Theoretical Code: CONFUSION (desirable & undesirable)

As explained in the preceding section, each core category appeared frequently in the data and is presented in this section as one of three theoretical constructs that enabled explanation of the variations in the media framing of ethical fashion. Within each core category, the findings of the selective coding procedure established a set of abstract theoretical codes which serve to construe (Sayer, 2000) complexity in the ethical fashion message as presented in mainstream media texts, in the UK, between 2006 and 2008.

Theoretical coding (iteration 4 in table 5:1) concludes phase one of the research by presenting the conceptual elaboration of the 3 core categories of meaning exposed by the previous iterations of coding. Relationships between the codes emerged and were used to begin the development of an integrated theoretical framework to provide the foundation for the modelling of mainstream consumer understanding of the ethical fashion message.

5.2.6.1 Core Category: Clothing Attributes

Figure 5:8 below represents the core category of CLOTHING ATTRIBUTES. Discussion that follows will make direct reference to the media texts that illustrate and account for each theoretical code and the selective codes that expose the ways in which the attributes of ethical fashion were presented to mainstream consumers during the period 2006—

2008. The selected quotes provide insight to the nature of the media messages which are representative of complexity in the meanings of ethical fashion represented by each selective code.

Figure 5:8 Core Category: Clothing Attributes

5.2.6.2 Theoretical Code: CONFUSION (desirable & undesirable)

130

As highlighted in section 5:2:3, p.263, the quote from Thompson (2006) is useful in illustrating the lack of clarity in the communication of ethical fashion products. Navigating the media for pre-purchase information about ethical fashion would appear to be a confusing process for the mainstream consumer.

Within the newspaper and magazine articles that were analysed, ethical fashion was presented as both desirable and undesirable. Interpretation of the texts suggests that the mainstream consumer could be enticed by the words and images used to present ethical garments and collections however, in reading a different magazine or newspaper article published within the same space of time, their view of ethical fashion could be radically altered.

For example, the language used by Sims (2007) in promoting Paul Smith’s eco range, presents a desirable, ‘ultra stylish’ collection which

“…includes a moss-green organic cotton tee with a white collar perfect under a linen jacket and a beautifully cut red and-white Breton-style Aertex top. muslin shirts, canvas trousers, jeans and jackets in organic cotton, accessories made with chemical-free leathers and hemp bag.“ Sims (2007)

The journalist reassures the reader that although

“Green fashion has long been seen as the preserve of mung bean eating eco-warriors and unwashed gap-year students neither stylish nor sexy. But not anymore. With cutting edge designs and a growing army of celebrity devotees, including Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio and George Clooney, green clothes have finally become both cool and respectable.” Sims (2007)

However, the connotations of ethical clothing presented in Marie Claire the following year suggested that the concept of ethical fashion had not progressed. Portas (2008) proclaimed that she refused to “dress like a geography teacher”. While calling to women not to “compromise on the way we look”, Portas also requested that retailers ‘help shift the dry and crusty reputation of ethical fashion’ with its ‘holier than thou, misshapen, hand knitted jumpers and the muesli-eating brigade’.

Sibbles (2008) continues in this negative vein professing that she is,

“…a little squeamish about ethical clothes. Working at Marie Claire means I don't have a formal dress code, but I do like to look smart and stylish. How am I meant to achieve that, wearing only eco clothes?”

131

Within the same article, Pool (2008), author and columnist for The Guardian admits that she too has “always been rather sniffy about eco fashion” and goes on to describe

“…a sludgy grey/green pair of Austique organic cotton Elsom jeans. Not a colour [she] would normally go for, but the quality and fit are impressive. Mind you, so they should be at £150. “

Despite satisfaction with quality and fit, Pool’s closing words seem to express shock at the price of these ‘sludgy’ looking yet high quality jeans and in very few words appears to crystallise the notion of desirable yet equally undesirable garments. The words used in describing the garments, such as ‘sludgy grey/green’, seem to hark back to the ‘neither stylish nor sexy’ era of the ‘mung bean eating eco-warrior’ while the price and connotations of ‘compromise’ appear to add to the mixed messages used in presenting these garments to mainstream consumer audiences as simultaneously ethical, eco and green.

5.2.6.3 Theoretical Code: BENEFITS

(socially beneficial & environmentally beneficial)

“We are all confused. Why should we buy an organic tshirt and who will benefit?” Portas (2008)

Within the sample texts, ethical clothing was presented as having benefits to the consumer in terms of their purchase enabling them to ‘do the right thing’.

“Buying the right thing is the latest way to do the right thing.

And it's fashionable to be seen doing it.” Goldberg (2006)

Journalists such as Goldberg (2006) encouraged this by suggesting that ‘doing the right thing’ is in itself, a ‘fashionable’ thing to do as ‘consumers have become the new ecowarriors and the latest must-have accessory is a social conscience’ when considering the offers and the implications of the prevalent Fast Fashion trend,

“Tempting as it is to buy a new outfit for little more than the price of a cinema ticket, nagging doubts as to why High Street clothes are so cheap can make them feel less comfortable to slip into. That bargain dress doesn't look quite so pretty once we start to wonder whether the cotton was picked by a child in Uzbekistan then stitched together by someone working enforced overtime for less than a living wage in a sweatshop in Asia.” Goldberg (2006)

It is suggested to the reader that in buying ethically produced garments, they benefit garment producers and, in so doing, benefit themselves by appeasing their consumerist conscience. A senior retail analyst at Mintel is reported to acknowledge that the route of more ethical production also has benefits for the retailers that

132

'…know they could risk their reputations and their customer base if they are seen not to behave ethically.' Child (2006)

However, warnings to retailers are also presented so much as that Hearson (2006) who highlights the incompatibility in ‘claiming a product is ethical and manufacturing in China’

where workers are ‘typically paid 20p to 30p an hour’.

Given that the clothing industry is one of the worst industrial offenders in terms of environmental damage, Goldberg’s readers were also presented with information which emphasised the environmental benefits of more ethical fashion choices. The author presents the following information in order to highlight the importance of a raised consumer awareness of the fact that

“…one pair of jeans requires 10,850 litres of water and an unhealthy dose of some of the world's most hazardous pesticides and carcinogenic chemicals.

and that

“ Growing cotton accounts for 24 per cent of global insecticide use and is believed to account for one million cases of poisoning and as many as 20,000 deaths a year.” Goldberg (2006)

Goldberg extols the benefits of buying organic and Fairtrade fashion while reminding readers of the impact of the fast fashion trend as “…in Britain alone, 500,000 tons of unwanted clothing end up in landfill sites each year.”

5.2.6.4 Theoretical Code: APPEAL