Читать книгу The Nature of College - James J. Farrell - Страница 43

In a 2005 essay that won the Elie Wiesel Prize for an undergraduate essay in ethics, Yale University student Sarah Stillman argued that while our clothes may be made in China, our clothing system is made by us. Focusing on young women, sweatshops, and the ethics of globalization, Stillman wrote how “teenage girls [in other countries] are increasingly bearing the burdens of globalization while reaping relatively few of its tremendous rewards.” Taking an inventory of her own room, she found that she was complicit with labor practices that she opposed.

1 Nike T-shirt: Made by company that employed Martha for five cents a shirt.

1 Adidas soccer ball: Made by company notorious for antiunionism, low wages, and abuse of young women workers.

1 Barbie doll, legs missing: Made in China by Mattel, in factory much like Li Chunmei’s. Average worker age = 14.

2 pairs New Balance sneakers: Chinese workers there are paid 18 cents an hour and forced to live in crammed 12-person dorm rooms.

“Somehow,” Stillman noted, “we’ve become submerged in a system that genuinely repulses our ethical sensibilities.” Alarmed by the gap between her expressed values and her operative values, Stillman joined students and other activists to protest the Free Trade Area of the Americas, a neoliberal trade agreement that limits labor rights, human rights, and environmental protections in the interest of free trade. As a woman, she chose to do her part to protect other women—and the Earth—from the destruction that can come with the creativity of capitalism.²⁶

What Stillman and other activists are up against is the systematic ignorance fostered by globalization, and the misinformation marketers present to consumers. But what if we countered the half-truths of ads by requiring a full-cost accounting on our clothes? A new system could require retailers to reveal on garment tags not just where products were made, but who made them and how much these workers earned. It might also demand that retailers post pictures or videos of their factories so we could understand the ways our consumption affects the production process. With this sort of information we could make the simple decision to buy our jeans at places that pictured the environmental costs of cotton, and from companies that offered organic goods. We all know that feedback affects how we act in the world, so why not insist on truth in our feedback loops, instead of the glossy promises of deceptive advertising? Why not let us see the connections between social justice and environmental justice? Informed consumption is the foundation of good capitalism, so who could deny the logic of such a demand? By lobbying our legislators to pass just one law to require such information, we could take real responsibility for our remote control of the social and environmental impacts of clothing.²⁷

Economist Juliet Schor suggests a deeper way to think about our system of clothing, pointing directly to an ethics of dress, a morality of jeans. Acknowledging that there is real pleasure in wearing clothes that are creative and expressive, Schor argues, gives us the choice to prefer quality over quantity, to take delight in the cut, color, and craft of fewer clothes. If we discard the planned obsolescence of the fashion system, searching for greater quality in classic styles, we would both look good and do good. If we bought our clothes locally, we would shrink our carbon footprint, and reward the craft and productivity of our neighbors. More importantly, Schor suggests a new standard of beauty that includes fair trade and environmental responsibility. As a character in the movie Gandhi says, “There is no beauty in the finest cloth if it makes hunger and unhappiness.” And the logical extension of owning clothes we truly care about is that we will care for them more carefully. Once we have purchased good jeans, for example, we will wear them until they’re worn out, making creative patches and repairs a symbol of pride, resourcefulness, and fashion. When we grow out of things, we would be less likely to throw them in the trash, and more likely to resourcefully extend their useful life through donation. We might even start clothing exchanges like libraries, which would enable us to share and wear more clothes than we actually own.²⁸

Fortunately, a lot of hard work has already been done to make these possibilities a reality. Along with a politics of environmental justice, college students have also begun to invent a politics of sartorial justice. In 1997, conscientious collegians established United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS), an organization designed to make sure that college logowear is produced and traded fairly. In 2000, USAS created the Workers Rights Consortium to investigate working conditions in factories worldwide, and in 2007, they invited colleges and universities to join the Designated Suppliers Program to make sure that factory workers producing college apparel get living wages and the right to unionize.²⁹ Students in USAS also organize boycotts of companies that violate fair employment practices and exploit global ecosystems in order to provide cheap clothes. Because the most valuable possession of any international company is its good name (the technical term for this is “brand equity”), students and other concerned citizens can leverage reforms fairly easily. According to BrandZ.com, a source on international brand ranking, the name Nike, for example, is worth $12.5 billion—the highest brand equity of any apparel maker. That’s the value of the brand—not the value of the shoes, clothes, ads, or anything tangible—and it’s a value that Nike can’t afford to lose if consumers learn of unfair labor practices or environmental degradation in its manufacturing processes. When consumers pressure companies and publicize their efforts, even multinational corporations need to respond—and even Nike has. If they know how to use it, college students and other consumers do have some power over powerful corporations.³⁰

Boycott: A way of putting our money where our values are, a protest withdrawing business from merchants who have withdrawn from the moral ecology of the culture. “We boycott,” said Martin Luther King, Jr. during the Civil Rights Movement, “not to put people out of business, but to put justice into business.”

Buycott: A way of putting our money where our values are by buying from companies that improve their social and environmental impacts by promising and practicing environmental justice and regenerative design.

Students have also responded to the sweatshopping of the Earth, the ways in which the global textile trade exploits ecosystems in order to provide low-cost clothing to Wal-Mart and other U.S. retailers. As with cheap labor, the environmental cost of this production is high. But some students are changing their consumption, looking to companies like Patagonia for organic cotton, sustainable wool, or recycled fabrics. Some students are looking for alternative fibers, like hemp, corn, and bamboo, and others are buying fewer clothes and using their money for more important things.³¹

Responding to consumer demand, some blue jeans have begun turning green. In 2006, Levi Strauss introduced Eco jeans, an organic cotton line. Del Forte Denim manufactures jeans in the United States that are made entirely of organic cotton, and other niche companies are following suit. Such green jeans add another level of design, one that fits not just the human form but nature’s designs as well. And the future might see additional design factors, too—fair wages and better treatment for the workers who make our clothes. U2’s Bono sponsors Edun jeans, which promise fair trade practices in addition to environmental responsibility. If you wear Del Forte jeans, you can participate in Project Rejeaneration, sending your jeans back to the company for a 10 percent discount on your next pair of jeans, or make a contribution to the Sustainable Cotton Project.³²

Such activity—personal, interpersonal, and political—offers hope for a sustainable clothing trade. If we can combine a passion for our clothes with compassion for people who make them, we can create a system that embodies our best intentions. When our passion for clothing includes compassion for the planet, we can wear it as a sign of right relationship with the Earth. And that would really be dressing for success.