up’ on some elusive ideal of womanhood,
on the mystique of the flawlessly attired and turned out female. If
we instead aim for a culture in which women are no longer made to
feel so conscious of every imperfection and inadequacy, where it is
no longer seen as somehow ‘brave’ to upload a photo of yourself
to social media without make-up, we can recognise that perhaps we
don’t need to buy a different type of moisturiser for every part of
our face, whether or not the packaging is made exclusively from
bamboo shoots that have been naturally felled by mountain winds.
Then we would truly be able to change the terms of the debate from
the perfectionist, consumption-fuelled economy that has been one of
the biggest drivers of overuse of environmental resources.
In this manner more positive engagement
with green issues could be felt by all women, across all income
levels: a change in the prevailing terms on which women now engage
with society would have the side effect of enabling them to focus
more energy on the truly important issues like climate change and
economic sustainability. In the meantime, alternative methods which
mean that we don’t have to go the other extreme of an ascetic and
wholly self-denying lifestyle and are still able to enjoy the
self-expression that experimenting with clothes, make-up and other
happily indulgent products represents (when not part of a pressure to
look a certain way), are thankfully gaining ground. ‘Freeganism’,
‘upcycling’, the excellent Freecycle networks, clothes swapping
parties and other eco-friendly grassroots campaigns are becoming more
and more popular and mean that we can continue to try new things,
change up our wardrobes, try new beauty treatments by re-using or
repurposing unwanted or no longer needed items, neither breaking the
bank nor continuing the cycle of endless demand for new products, no
matter how virtuous these may be in themselves. In short, we as
women are in a position to have our cake and eat it too; we can
challenge the treadmill of consumption that damages both our own
sense of worth and our planet. We can champion the environment and
in so doing champion ourselves.
NS
No comments:
Post a Comment