Proteus Project

Elizabeth L. Cline, a prominent figure in the sustainable fashion movement, discusses in her book Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion the environmental, social, and economical impacts of fast fashion. But in addition to this, she makes a very insightful remark regarding how our relationship with fashion needs to change:

Clothes could have more meaning and longevity if we think less about owning the latest or cheapest thing and develop more of a relationship with the things we wear. Building a wardrobe over time, saving up and investing in well-made pieces, obsessing over the perfect hem, luxuriating in fabrics, and patching and altering our clothes are old-fashioned habits. But they’re also deeply satisfying. (Cline 15)

Cline suggests that developing a more meaningful relationship to the clothes we own can contribute to a sustainable wardrobe. By developing a relationship with your clothing, Cline is not trying to say you should take your cashmere sweater on a date, but harbor a stronger appreciation with what you currently own and plan to own. This means instead of viewing your wardrobe as disposable, it should be viewed as a curation of items you love and take care of. When you perceive your wardrobe as a meaningful capsule, it will slow down your own rate of consumption.

Alex Crumbie’s article “What is fast fashion and why is it a problem?” explores fast fashion and provides an in-depth look into its environmental impact. Crumbie says the “fast” aspect in fast fashion has multiple meanings in which “the changes in fashion are fast, the rate of production is fast; the customer’s decision to purchase is fast; delivery is fast; and garments are worn fast – usually only a few times before being discarded.” In addition, Crumbie’s article simultaneously supports both Azubuike and Savides’s articles regarding the same issue.

Like Azubuike, Crumbie draws attention to fast fashion’s heavy water consumption by stating the industry uses up enough water “to meet the consumption needs of five million people, and is responsible for around 20% of industrial water pollution as a result of textile treatment and dyeing.” Although Azubuike provides a great amount of detail as to how much water is being used up, Crumbie does a better job illustrating to the reader just how much water is being consumed. To paint a better picture in your head, if the fast fashion industry consumes enough water for 5 million people, that is enough water to meet the consumption needs for both Los Angeles and San Jose residents combined. Also, I appreciate how Crumbie provides a percentage as to how much industrial water pollution there is, which Azubuike leaves out.

In addition, Crumbie brings up the environmental impacts of the materials used in fast fashion, just like in Savides article. Crumbie states that “the rise of fast fashion has been heavily dependent on synthetic fibres such as polyester, nylon, acrylic and elastane, which are made from heavily processed petrochemicals (fossil fuels),” and that “these materials are cheap to produce – polyester, for example, costs half as much per kilo as cotton – and therefore allow brands to keep prices low, though with a high environmental price-tag.” Since artificial clothing materials are so cheap, brands can sell their clothes for cheap and consumers can buy more of their goods. This all caters to an endless fast fashion cycle of everything being cheap—labor, materials, quality, and price.

Compared to Savides, Crumbie explains more in-depth the environmental consequences of even just material in fast fashion. However, Savides article mentions that using natural materials is still problematic in fast fashion. Both articles do a great job in trying to explain each other and providing information the other might have left out. 

In the article “The Price Of Fast Fashion: How Consumerism Fuels The Climate Crisis And Threatens Human Rights”, Mary Azubuike describes the environmental and social consequences of fast fashion. She substantiates the issue by sharing alarming statistics regarding the environmental impacts of fast fashion:

With clothing production doubling since 2000, the fast fashion industry consumes roughly 79 billion cubic meters of water per annum, making it the second-largest water consuming industry in the world. This usage can be linked to the current water scarcity suffered by major suppliers of cotton, such as India and Pakistan. Worryingly, this consumption rate is set to increase by 40% by 2030.

With these statistics in mind, Azubuike makes it very apparent how fast fashion is impacting our environment and more specifically contributing to our water crisis. Also, considering that the water consumption rate is expected to increase by 40% in less than ten years, this demonstrates just how quickly the planet’s resources are being used up and how unsustainable the fast fashion industry is in the long-run.

Furthermore, Azubuike says the impacts of fast fashion are not limited to destroying the environment, but directly threaten human rights at the same time. Azubuike highlights this issue by describing the grave conditions garment workers face:

With dire factory conditions and the workforce predominantly consisting of children and forced citizens, such excessive consumer demand disadvantages the most vulnerable within society. This conclusion is supported by the fact that 97% of fast fashion is being produced in developing countries with poor labour and human rights protections, where in-factory abuse and negligence are concealed.

Because nearly all fast fashion is produced in developing countries without laws protecting workers, that is how the industry is able to thrive. Negligence, forced labor, and poor working conditions allow for the mass production of clothing while keeping up with the demand. 

Faye Meehan’s article “The problem with Tiktok, hauls and consumerism” asserts that social media platforms, such as Tiktok, heavily influence the consumption habits of many young people. She explains how the platform functions as a way to entice viewers in order to increase their consumption habits:

Hauls are a subtle, yet entertaining way of implementing consumerist culture and pushing the idea of a consumerist society onto an audience. TikTok’s short 15- 60 second videos have made clothing hauls more accessible, and likely more popular than ever, so popular that some TikTok influencers have based their content and entire career around consumption and hauls.

Because Tiktok is home to a plethora of haul videos that are around 15-60 seconds long, it works perfectly to grab the short attention spans of Gen-Z and influence their decision making when it comes to clothes. In addition, since many Tiktok content creators dedicate their accounts to hauls, you are bound to stumble upon one of their videos when scrolling mindlessly on the app. This justifies Meehan’s point regarding the profound influence Tiktok has on young people and their consumption habits.

As a user of Tiktok myself, I agree with Meehan regarding how hauls entice young people and change the consumer culture. Since my Tiktok FYP (for you page) is tailored towards my interest in fashion, I regularly see haul videos and the types of comments on them. Top comments would often say things such as “I want it all!!”, “can you post part 2 [of the remaining haul]?”, and “everything you bought is so cute!” The comments ultimately feed into a cycle of overconsumption as desire and envy take over the viewers while encouraging content creators to post more hauls. Even for someone like myself, I would be lying if I said hauls do not spark a desire in me to buy a bunch of cheap clothes. 

What are the differences you notice in clothing between now and the 70s to 80s?

Clothes were more colorful back then and everything now looks the same. The quality was also a lot better back then. I remember a 100 percent cotton Guess button up would be great quality and $48. However, let’s say the same thing in Forever 21 would be much thinner material, poorly sewn, and around $20. There’s a significant decrease in quality, but also a significant decrease in price.

How often did you, or other people you knew, buy clothes?

I remember in high school, the girls were clothing fanatics and would shop every weekend and get hoards of clothing. They would come to school with new clothes from IZOD and Macy’s, but the high school I went to was also in a rich area. For me, I would just get new clothing maybe once every other week with only a couple items per trip. 

Was overconsumption as prevalent back then compared to now?

Overconsumption is much more prevalent now. You could not consume as much clothing back in the 70s and 80s because things were priced much higher. Now, with cheap labor, people can buy as much as they want and at a low price. When you were younger, you bought way more clothes compared to me when I was the same age because you used to buy from places like Forever 21.

Do you think the large availability of cheap trendy clothing is better compared to the 70s and 80s, where people could not afford to buy as much?

What are some pros and cons in buying fast fashion?

Pros would be affordability. While I was working a retail job I was really cautious of how I spent my money, but I still wanted to be able to wear clothing items that would make me feel confident so that's where fast fashion comes in handy. Some cons would be that it had a really bad stench when it's first unpackaged and sometimes it won’t really look like the picture online

What are your thoughts on over consumption?

It makes me feel really bad when I actually think about it, but I have a very "oh well" mindset since there is already so much happening in the world. It’s one of those things where in your individual life there's so much going on that you don’t have the energy to actually care about the five Shein products you bought.

Why do you purchase fast fashion?

Fast fashion’s super cheap, that's the only reason. If I could afford something more sustainable, I would.

Do you think a large availability of cheap and trendy clothing is better for the consumer (financially, personally, etc.)?

In the article “Fast Fashion: The Golden Child Of Overconsumption”, Isabella Savides investigates who is ultimately responsible for the disasters of fast fashion and overconsumption. To get an idea as to what these disasters are, Savides mentions “fast fashion isn’t just bad for trends and the perception of fashion” and that “even the type of fabrics used — both natural and synthetic — can result in the same negative [environmental] consequences.” 

When Savides says fast fashion is bad for trends and the perception of fashion, she means fast fashion caters to retail therapy and creates what is known as “micro-trends.” Micro-trends are transient yet fleeting style trends that typically go out of style within a month or two. As fast fashion puts micro-trends into the overall fashion trend cycle, Savides says this further perpetuates fast fashion’s problems. When discussing the fabrics used for cheap clothing and their negative environmental consequences, Savides provides an example of how materials such as polyester create harmful micro-fibers and that natural materials like leather undergo harsh chemical treatments that release toxic waste.

Going back to who bears the responsibilities of fast fashion and overconsumption, Savides says the morals of fast fashion companies are not our duty to change. In fact, she asserts that the “blame should not be put onto students or average-income people who simply can’t afford a linen-based capsule closet with two pairs of leather boots and a single duck-down coat per season.” Instead, Savides believes people who choose to have thousand dollar Shein and Zara shopping sprees are more to blame since they thoughtlessly discard almost all their clothing.