Complicit Conformity: The Banal Evil in our Clothes
Facing up to everything going on within fashion it only takes a few moments of focus to see the cracks begin to show, and once you see the evil its hard to go back to the way things were. The exploitation, the factory collapses, the pollution.. it’s so much evil and corruption in one industry, it begs the question - how did it get so bad without anyone doing anything?
Understanding what makes us evil
Hannah Arendt was a Jew who fled Nazi Germany during Hitlers rise to power. Growing up she wrote on German and American philosophy, with a range of interests that reflected on the global politics that she grew up in, exploring wealth, fame, power, tradition and evil, to name a few areas, and she’s since been lauded as one of the post important political theorists of the 20th century.
One of her best known pieces is a book called Eichmann in Jerusalem. Reporting on the trials of Adolf Eichmann, a high ranking Nazi officer who, when tried for his crimes, didn’t seem to her to feel apologetic auto his actions, or feel angry that he was being tried - instead he almost shrugged off the responsibility because he was ‘doing his job’. It was her controversial take that filled the pages of this book and coined the phrase ‘the banality of evil’, as she reflected on the systems of power and totalitarianism that could make ordinary people to extraordinarily evil things.
As you can imagine from its heavy and fascinating theme it’s a hugely important text that deserves a thorough read and exploration all of its own. For the sake of this essay, I’ll give you the highlights.
She pooled observations on Eichmann, which could be applied to any individual to flag the points that allow us to become complicit in evil.
His reliance on ‘officialese’ sanitised, official language that somehow made hitlers policies feel palatable.
He didn’t see himself as the master of his own actions, and feel like certain actions were beyond his control - or couldn't be taken back.
He struggled with a definition of his antisemitism, claiming that he’d ‘personally never had anything whatever against Jews’. (his lack of strong discriminate views went to reinforce her definitions of anyones ability to do evil deeds - however it rings close to home to the people today who claim they ‘aren’t racist’ or ‘aren’t pro-genocide’ but seem to fall in line and allow atrocities to go on around the world. Raising the question, does a lack of blatant discrimination make you an ally - or do you have more subtle underlying beliefs that need to be accounted for?)
She described him as a ‘joiner’, the kind of person who joined clubs, groups and associations to define himself and feel like he belonged. A blind desire to belong led him, rather than an overwhelming individual moral compass or desire.
He was found to have no mental health issues, and very interestingly was noted being unusual, only because he seemed more normal than most people.
It’s a pretty relatable list of characteristics isn’t it, one you wouldn't expect to be the profile of a man who was one of the major organisers of the holocaust. What readers found controversial about Arendt’s view was that she deemed Eichmann to not be an evil person, and that Nazi officers as a whole were not psychopaths - they were normal people, leading to the interpretation that she was suggesting everyone would have done the same in his position.
On the contrary, whilst she pointed out how a normal person could do evil things, she was resolute in the assertion that this was still his choice.
Falling into obedience
Another very dodgy phsychological study took place in the 60s, following this trial - Milgrams obedience studies. Whilst highly criticised and a bit of a mess in terms of ethics and scientific method, this study tested participant obedience directing them to infuse painful electric shocks on another participant from afar, under the command of the experimenters. Whilst they heard the other participant screaming, and saw increasing voltages labelled on the buttons they pressed - Milgram wanted to see if they followed orders that they thought were wrong.
The reported findings say that all participants continued to ‘shock’ others up to 300 volts, and 65% continued to the maximum 450 volts.
Participants showed a lot of distress, and even argued with the experimenters, but ultimately followed through because of the supposedly ‘legitimate’ authority figures of the experimenters, the respectable setting (in Yale University) the bid to contribute to scientific research, and (importantly) the gradually escalating demands which made it hard to backtrack or realise how far things had gone.
Milgram, on the contrary to Arendt, did conclude that any normal person would likely extent to evil acts under the right set of circumstances.
There is a lot more to unpack in both these text, but let’s stay on track with the overview - and move into our wardrobes.
Control through the internet
Fashion has long been a tool of control, and is a hugely systematic process which asserts power over us, whether we know it or not. Looking at the heavily digital world we live in now, we’re all predisposed to find ourselves sharing character traits with Eichmann.
A reliance on internet slang that softens huge topics (Miss Rona for Coronavirus, for example) or a desensitisation to horror in image and writing through its proliferation online.
A very understandable lack of autonomy, as we watch laws get rolled back, individual rights get taken away and even our rights to protest become criminalised, in our litigation and censorship obsessed world its easier than ever to feel like our individual actions aren’t enough to make a change.
A lack of nuanced thinking, or capacity to unpack our own thoughts (thanks social media echo chambers and algorithms) leads us to categorise everyone (ourselves included) into ring fenced identities of good and bad (democrat or republican, tory or labour, ally or enemy, etc.) which lets us fall into our own biases whilst telling ourselves we’re still on the right side - just because we aren’t 100% on the wrong side.
A huge wave of loneliness has made us all crave community, whether digital or IRL, we see the desperation to escape fragmented and gate kept communitys, facilitate the mass way that we have found ourselves falling into everything from extreme right wing groups, to local craft circles. We have all become ‘joiners’ because none of us feel like we have individual identities or opinions anymore - or because we are scared to.
We’re in a constant state of comparison, and through all our (especially fashion related) attempts to differentiate ourselves, we’re really just latching on to trends and trying to be as ‘normal’ and accepted as possible: see Labubus, throwing away our skinny jeans for baggy ones, or getting trending nail shades - we’ve forgotten how to be ourselves and live in a state of constant performance for social approval.
With fashion media making up a huge percentage of the images and words that influence us each day, I have no qualms about saying that fashion’s internet presence has pushed us further into the collective mindset of feeling powerless.
We don’t feel it, sure, we think we’re making our own choices and living our best lives. That’s the point - we aren’t ‘actively’ doing anything evil, but we’ve been gradually drip fed more and more harmful models of behaviour by a big, ultimately evil industry. We buy fast fashion and chuck it out, we pander to ‘heroin chic’ and the return of super skinny body image, we put billionaires on pedestals and we uplift designers who have been publicly accused of assault - but we justify ourselves, because, in a softer and less explicit way, we are ‘just following orders’, and if no-one else is changing things then whats the point in us trying to change them ourselves?
Control through clothing
So how exactly did the fashion industry gradually convince us that all of this is totally normal and okay?
Lets speed run it.
Since the Middle Ages royalty has literally passed laws (sumptuary laws) about who can wear what, using fashion as a visible way to reinforce class and gender boundaries, with punishment doled out to those who cross boundaries, or dress above their station.
Fashion has been a key part of creating and then reinforcing gender binaries throughout the majority of history on the western world. With legal or social punishment for transgressions leading to a current climate where a lot of us feel pressured enough subconsciously that we wouldn't even think of challenging the status quo.
Uniform has been used throughout the military, schools and even in prisons to force the feeling of unity. Removing individualism to create a collective, either making soldiers feel more powerful and tight knit, or making prisoners feel like faceless, meaningless cogs - uniforms have long been a tool used to influencer obedience.
With clothing items themselves carrying the power to shift our mindsets and reinforce seperations between ‘us’ and ‘them’ the industry has quietly made other changes to the way they do business, and they way that they market to us in the background.
Clothing quality has quietly dropped, whilst the working conditions of those who made they stay locked away.
Sustainability information, whilst often shared somewhere, is hidden behind so many web pages and distractions that often we feel like we can’t actually find it, and must resort to believing greenwashing coming from the authority of brand - even if we know better.
Ever faster clothing drops and content roll outs make the sheer amount of noise we have to navigate overwhelming, ergo - we feel helpless and turn to groups or brands for guidance - this increase has happened gradually, partially hidden behind the growth of social media, and the rest in influencer and celebrity brands.
It’s a daily occurrence to be faced with content that makes you insecure about your body, that pushes an ever more extreme style, or ever faster trend hopping. What may have begun as a nudge to try a pair of vans if you wanted to fit in, becomes a celebrity telling you that bleached brows are the only way to show you don’t care what men think. Celebrities telling you to buy their ‘waisit trainers’ and ‘flat tummy teas’ becomes Kim Kardashian charging you to wear pubic hair on pants - whilst shaving off your own.
The call to buy more, faster, cheaper, with less and less thought has become stronger and stronger - to the point that we don’t even question it, we let the waves carry us and pretend to ourselves that our behaviour is normal.
Thats the problem with evil that is ongoing, repetitive and ultimately banal, we get bored of it - so we look away.
It’s a choice not a predetermination.
With everything I've just rambled about the way that he fashion industry has ushered us into the role of followers, with our blinkers firmly on, you might think I’m suggesting that we have lost the fight to improve this industry.
On the contrary, if we recognise the traits that let us become complicit, that means we can change them.
Arendt singled out the reasons that Eichmann did the things he did: relying on cliched defences and other peoples words, professional motivations trumping personal ideologies, when we become complacent we can over look a lot. If ultimate choice can remain even under totalitarianism, every choice we make carries political power, even if we ourselves don’t. Free thinking is enough, and can influence the people around you to resist in their own ways - that truly is all we need.
In the fashion context that this essay lays out what does that mean? In my humble opinion it means stand for something. Pick what matters to you and feels achievable to you - and stick to it.
Maybe you want to stop giving money to billionaires - ok, only shop local, and speak up to your friends who shop exclusively at Amazon. Maybe you are concerned about the environment - great! Limit yourself to buying less or only second hand items this year, and loving the things you already own. Maybe you want to support the excluded gender that fashion further marginalises - incredible - read up on fashion and gender, fashions appropriation from other races, the struggles in every day shopping and self expression through clothing faced by elderly and disabled people - then speak about those things.
Fashion wants us to look away, and whist theres so much going on that trying to look at it all would make your head explode - that doesn’t mean you are excused for keeping your eyes shut.