I revisited this after seeing the link for the audio interview. Long-form audio is inaccessible to me in this context, but I figured this is as good a time as any to crystallize my response to this line of argument, getting beyond my initial reaction last year of "what nonsense" and moving on.
Everything is political. "They shouldn't be so political - they should just [surface level of what they do]" almost always means "there is a political reality embedded here that I am uncomfortable with, and I do not wish to be made uncomfortable." It's telling that he's fine with "elegant" (ignorable) references, too. MLK Jr's "negative piece that is the absence of tension instead of the positive peace that is the presence of justice" all over.
It's especially shocking to support this view by saying they can't effect change so they should keep shtum. Fashion brands most certainly can effect change if they choose to do so. The fact that so many virtue signal without challenging themselves to follow through is an indictment of THEM, not of "being political." By all means, excoriate them for hypocrisy! Urge them to do better! But "ugh, you're not fixing anything, just stop pretending" is ... well, it's not a good look.
But he really tells on himself with "before cancel culture went into lunatic overdrive." The only thing that's going into "lunatic overdrive" is authoritarian forces lashing out at civil rights and diverse inclusion. Getting back to Ukraine: consider some of the culture war cries coming out of Russia, indeed that have been raised there since well before Rabkin's 2015 op-ed - "distasteful" barely scratches the surface. The last 7 years in the US have been bruising, but the table was being set for its most disgusting excesses - for decades - by the collaborative and synergistic work of dozens of organizations representing the most unpopular views in the country, from the smallest local abortion clinic harassment group to the Federalist Society.
There will always be pockets of slacktivists and purity testers, and it's frustrating that they provide talking points for disingenuous critiques of movements to improve societies. Corporate cooptation is gross, too. He is right, for example, that Lagerfeld's "feminism" diorama was fakery, but "Fashion is frivolous by nature" is nonsense, too. Fashion is not a single thing, to start with, but since the garment industry presides over so much abuse and unfairness, it really has to be held to account. Insisting on immunity from politics with that backdrop is far more "distasteful" than any dumb cooptation of a topical political concern.
I hear his point, but it also sounds a little bitter. Is he truly upset with another refugee for bringing attention to the worst atrocities and supporting and waving Ukraine flag?? As a Belorussian refugee he sounds like he is not happy about it?
Even though there is a lot of virtue signaling and sometimes, what seems like shallow efforts by companies to seem socially aware, I think as you say, the awareness is what we need and what is making a change in this world. I don't see us going back to a time where we compartmentalize everything. From here on, consumers want to see that companies care, and as the government is not always making change, or in the case of Florida, making decisions that will hurt others, so we can speak with our dollars and bring change in that small way, which in turn becomes a sea change.
What a bunch of nonsense. Fashion has ALWAYS been political. "But A) fashion is not in the business of social change, nor can it be. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous proposition. B) as a medium of expression, fashion is severely limited"
This statement right here is offensive to everyone from the fashion designers who make art we can wear to the suffragettes who wore white to the punks thumbing their noses at society to Jews who were made to wear yellow stars to women forced to wear hijabs to ...the list goes on and on and on how wrong this 'critic' is. I'm pissed he gets any kind of platform as he clearly has not done his homework even a little. He even refers to his own socio-economic Brooklyn upbringing as Blue Collar--hello?? How clueless can you be?
This is a really interesting perspective from Eugene Rabkin, and I enjoyed being challenged by it, so thanks for sharing Amy! I don't necessarily agree with the idea that fashion can't be political. The magic of great fashion writing for example, has always been its ability to merge what's happening in society with what we wear and journalists like Robin Givhan and Amy Odell do that so well. However, I know first hand that it's easy to get jaded working in fashion when you see slogan tees with BS messaging and only 0.0001% of the sales going to the charity that's mentioned on the slogan. That said, I think most consumers want to do something, anything, to feel that their money and spending habits are making the world better and not worse. And if fashion is providing a vehicle for that, which means that instead of doing nothing, consumers are doing something, then that's a win. There will always be people who will campaign and march, and others who will just donate through what they wear, but on some level I think that we're all just trying to make this world a little less awful and a little more loving.
To the point. There is a cognitive dissonance between fashion and politics. To use the war in The Ukraine as a marketing device, to position the brand on the right side of history is intellectually dishonest, or so it seems to me.
I revisited this after seeing the link for the audio interview. Long-form audio is inaccessible to me in this context, but I figured this is as good a time as any to crystallize my response to this line of argument, getting beyond my initial reaction last year of "what nonsense" and moving on.
Everything is political. "They shouldn't be so political - they should just [surface level of what they do]" almost always means "there is a political reality embedded here that I am uncomfortable with, and I do not wish to be made uncomfortable." It's telling that he's fine with "elegant" (ignorable) references, too. MLK Jr's "negative piece that is the absence of tension instead of the positive peace that is the presence of justice" all over.
It's especially shocking to support this view by saying they can't effect change so they should keep shtum. Fashion brands most certainly can effect change if they choose to do so. The fact that so many virtue signal without challenging themselves to follow through is an indictment of THEM, not of "being political." By all means, excoriate them for hypocrisy! Urge them to do better! But "ugh, you're not fixing anything, just stop pretending" is ... well, it's not a good look.
But he really tells on himself with "before cancel culture went into lunatic overdrive." The only thing that's going into "lunatic overdrive" is authoritarian forces lashing out at civil rights and diverse inclusion. Getting back to Ukraine: consider some of the culture war cries coming out of Russia, indeed that have been raised there since well before Rabkin's 2015 op-ed - "distasteful" barely scratches the surface. The last 7 years in the US have been bruising, but the table was being set for its most disgusting excesses - for decades - by the collaborative and synergistic work of dozens of organizations representing the most unpopular views in the country, from the smallest local abortion clinic harassment group to the Federalist Society.
There will always be pockets of slacktivists and purity testers, and it's frustrating that they provide talking points for disingenuous critiques of movements to improve societies. Corporate cooptation is gross, too. He is right, for example, that Lagerfeld's "feminism" diorama was fakery, but "Fashion is frivolous by nature" is nonsense, too. Fashion is not a single thing, to start with, but since the garment industry presides over so much abuse and unfairness, it really has to be held to account. Insisting on immunity from politics with that backdrop is far more "distasteful" than any dumb cooptation of a topical political concern.
I hear his point, but it also sounds a little bitter. Is he truly upset with another refugee for bringing attention to the worst atrocities and supporting and waving Ukraine flag?? As a Belorussian refugee he sounds like he is not happy about it?
Even though there is a lot of virtue signaling and sometimes, what seems like shallow efforts by companies to seem socially aware, I think as you say, the awareness is what we need and what is making a change in this world. I don't see us going back to a time where we compartmentalize everything. From here on, consumers want to see that companies care, and as the government is not always making change, or in the case of Florida, making decisions that will hurt others, so we can speak with our dollars and bring change in that small way, which in turn becomes a sea change.
What a bunch of nonsense. Fashion has ALWAYS been political. "But A) fashion is not in the business of social change, nor can it be. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous proposition. B) as a medium of expression, fashion is severely limited"
This statement right here is offensive to everyone from the fashion designers who make art we can wear to the suffragettes who wore white to the punks thumbing their noses at society to Jews who were made to wear yellow stars to women forced to wear hijabs to ...the list goes on and on and on how wrong this 'critic' is. I'm pissed he gets any kind of platform as he clearly has not done his homework even a little. He even refers to his own socio-economic Brooklyn upbringing as Blue Collar--hello?? How clueless can you be?
This is a really interesting perspective from Eugene Rabkin, and I enjoyed being challenged by it, so thanks for sharing Amy! I don't necessarily agree with the idea that fashion can't be political. The magic of great fashion writing for example, has always been its ability to merge what's happening in society with what we wear and journalists like Robin Givhan and Amy Odell do that so well. However, I know first hand that it's easy to get jaded working in fashion when you see slogan tees with BS messaging and only 0.0001% of the sales going to the charity that's mentioned on the slogan. That said, I think most consumers want to do something, anything, to feel that their money and spending habits are making the world better and not worse. And if fashion is providing a vehicle for that, which means that instead of doing nothing, consumers are doing something, then that's a win. There will always be people who will campaign and march, and others who will just donate through what they wear, but on some level I think that we're all just trying to make this world a little less awful and a little more loving.
To the point. There is a cognitive dissonance between fashion and politics. To use the war in The Ukraine as a marketing device, to position the brand on the right side of history is intellectually dishonest, or so it seems to me.