We’ll all be familiar with the emotion. Your Instagram feed caught your eye with a stunning outfit, and you clicked over to learn more out of Pavlovian zeal. It has all the positive qualities: it’s free-range, small-batch, sustainable, and ethical. You next consider the cost. And your desire to cry.
As a person who invests a lot of time attempting to convince people to quit wearing fast fashion, the most challenging challenge I encounter is how to balance sustainable design with its higher price tag.According to a Cosmopolitan research, two-thirds of respondents don’t purchase sustainable fashion companies, and of those who do, 80% cite their “too expensive” price as the reason.
Because the cost of textiles, thread, pattern-making, equipment, and overheads is objectively fixed, despite the fact that the word “expensive” is not. Although the price of labor should not be negotiable either, people are frequently sacrificed in order to increase corporate margins.Globally, fewer than 2% of textile workers are paid a living wage. When we purchase a dress from a fast fashion retailer for £4, it is not cheap by accident; rather, it is affordable because someone else is footing the bill.
However, it is also reasonable to wonder how much of the total cost was a necessary spend and how much was a result of marketers taking advantage of our guilty conscience. capitalism as usual, but in organic cotton. What portion of our clothes cost, really? and what if we just can’t afford it?
First, we must acknowledge that the idea of “affording” something is a fuzzy one. From relying on food banks to support your family to purchasing a £1 bikini because you wanted a fourth vacation this year, it ranges from actual poverty to juggling priorities.
“I completely appreciate that quick style is the most practical choice for certain people because it is affordable, easily available, and doesn’t need hours of scouring. But I do believe that our conception of what is affordable needs to change for individuals who have a little more money to spend, says fashion critic Fedora Abu. “I am aware of many people who are able to make wiser decisions, but they simply prefer the illusion of having many options, therefore will buy dresses from Boohoo”
Clothing is one of the few exceptions to the rising cost of living in many areas, including housing, food, and transportation. This “race to the bottom” has diminished our outlook to a point where it is possible to think of a dress as being more perishable than a packet of toothpaste. And while the cheapest brands frequently claim that their products “democratize” fashion, this is a limited defense. We cannot ignore the world’s weakest and most vulnerable citizens while maintaining the pretense that adopting current fashions is some sort of inalienable human right.
No, the painful truth is that, because we’ve been socially programmed to think we need a wardrobe update every few weeks to be happy, the number of individuals who are unable to shell out more on their clothing is much, much fewer than the number who feel like they can’t. I acknowledge that there is some snobbery, but I also think that the [democratization] concept is being used to deprive consumers of any agency, even though we have a lot of power.
It might be challenging to balance your finances with a £500 dress, even after we’ve accepted that we must spend more to ensure that no one has been taken advantage of. I nearly feel my overdraft wince every time I see a certain overly-hyped, prairie-tastic sustainability brand on my Instagram feed. How then do we identify our financial comfort level?
Thankfully, not all eco-friendly brands will cost you hundreds of dollars.Price points for People Tree, Thought, Know The Origin, Mayamiko, We Are Kin, and Armed Angels would not be out of place on a high street. Then there are all the little artisans who sell their goods on Etsy, Depop, and Instagram. Visit Kez Made It for tulle creations that will stop traffic and Abbie Louise for minidresses.
Sancho’s, a sustainable clothing store in Exeter, has also just introduced “transparent pricing,” a novel concept that gives buyers the option of three different prices for the same item. The inspiration came from a note a subscriber sent expressing her love for a jumpsuit but inability to purchase it.
It seems like a dangerous move. Who would spend more money than they have to? Legesse freely acknowledges, “I was quite terrified. You also don’t want to minimize the efforts of the brand or our own team in marketing it. However, as pay-what-you-want establishments have shown, customers are willing to pay more when they are invested in the cause. It has been excellent! The number of individuals who are shelling out full price has startled me, she admits. “Those with financial privilege can use their authority to make it simpler for others to shop ethically rather than passing judgment on people for buying at Primark.”
Perhaps really “democratic” fashion involves people who are capable of spending more money rather than making things as affordable as possible, to support small SMES and subsidise those who can’t afford.
One of the most cheap methods to keep buying without nurturing the beast is to buy secondhand whenever possible. Charity stores serve a variety of purposes, such as fundraising and reuse and recycling, but they also offer low-cost apparel to those in need. Additionally, while well preserved vintage clothing may cost more than an H&M outfit, resale websites are treasure troves of barely-worn clothing at just a portion of the original cost. Do your research and check Depop, eBay, and Vinted before purchasing anything brand-new; it pays off.