Overconsumption is where goods are consumed to a point where there are not enough resources to replenish them. The primary driver of overconsumption is the social model that defines a person’s status and fulfilment by the acquisition of goods and services. We are deep in a cycle of buying, discarding, and upgrading material possessions as a form of reward. The backbone of consumerism is marketing: the fast turnovers of fashion trends and the perceived normality of wearing a new outfit every day enable consumers to always want more. This concept is known as manufactured consent: a term introduced by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. It refers to the ideologies created by media; we are conditioned to believe that we work and consume by choice; however, it is a system invented to maintain hierarchies of wealth and power. Actions such as following trends and expressing yourself are presented as original thought, but they are directed by fabricated cultures, forcing individuals to conform to institutional structures in society.
These ‘fabricated cultures’ are fuelled by some of the largest beneficiaries of capitalist production and exchange, Haute Couture brands. When a design or line of clothing is named as “Haute Couture”, it means it belongs to a list of high-end designers curated by the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture. The list only contains fifteen designers, and a strict criterion must be met, such as the number of technical workers, having an atelier (a studio in Paris), and producing custom designs for private clients. Members of the official list include Chanel, Christian Dior, Maison Margiela and more. Haute Couture designs are exclusive to wealthy, influential figures.
These brands are often associated with celebrities who spend an enormous amount of money on garments that will be worn for one event. The Met Gala, often criticised for its gross display of materialism, is a good example of the excessive greed induced by consumerist cycles. In 2022, Kim Kardashian wore a Marilyn Monroe gown, auctioned for nearly $5 million. A Met Gala ticket alone costs $250,000. The dress was 60 years old and not made to fit Kardashian’s body. Inevitably, the dress was damaged, which sparked outrage, particularly amplified by the extent of plastic surgery she had undergone. She became a symbol of vanity and fabrication. Many people considered her actions to be an insult to the image of Marilyn Monroe and the designer, Bob Mackie. The dress was designed for Monroe to wear at John F. Kennedy’s birthday. It was nicknamed “the naked dress”, made of skin coloured soufflé gauze, with no seams and over 2500 rhinestones. Its purpose was to be cheeky, provocative, and daring. It was a stunt, not a dress. To create the ‘naked’ illusion, the dress was customised to fit Monroe perfectly, and she had to be sewn into it. The dress was never supposed to be functional; it was a statement. When Kardashian walked up the Met Gala stairs, the fabric tore and diamonds fell off. It was a physical and metaphorical demonstration of how the Bob Mackie design was dragged through the dirt. The dress was very influential in its time. Monroe challenged modesty and censorship while celebrating female sexuality in the simple form of a dress. It was scandalous, cheeky and brilliant. Monroe was famous for her natural beauty and iconic fashion stunts. Kim Kardashian is a reality star known for her surgical body modifications, which she shamelessly advertises on social media. When Kardashian wore the dress to the Met Gala, she undermined everything that it represented. Furthermore, her actions were incredibly gluttonous and egotistical. She spent so much money on such an influential dress, only to wear it for one night and destroy it.
The consumers of Haute Couture brands are only part of the problem; the brands themselves also inflict extreme damage on the environment. In 2018, Burberry reported to have burnt $36 million worth of unsold clothes to avoid selling them at a discount. The brand has created extreme amounts of waste and pollution to reinforce their elitist values. The act of making fabrics has serious ethical and environmental concerns. Fabrics are harvested from raw materials: plants, animals and chemicals. Polyester, one of the most widely used fabrics, is derived from petroleum, a non-renewable fossil fuel. Natural resources are depleting at a significant rate; we cannot afford to make any more clothes. Burberry’s incineration of masses of new clothes is only the tip of the iceberg of the acquisitive, damaging side of the fashion industry. Luxury brands have been accused of making cheaper, less durable clothes to make a larger profit. Some brands falsely label their products to deny their use of labour exploitation. They mislead buyers with “made in Italy” labels, to promote ethical production, even though the items will have been made in sweatshops. Production labels are regulated by an EU custom code, to ensure that no false information is put on the labels; however, there is a major loophole in the code. A product can have the manufacturing label of the country it was finished in, even if it was made in a different country. This allows brands to avoid stating the products’ country of origin, ultimately denying that their products are made in sweatshops.
So, what is the answer?
I think that it is important to separate fashion from the economic models that encourage consumerism. While elite brands are the root of overconsumption in clothes, fashion is also very influential. It can be an art or a political statement. Fashion has been revolutionary at multiple points in history. When we criticise the fashion profit markets, we should not undercut the ingenuity of the designers. Fashion is hugely significant in society; it celebrates culture and creativity. The influence of social media corrupts the dignity and glamour of established fashion, and profit greed stamps on the art form.