BY SHINAE TAYLOR In one way or another, we’re all familiar with fashion magazines. I’m talking about Vogue, Elle and Harper’s Bazaar - the kind of brand-focused print media typically marketed towards young middle class women in the Western world. While not all of us regularly consume print versions of these magazines, they certainly play a role in creating the identities of women in the contemporary period. With the print industry rapidly declining, as seen in Bauer Media’s closure of magazines such as Cleo, Madison and Grazia (Meade 2020), the future of fashion magazines is looking shaky. While magazines are notorious for controversies around photo retouching, body shaming and racial bias, the fashion industry itself is inherently exploitative. Clothes are produced by sweatshop labourers, then worn by thin, body-conscious models, sold in-store by a casual and largely female labor force, while profits go towards multi-million and billion dollar companies. Given that these magazines are centred on such an unethical industry, it is unsurprising that fashion magazines pose a range of barriers to inclusive forms of female empowerment. This article explores how fashion magazines created a new kind of hyper- individualistic, pro-consumer, ‘girl power’ identity, and asks whether the industry should be revived. A New Kind of Feminism Fashion magazines promote a brand of neoliberal (a.k.a ‘girl power’) feminism that is inherently racist, classist and discriminatory based on body size and appearance. Neoliberalism is an economic and political model focused on freedom for markets and individuals. Common features include privatisation, deregulation, low taxation and minimal government intervention in markets (Pusey 2018). Since rapidly expanding in the 1980s, neoliberalism is the dominant socio-political framework that shapes the millennial experience. Individuality, a key neoliberalist concept, has significantly impacted mainstream feminist discourse in the Western world. In the mainstream media having a high salary, running a successful business and being recognised by formal awards are three feats increasingly promoted as evidence of gender ‘equality’ and ‘empowerment’, despite being attainable by a small minority of women. Magazines like Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar emanate a hedonistic (pleasure-seeking) form of hyper-individualism that encourages women to ‘stand out from the crowd’ via the purchase of commodities. Placement of terms like ‘self-care’ next to clothing or beauty products works to associate consumption with feelings of self-actualisation and empowerment. The inclusion of high-agency, hyper-individualistic slogans, directly contradict the anti-ageing products, luxury fashion items and cosmetic procedures that are prominently and unabashedly featured throughout a magazine’s glossy pages. To be empowered, you must consume. To consume, you must be empowered, at least financially. For the majority of the population the financial ability to buy high self-esteem in the form of Calvin Klein jeans is entirely unfeasible. Neoliberal feminism, being individualist and pro- consumption in nature, is built upon the structural exclusion of women who lie outside of the white, middle class and able-bodied ideal of fashion magazines. The atomisation of the collective, in this case young women, contributes not only to a sense of alienation, but also obfuscates structural inequalities by shifting the focus from macro-level politics to the individual. The Future of Fashion Magazines Magazines are dependent on the textile, beauty and wellness industries which are founded upon the exploitation of female labourers, animals and the natural environment. In acknowledging these connections, it’s clear that any magazine dependent on these industries will cause bodily and ideological harm to people who don’t fit the narrow ideal that magazines propose. Critical theory can help to illuminate some of these connections, which are often so well hidden in the bright and colourful pages of the magazines. One of these is Marxist feminism, which recognizes “capitalism as a set of structures, practices, institutions, incentives, and sensibilities that promote the exploitation of labor, the alienation of human beings, and the debasement of freedom” (Stefano 2014). Looking at magazines from a Marxist-Feminist perspective, it’s clear that class, race and able-bodied privilege, topics well-neglected by fashion columnists, determine how women are treated by the artificial world of Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar. While this leads to the conclusion to dismiss fashion magazines, for some of us it’s not so easy. Magazines represent a medium for women’s voices, even if they are only the most privileged members of society. Historically they have been used to share stories, insights and support. With bright imagery and a distinctive style of collage, fashion magazines are also a unique form of creative expression. For some of us, old copies of Vogue or Harper’s Bazaar may be a source of nostalgia, identity and connection to ideas, trends and movements beyond our small social sphere. For every middle class woman enjoying the latest issue, there are scores of women who are excluded on the basis of their body size, age, race, class and disability. Fashion magazines’ danger lies in their obfuscated connections to the creation of a pro-consumption, hyper- individualistic ‘girl power’ which hurts the majority of women. This ideological paradox is an example of what Marx calls ‘false consciousness’, or in other words, a kind of ‘error’ or 'illusion’ of perception (Finlayson 2016, p.16). Considering the exploitative nature of the fashion industry, it’s hard to imagine what an emancipatory fashion magazine might look like, primarily because a resolution would depend upon a dramatic subversion of class, gender, and psychosomatic norms. If successful, this societal transformation would revolutionise our concepts of ‘fashion’ and ‘beauty’. We also have to acknowledge that historically speaking, aesthetic ideals have long been the domain of the elite and ruling classes, making it difficult to foresee what clothing would look like beyond the accepted fashion trends, which originate from a social, political and economic system built upon exploitation of labour and women’s bodies. There’s something particularly cruel about selling, quite literally, what ought to be an emancipatory ideology to impressionable young women. Gender equality isn’t something you can sell for $29.95. It’s the product of ongoing collective organisation, equal representation and dedication to creating a more livable and equitable world for humans and the natural environment.
0 Comments
BY CLARE MEGAHEY This week across Australia, the floristry business is in full bloom, romantic partners are frantically shopping for presents, and children are going to great efforts with thoughtful, hand-crafted gifts. In case you have forgotten, Mother’s Day is on Sunday, and the pressure is on for families to plan the perfect day for the most important women in their lives. But is the day just reserved for those who have birthed or raised children, or can we also celebrate other kinds of mothers, alongside less traditional notions of motherhood? While conventionally we understand mother in the definitional sense to mean the woman who gave birth to you, society on the whole has progressed beyond this nuclear familial dynamic alone to valuing a mother as someone who brings you up and raises you. In some cultures, it is common for extended families or even whole communities to bring up children together, within a wide support network. As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child. Mothers remain the most important figures in this process as the bearers of life, an understanding that is universal. Mother’s Day has been celebrated all over the globe for thousands of years, even before it was widely commercialised. The world and those within it may be rich with diversity, but humanity shares these key ideas on what it means to be a mother and feels very strongly about how significant they are. You may not have birthed or raised a child, or mothered in the traditional sense, but motherhood means more than rearing or caring for someone. Motherhood is nurturing, cultivating, and passionately providing. In the twenty-first century, forms of motherhood are seemingly endless. Plenty of people mother pets or plants, or even non-inanimate objects too. Once associated with lonely, elderly women with too many felines, women are now subverting the previously insulting crazy cat lady stereotype and adopting it with endearment to express their love for the animals. Plant-obsessed millennials proudly share snaps online of the cacti and succulents they have successfully kept alive. Booklovers make DIY cloth slips to protect the books they carry around and dust their shelves to keep their collections clean. There are countless examples of mothering things that aren’t children. Whilst those who carry and care for children deserve the utmost respect, the notion of mothering is not something reserved to describe the parents and carers of offspring. Being a mother or enacting maternal practices means so much more than fulfilling a role; it comes with inevitable responsibility and unconditional love. Mothering isn’t the incessant nagging or constant embarrassment with which it is so often associated. It is the strength in how much you care, and how you show it. Motherhood can be seen in the everyday, in those who love something so deeply that they will do everything in their power to ensure its wellbeing. Everyone is driven by maternal instincts, to some degree. The more we indulge them, the richer our lives become. On Mother’s Day, make sure you spoil your mum and show her how much you love her. At the same time, however, take the opportunity to acknowledge the ways you mother in your life. Perhaps you procrasti-bake for your housemates when the deadlines get too stressful or spend too much of your paycheck on cute outfits for your furry friend who has no concept of money. Be inspired by the spirit of the day because you might find you could improve on them! Maybe your ferns could use a little more love, or fertiliser. Celebrate Mother’s Day with your family, but also with yourself. Pat yourself on the back or treat yourself to a cheeky champagne because your pets and plants are still alive. Non-traditional mothers and mothering deserve recognition too! BY LUCJA JASTRZĘBSKA Since the success of the textile design within Indigenous communities, Australian luxury fashion has been transformed from Country to Couture. For example, with big fashion names such as Gorman collaborating with Aboriginal artists. However, this stems deeper as it has also signalled a way forward, grounding community relationships for Indigenous fashion design which is vital for the grounding for Australian society in its historical roots. Firstly, in order to recognise why it is so important for Indigenous designers in Australia to be recognised, and celebrated, one needs to understand Australian history. Many do not realise that Indigenous Australians have influenced modern Australian dress for a long time. Since stealing, purchasing, borrowing and wearing Indigenous materials for over two hundred years, Europeans have been fascinated with Indigenous skills and aesthetics ever since Australia was discovered. For instance, from possum skin cloaks and booka kangaroo capes to shell necklaces in Tasmania (that are the staple item of jewellery to every wannabe surfer globally). Although traditional dress practices of the Aboriginals were banned by the colonisers, along with other practices such as their ceremonies and language. However, influential fusions of fashion also appeared expressing revolutionary signs of resistance during oppressive times. This is as the Colonialists taught western-style leatherwork and needlecraft which the Indigenous people fused with their own techniques to create a new unique style in Australia. Aboriginal fashion flourished in mid-20th century when missionary nuns in North Australia allowed Indigenous women to craft their own textiles. Although it is preposterous that they were denied to do so from the start, this allowed brightly coloured fabrics to be used with unique amalgamations of themes. As Indigenous Art Centres were established across Australia during the 1970s, the fruitful hybrid of art and textile design generated solely new looks which lead to the Indigenous textile revolution. This prominently features in Australian design nowadays. With Australia’s dark history of the treatment of Aboriginal people, it is extremely important that Indigenous culture is remembered and celebrated. Therefore, it is inspiring that Australia’s indigenous fashion industry is thriving today. This allows those who once suffered for being Aboriginal to be empowered within some of the biggest Australian fashion brand collaborations. One of the most prominent examples of Australian brands collaborating with Aboriginal designers is Australia’s fashion brand Gorman. In their upcoming season, they teamed up with Mangkaja Arts Resource Agency in Western Australia, producing a collaborative collection (Mangkaja x Gorman), which will be launched at the Museum of Contemporary Art in NSW and Darwin Aboriginal Art Fair. The Collaboration is Gorman’s first with Indigenous artists which does raise the question of why this collaboration was not carried out sooner? However, such collaborations may take a while to finish, as ‘Mangkaja x Gorman’ took two years to complete, it is fundamental that all cultures and human accomplishments are exhibited. One of the artists collaborating with Gorman was Lisa Uhl, her spoken language being Wangkajunga and country being Kurtal. Through her abstracted paintings, Lisa, showed her love of her country that capture the stories from her elders. Although Lisa had never been to the country she had inherited from her ancestors, as she was limited by her physical disability, her works are a tapestry of empirical experience referring to the rich colour of the Kimberly. This can be relatable for those who observe her work as many who view her paintings have not been to the country that they grew up on, yet learn of its past and history from those who lived before them. Lisa passed away at a young age due to kidney failure. A condition that restricts so many people within Aboriginal Communities due to the lack of healthy food, expense and poor water quality. Her grand talent should illustrate that it does not matter who you are, or where you come from, everyone is capable of something incredible. They should not be stopped because society demands them to stay invisible. Their talent should be celebrated. No This is why these collaborations between Australian brands and Aboriginal designers are so important. Not only does it celebrate Indigenous culture, but allows people’s legacy, such as Lisa’s, to live on in her incredible artwork. Such collaborations should also illustrate that everyone is the same. Thus, everyone deserves the same chances in life which includes basic human necessities such as healthy food and medical expenses. Let these collaborations demonstrate that much more needs to be done to show equality between Aboriginal people and Australians so that the wounds that were crying out can be healed. BY EMMA GOLDRICK Fast fashion is a global business model that, unbeknownst to consumers, is currently one of the most environmentally taxing industries in the world. Fast fashion is a term which refers to the high turnover of inexpensive and poor-quality clothing products, marketed to consumers as the latest trends. Behind these short expiring trends is an industry of immense environmental destruction, responsible for emitting the equivalent of 1.2 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. Global companies such as Zara, H&M and Uniqlo pioneered rapid turnover clothing, launching the fast fashion industry as we know it today - and the environmental consequences that accompany it. The clothing and footwear sold by these companies are manufactured and consumed at an unprecedented frequency, which only increases poor production practices and excessive waste. Psychologically, fast fashion leads people to discard products and consume new products faster than ever, in order to keep up with the latest trending piece of fashion. Fast fashion uses directive marketing (specifically online) to target demographics susceptible to social pressures such as teenagers. The industry capitalises on people who are seeking validation and acceptance, marketing the products as a point of social relevance, again this is a phenomena that has only increased with the prevalence of social media marketing. The pressure of online marketing played a substantial role in the rapid acceleration of fast fashion into mainstream society. In the face of a climate catastrophe, citizens are beginning to publicly shame and boycott industries that actively support or contribute to environmental destruction. However, the environmental consequences of the international textile trade are largely overlooked. Individuals continue to consume fast fashion, without knowing it has a significant contribution to climate change. The exact environmental impact of fast fashion is complicated to pinpoint, as operations carry over multiple levels of production and factories, transcend countries and have an ever-present waste life. Major issues in the environmentally intensive process of garment production include water pollution and consumption, waste accumulation, rainforest destruction, soil degradation and increases greenhouse gas emissions. The garment industry is also responsible for increased levels of microplastics and microfibers in our oceans, threatening aquatic life. Polyester, the most common fabric in the garment industry, sheds these microfibres with every wash. It is estimated that the washing of a single synthetic clothing item results in 1900 individual microfibers released into our waterways. In order to prevent the polluting of our waterways, individuals need to move away from fast fashion and towards more sustainable products such as natural fibres. The poor-quality of fast fashion leads to only 15% of clothing being recycled or donated, with the rest destined to end up accumulating in landfill. Waste accumulation from clothing is increasingly problematic, with 85% of textiles bought in Australia sent to landfill each year. The rapid adoption of fast fashion by businesses and consumers alike has led it to become the second biggest polluter in the world – second only to oil. The ecological and climate emergency is being fuelled by fashion giants then consumed by people in a never-ending fast fashion cycle. |