I've been reading Deep Economy by Bill McKibben and he makes the point that many of us spend more time with the anonymous rich than we do our next door neighbors. "they inflate the viewer's perceptions of what others have, and by extension what is worth acquiring--what one must have in order to avoid being 'out of it.'"
with our eyes on a more popular, polished, and well-off crowd we align our standards for assets and attire with a transient and literally unrealistic breed. this elusive ideal is like an ivory tower growing ever-taller, its foundation girded and reenforced with a myriad of sources for what is new, and cutting edge. instead of taking our cues for what is acceptable attire from our friends and neighbors, we can check photo albums of distant acquaintances and movie stars alike thanks to facebook and flickr and TMZ, and tap into this compendium of cool without ever venturing beyond our own bedroom door.
am I advocating that we all look and dress the same? of course not. as McKibben says, "we would not discard individuality for some drab collectivist future; instead, we would re-rembed individuals in some context where our impulses make more sense and do less damage."
so, perhaps my impulse for individuality would not mean I buy a new pair of jeans just because they are a cooler wash than what my buddies and I currently have (but maybe the exact same wash that the cool kids downtown wear) ... and because I have a 30% off discount code. perhaps it means I consider the tired hands of the twenty year old in Vietnam who stitched together those jeans for me because he had to make money instead of go to college. perhaps it means I do something that doesn't require me spending money to adorn myself, but rather takes only my time and attentiveness to others.
I pride myself on being aware and tuned-in to what's going on, fashion or otherwise. what's that worth compared to tuning in to my community?
No comments:
Post a Comment