Would you like a metal straw with your luxury tote bag?
Exploring the complexities of luxury, lifestyle and the race against climate change.
Disclaimer: I should start off by declaring that I support the fight against climate change and remain to be conscious of my ecological stewardship. The intention of this article is to merely contribute to the debate about environmentalism and social justice. Additionally, I do not have the answers to all the questions posed in this article. Rather, I hope my words provoke a conversation between friends and family.
The breadth of literature I read surrounding classism and privilege in society still did not equip me enough to handle a brief conversation with a friend in the library. I had complimented her new bag and she had notified me that it was from a sustainable shop that recycled fabric materials from cars. Expensive is what came to mind but before asking, she had already pointed out that it only cost £80 ($100). The purpose of this anecdote was not to shame my friend. She strongly believes she is doing her part as a global citizen and I strongly support her decision. Nonetheless, her handbag stimulated a debate that I had never considered before. Is actively fighting climate change part of a luxury lifestyle?
The Eco-privilege problem.
This is not a term I was familiar with until my thoughts regarding the matter became more prominent. Eco- privilege is a term coined by Dorceta Taylor who referred it to the ability of privileged groups to keep environmental amenities to themselves. Similarly known as “green gentrification”, it is evident within ecologism as a political ideology. Living in Brighton for the last three years (what is known as the centre of the green movement in the UK), I definitely felt the wave of pressure from seeing others who are from an economic advantage change their lifestyle to protect the environment (so far as voting the only Green Party MP into Parliament). However as I spent more time in the town and noticed more sustainable shops in the narrow Laines, I started to question whether further popularity of a sustainable lifestyle amongst higher classes could be a destructive force.
I searched the answer in my own lifestyle habits. As a keen thrifter, buying second hand has never been a sacrifice to me. I take the phrase “one mans junk is another mans treasure” very seriously (although this stems from my pragmatic lifestyle rather than a moral obligation to the environment). As a result, I have justified my over consumption of second hand clothing as a moral duty to my environment. The Guardian reported that half of 25-to-34-year-olds have sold old clothes in the last year, compared with 35% of consumers as a whole and more than half buy second hand clothes. In the USA, the value of sales of pre-owned goods are expected to more than double to 51 billion by 2023. Second hand fashion is cute, cheap and hey, good for the environment I guess. Despite this new trend, second hand clothing has always been around. So who was buying from charity shops before us?
The idea of reselling preloved items gained recognition when it was seen a way to solve the problem of over consumption and help lower income families who could not afford to buy branded items. As a someone who is strongly opposed to gentrification, it finally occurred to me that I contributed to the gentrification of second hand fashion. In my three years in Brighton, I have not seen a second hand Nike/Adidas hoodie that does not cost less than £25 (25 is considered very cheap). After speaking to a local who had lived there for decades, he had notified me that it used to cost no more than £15 before 2013. Nevertheless, I decided to continue with the bargain kilo sales until I realised I was not the only one exploiting the second hand clothing industry. I witnessed a group of young experts who were buying second hand clothing in bulk, in order to resell at a higher price. The second hand industry was now becoming a victim of capitalism through the act of price gouging. Although fast fashion is problematic in many ways, over consumption is at the top of the list and unfortunately this does not go away even if we get rid of it. Society has trained us to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values (thank you neoliberalism). This is not eradicated by the simple act of going to a kilo sale once a month. If we are privileged enough to compulsively buy secondhand that is now out pricing families from poorer backgrounds who are unable to access it and resort to fast fashion, are we still making the ecological impact we want?
Beyond the scope of fashion, green gentrification and eco-privilege has also taken shape in what my friend like to call “the co-opting of wellness by white women”. Luxury female brands and lifestyle magazines glamourising healthy eating foods like Quinoa which were technically first eaten and locally grown by Native South American’s for centuries who are now unable to buy it at an affordable price in the USA. As a Kenyan myself, I always like to pride myself on the fact that I used to eat Kale (sukuma wiki) before it was trendy.
Nevertheless, though these acts have negative consequences on other members of the community, they are done with the intention of helping the green movement. When this becomes a problem however, is when such groups do not accept their privilege and continue to condemn others for being unable to do so (economically).
Moral Imperialism.
The term is broadly used to describe the imposition of a set of moral values onto a culture that does not share those values, however I believe it still implies to this current debate. Though it is not widely popular to shame, I admit that economically advantaged classes have culturally criticised those who are unable to pursue a sustainable lifestyle.
Earlier this year I posted on a Facebook group dedicated to women living and working in Brighton. Expressing my frustration with the ignorance within the green movement in town, I asked people whether one had to be privileged in order to protect the environment with their lifestyle choices. Though I received a lot of comments that agreed with me, some opposed responses included “second hand clothes are cheaper” and “being a vegan is not that expensive”.
A woman messaged me shortly after and said:
“ Imagine for a second, you are a working class single woman with three children. You take child tax credits so your children receive free school meals in school. You take your children to breakfast and after school club because you basically work a 12 hour shift to earn minimum wage. It’s 5pm and you need to make them dinner so you pop to the shop before you pick them up. You see all the posts on facebook and instagram about being vegan and read all the recipes on how to be alternative however you don’t have the time (or energy)to make that everyday for 4 children. You opt for a bag of frozen cod and fish instead.”
As a vegan, you may find some inconsistencies in this argument so I have addressed them for you. The first one being that this woman did not complain about the price of veganism, but instead the time. To her, she felt as if this was the same thing. Secondly, we all understand that there are bigger problems that hinder veganism. In this story, it is the insufferable hours of work with little pay and the promotion of foods such as frozen fish and chips rather than the production of vegan ready meal alternatives at the same price (for the same quantity). I did notify her that frozen vegetables at an affordable price (and great quantity) were available although it did not occur to me that three children under the age of 11 were not going to exclusively eat vegetables 7 days a week, 365 days a year. This woman wanted to be vegan, and though being a vegan is not expensive, NOT being one was certainly cheaper for her (time spent learning and making vegan foods she could’ve spent working for money). Do we have a right to criticise her lifestyle? and does our criticism come from a place of privilege? Like Mary Imgrund said in her 2018 article, “Subjugated groups like people of color and the working poor cannot not see themselves as part of the culture. It’s not that they don’t understand the urgency of environmental collapse, but they have more urgent problems in their lives”. Another comment on the Facebook post was also keen to point out that this moral shaming extends beyond classism. As a plus size herself, she claims that second hand clothing is known to be very limited in sizing.
While carrying out research for this article, I stumbled upon a Reddit forum on whether the working class should be exempt from the green movement. My first thought to this question was yes. These groups are at a disadvantage through no fault of their own but instead through the accident of birth. The problem with my answer however, was that I was looking at their environmental impact through my own lens. It did not occur to me that these groups contribute to the green movement in other ways that even I can say I do not.The Government Office for Science reported in 2019 that lower income households were the least likely to own a car, or even go on holiday and thus do not contribute to carbon emissions as much as other classes. They are also less likely to have a disposable income that will feed consumerist habits (unnecessary shopping, getting the latest gadgets) that are bad for the environment. And if we were to look outside the Western Scope, the United Nation have declared that it is disadvantaged groups that suffer the most from climate change.
Alas, if all the statistics and points of view have confused you, perhaps my friend Hannah’s response to my Facebook question will provide you with a short and concise answer.
“In short, yes of course it’s a privilege and so much of the environmental movement is inherently classist. It’s also all been co opted by capitalism so at this point we can barely see the wood from the trees”.
Even if you don’t agree with her statement. It does pose a further question; is the green movement within the middle class successful if it revolves around products, capitalism and purchase power?
The underlying problem:
I understand all my articles end with the tone that capitalism is the root of all our problems however any true environmentalist will argue that the side effects of capitalism has had detrimental impact to our environment.
Murray Bookchin argues that capitalism has constructed a new version of environmentalism that convinces us that we can buy into the movement without making drastic lifestyle changes. Also known as green capitalism, it seeks to mystify the environmental crisis rather than raise awareness from it. According to Bookchin and other anti- capitalists in the green movement, green capitalism in itself is a dichotomy as the values of capitalism (such as competition and accumulation) are inherently anti-ecological. In short, the idea that if you buy the “right” product and take small steps like recycling and lowering emissions will save the planet is a lie. Environmental concern (like many things in society) has been commodified to turn into ideological support for capitalism.Capitalism cannot adapt to the green movement through the needs of consumers. We must actively seek to eradicate it if we want powerful change to the environment.
Conclusion
I started this article with an anecdote in which I was (kind of) shaming my friend about the luxury behind a sustainable lifestyle. As a black, Muslim woman I am so used to coming from marginalised groups that I did not even check my own privilege (because I am not used to having it).
As a reader, I hope you are not scrolling down to find the section where I tell you how to be a better member of the green movement because sadly there isn’t one. The truth is I am new to this too. I am also not writing this article to dictate your life or so you can feel bad about yourself. What I will ask you (and myself) to do however, is critically examine your actions and question whether they are meaningful. The first step for me was to recognise that substantial change must take place in order for the ecological crisis to be solved. These small tokenistic changes I made to my lifestyle that I pride myself on is not enough. Nor is it helpful to culturally shame those who earn less than us for not doing the same.
Similar articles that may interest you:
