The Shift to Thrift: A Paradox of Goodwill
by: Loren Schmidt
Ethical fashion is not a new movement. With the emergence of a hyper-consumerist culture in the mid-twentieth century, it was almost inevitable that it would also be met with counter-movements. We saw this in the hippie revolution in the 1960s, which embraced natural fabrics and a return to a simpler way of life. We saw it in the punk and goth movements of the 1970s and 80s, with the shift to vintage and secondhand fashion and the anti-fur movement. And the movement for ethical fashion continues to this day, although it has evolved.
Photo by Max Rottersman from Pexels
In 2021, because of globalization and a rise in offshore manufacturing, fashion is cheaper and more accessible than ever. As a result, Fast Fashion brands like Shein, Zaful, and Fashion Nova have taken a firm hold of markets and consumption rates have skyrocketed. And it’s no surprise; fashion that is cheap and easily accessible is in high demand. But as a result, we have seen enormously negative impacts on the environment.
In retaliation against the harms of Fast Fashion, the contemporary “ethical fashion” movement has manifested as a push toward sustainability and fair trade. Enter Slow Fashion, which advocates for a slowing down of production and consumption rates. As Slow Fashion grows in popularity, so too has a return to vintage and used clothing. In fact, the popularity of second-hand clothing is on the rise and projected to continue growing. ThredUp’s Annual Resale report estimates that the resale sector of the clothing market is projected to grow by 500% over the next 5 years, while retail is projected to shrink. In fact, the report even projects that the resale sector will overtake Fast Fashion by 2029. This is exciting news for environmentalists!
There is a certain uniqueness and charm associated with used or vintage clothing, but more notably, it is deemed an environmentally friendly fashion choice. This is undoubtedly one of the many factors leading to its increased demand. There are three overarching reasons why second-hand is considered so much more sustainable than its first-hand counterpart:
Since second-hand clothing already exists, no new resources and energy have to be used to create the garments. Textile production requires significant amounts of chemicals, water, energy, and other natural resources. Specifically, it takes about 1,800 gallons of water to produce the amount of cotton found in a pair of jeans. Meanwhile, the greenhouse gases generated from this process is equivalent to driving over 80 miles. So, when demand shifts to second-hand clothing, it shifts away from the resource-heavy production of new garments.
The volume of clothing Americans throw away each year has doubled in the last 20 years, from 7 million to 14 million tons. Unfortunately, about 84% of clothing eventually finds its way to a landfill or incinerator. Once discarded, it can take up to 200 years for these textiles to decompose. When they do, the chemicals and dyes used in the creation of garments leach into the groundwater and soil, not to mention the methane gas that is also produced in this process. By donating or selling clothing second-hand, there is ultimately less clothing in landfills, preventing the contamination of our water and soil.
The third benefit of buying secondhand is the indirect environmental impact that comes with a shift in economic behaviors. Shopping secondhand helps to create demand and ultimately support for recycling and a more circular approach to fashion. When demand shifts towards second-hand fashion, it also shifts away from other forms. Therefore, growth in a second-hand economy means a decline in the Fast Fashion economy, and thereby less extortion of resources and the prevention of further pollution.
Photo by Leticia Ribeiro from Pexels
While the shift to secondhand is certainly a far more environmentally friendly approach to fashion, in an ironic turn of events, that may not necessarily make it ethical. In fact, the shift to thrift may actually have unintentional classist and sizeist undertones.
In neoclassical economic theory, when a market reaches equilibrium, shifts in demand will alter prices either higher or lower depending on the nature of the change. In the case of increased demand for second-hand fashion, prices at thrift stores around the country have increased over the last few years. Take Goodwill Industries, for example, which reports the value of items donated to the IRS each year. Based on these valuation guides, 2010 saw flat rates for most items. In 2020, however, these prices changed to ranges. So, while shirts were valued at a flat rate of $4 in 2010, they can now range anywhere from $2 to $12. That’s more than double or triple the original price in some cases. That price increase may not seem significant to the middle or upper class, but this can have huge negative implications for those lower-income individuals. As it is, low-income people are often unable to afford more environmentally friendly options of consumption outside of the realm of thrift shopping. But for those who are low-income, thrift shopping is an economic necessity. Thus, this price gouging becomes truly burdensome on the ability of lower income persons and families (a demographic often overlapping with minorities) who rely on thrift shopping to furnish their homes and clothe themselves and their children.
Ultimately, this economic change is indicative of a lack of class consciousness (also known as false consciousness) among consumers, which is not unheard of in a capitalist society. This false consciousness “denotes people’s inability to recognize inequality, oppression, and exploitation in a capitalist society because of the prevalence within it of views that naturalize and legitimize the existence of social classes.”
This false consciousness among consumers goes beyond the economic implications of the shift in demand to second-hand, though. With a rise in demand for second-hand, new trends have appeared as well. Cue thrift flipping - the act of buying and altering second-hand clothing. While everyone loves a good before and after (looking at you, Princess Diaries), this trend has received increasing criticism for its promotion of fat-phobia.
How can something like thrift-flipping be fat-phobic, though? It comes from a place of such seeming innocence. Well… let’s break it down.
We’ve already mentioned the increase in demand for second-hand items and its associated rise in prices. But it is also important to consider the impact this has on plus-sized individuals in particular. According to research published by the National Institute for Health, for every 1% increase in low-income, there was a 1.17% increase in overweight/obese status. In other words, there is a strong correlation between income and weight. Thus, those impacts on low-income individuals and families are felt disproportionately by those who are also plus-sized.
Not only does the thrift-flipping trend lead to an increase in prices, but it also causes a decrease in the supply of clothing available for plus-sized individuals - a supply that is already limited due to its high demand among low-income individuals. This is because when thrift flippers source second-hand clothing from thrift stores, they tend to buy clothing that is much larger than the size that they actually wear.
In addition to the decline in supply and an increase in cost, there are certain implications when it comes to the before and after of thrift flipping. The “before” is often poised in a way that implies it is less desirable than the “after”. When the “before” is also simultaneously much larger than its “after” counterpart, an insidious truth about the way large bodies are viewed in our society comes to light. This plus-sized clothing becomes a metaphor for the fat body, implying that much like plus-sized bodies, plus-sized clothing needs work in order to be socially acceptable. Thus, this perpetuates the toxic belief that there is a correct shape, and that being fat cannot exist within that realm - a belief that is patently false.
Eco-conscious consumers have ultimately found themselves in a bit of a paradox; the effort to behave more consciously has inadvertently been to the detriment of others. It would seem that to ensure the utmost ethicality in fashion, barring the obvious need for systemic change, a more holistic approach is needed on the side of the consumer. So before you start popping tags, as Macklemore would say, it is important to consider all of the options available. When it comes to consumerism, the old adage is still true: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. There is a reason that “reduce” comes first in this order of operations. At the end of the day, there is only one truly foolproof option, which is to reduce consumption. If you don’t need to purchase something, then don’t. If you do, consider the broader implications of this economic behavior and adjust accordingly.