The Flip Side of the Coin

With fast fashion becoming a hot topic in mainstream conversation circles and the heat of scrutiny beginning to shine on buyers in addition to purveyors, as more fingers are pointed, sympathy inevitably shifts. The pendulum of the fast fashion debate has swung towards the opposing direction, with a growing number of advocates pushing back against the traditional criticisms of fast fashion. 

They argue that many of these critiques are rooted in elitist mindsets, as much sustainable fashion is not accessible to the vast majority of the population. Indeed, it’s a tough sell for the average consumer to choose a sustainably produced product for up to ten times the markup when there are much cheaper alternatives on fast fashion sites.

Some also argue that the popularization of thrifting, a commonly proposed alternative for affordable shopping, has contributed to “thrift store gentrification,” where increased demand raises prices to the point where low income shoppers—for whom thrift stores were originally intended—can no longer afford to buy there.

Another point is that many of the accusations posed, like the exploitation of workers and environmental impact, are not unique to fast fashion. Most products, whether they be from Nike, Louis Vuitton, or even Apple, are made with some unethical practices.

In some ways, this reaction mirrors the one that the veganism movement in modern culture faced—people don’t like feeling judged for things that bring them joy, even if their criticisms may be well-intended or rooted in truth. This is exacerbated by the fact that some of the admonishment no doubt comes from a place of condescension rather than concern.

While it is valid to criticize sanctimonious and overly-judgemental attitudes, the idea that because almost every brand is unethical it is therefore acceptable to indulge in fast fashion is fallacious. Arguing that fast fashion’s crimes can be overlooked because companies in general are flawed is akin to equating jaywalking and genocide—magnitude of impact matters, so why wouldn’t we discriminate between brands that are objectively the worst and brands that aren’t perfect but are far better?

It’s true that fully sustainable and ethical brands are diamonds in the rough rather than ubiquitous. However the worst offenders—the SHEINs of the industry, whose impacts are significantly more detrimental than the average company—do warrant environmentally and socially conscious consumers’ condemnation.