This is a first. It is a response to 2 comments I have had. One came from eco-boudoir on 'eco-bling' and the other was from 'anonymous' on Pig Business. My response is mostly about eco-boudoir and their contribution to the type of comment made by 'anonymous'.
Re: Eco Boudoir: This sort of 'environmentalism' capitalizes on and creates a desire to be a certain type of 'green' - 'conspicuously green'. It embodies consumer culture rather than challenging it. Given the premium prices of these ‘green’ products, being conspicuously green communicates the message: I buy green because I can afford to.
Being green is therefore often portrayed as a middle/upper class endeavour pursued by those who can afford the ethical lifestyle that reaffirms their social status.
The effect of 'eco-bling' is that the majority of the world's people see being green as a luxury decision, one they can't afford to take - see the comment made by 'Anonymous' to my Pig Business article. The truth is that being green is not an expensive thing to do, it is in fact cheaper than being materialistic, it shouldn't cost you more money to be green! NEF have identified 'Five ways to Wellbeing' that are summarised by these headings: Connect... Be Active... Take Notice... Keep Learning...and...Give. Sustainability is about doing all these things in environmentally and socially responsible ways - Enjoying life without compromising the ability of others to enjoy theirs. The possibilities are endless!
Supposedly ethically 'wise' wealthy westerners should not, in my view, still be painting the consumption of luxury, expensive, materially dependent goods and services as the definition of success, happiness and the good life. It is irrelevant whether the good is produced ethically or not, the message is still: 'You need to be indulgent and extravagant to be a sophisticated woman.' The ethical messaging just adds 'green' to that sentence, you can place it before indulgent or after sophisticated. Most people can't afford luxury goods at all let alone pay an added green premium, they therefore opt for the cheaper unsustainable option, whether that be pants, pork, paint or pull overs even if they want to be green. They also get frustrated with the smug, rich and conspicuously green.
It all comes down to how people define what it is to be 'green', we can't go on defining being green as being a consumerist. As convenient as it would be, consumerism and environmentalism can't exist hand in hand. Einstein said: “You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew.” As environmentalists we need to help people let go of consumerist values (consciousness) and crucially show the way to more fulfilling lives that are less dependent on material goods and services that promise but never really deliver happiness and wellbeing. This is what people like NEF and Tom Hodgkinson are trying to do, maybe the people at Eco-Boudoir could get involved and stop winding up people like 'anonymous' and me!
Still unclear? Read Stewart Barr on the myth of green living
Showing posts with label eco-boudoir. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eco-boudoir. Show all posts
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Saturday, 23 May 2009
Getting my knickers in a twist
Got this advert in my email today:
Attached was this invitation:
"Come and visit design director, Yvonne Ellis at Harvey Nichols, Knightsbridge. She will be talking about our SS09 collection on May 24th - 27th from 12 noon to 7pm. We will be offering an organic silk and Bamboo eye mask with every purchase. We look forward to seeing you there. With love Eco-boudoir x"
The tag line on the Eco-boudoir website is this: 'Luxury materials produced in the most eco-friendly way.'
On thier 'philosophy' pages they say this: "We have made eco sexy" But, what if it doesn't want to be sexy, what if it being sexy is actually a bad thing? I don't think we should be encouraging people to be conspicuosly green, because you're not then asking them to question conspicuous consumption.
Eco-bling drives me up the wall. The most 'eco-friendly' thing to do would be to not make 'luxury materials' in the first place. Companies like this take the attitude that 'we simply must have luxury lingerie for the ladies of Knightsbridge, the world would be so much poorer without it.' How about asking whether we should still be defining luxury in this way and whether the world really needs a company that sells pants for £40 each? More importantly does it need a company that adds to the idea that women should aspire to buy a Bamboo Summer Camisole and Shorts for £149? On the philosophy part of their website they say this: 'Eco Boudoir offers the woman who understands style and extravagance, everything she needs for indulgence and intimacy; from the sexiest and silkiest underwear against her skin to the softest of throws and cushions.' Should the environmental movement be getting pally with people who have 'needs' for indulgence and 'understand', the (assumedly positive) value of, 'extravagance'?
I'm sure the people who run Eco Boudoir are good people with good intentions and they do do a lot of work to raise awareness of the environmental and social impacts of knicker production see this video. But, maybe they should be questioning the the very existence of the product, not just the way it is produced, because lets face it, nobody really needs a £325 printed silk dressing gown do they?
Attached was this invitation:
"Come and visit design director, Yvonne Ellis at Harvey Nichols, Knightsbridge. She will be talking about our SS09 collection on May 24th - 27th from 12 noon to 7pm. We will be offering an organic silk and Bamboo eye mask with every purchase. We look forward to seeing you there. With love Eco-boudoir x"
The tag line on the Eco-boudoir website is this: 'Luxury materials produced in the most eco-friendly way.'
On thier 'philosophy' pages they say this: "We have made eco sexy" But, what if it doesn't want to be sexy, what if it being sexy is actually a bad thing? I don't think we should be encouraging people to be conspicuosly green, because you're not then asking them to question conspicuous consumption.
Eco-bling drives me up the wall. The most 'eco-friendly' thing to do would be to not make 'luxury materials' in the first place. Companies like this take the attitude that 'we simply must have luxury lingerie for the ladies of Knightsbridge, the world would be so much poorer without it.' How about asking whether we should still be defining luxury in this way and whether the world really needs a company that sells pants for £40 each? More importantly does it need a company that adds to the idea that women should aspire to buy a Bamboo Summer Camisole and Shorts for £149? On the philosophy part of their website they say this: 'Eco Boudoir offers the woman who understands style and extravagance, everything she needs for indulgence and intimacy; from the sexiest and silkiest underwear against her skin to the softest of throws and cushions.' Should the environmental movement be getting pally with people who have 'needs' for indulgence and 'understand', the (assumedly positive) value of, 'extravagance'?
I'm sure the people who run Eco Boudoir are good people with good intentions and they do do a lot of work to raise awareness of the environmental and social impacts of knicker production see this video. But, maybe they should be questioning the the very existence of the product, not just the way it is produced, because lets face it, nobody really needs a £325 printed silk dressing gown do they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)