Yes, clothes really do make the activist

03 Mar 2005

Read more about: green living

If environmentalism is dead, then that ratty sweater has to go, too. Ditto for sandals as everyday footwear -- only one man ever pulled off that look, and that was during King Herod's reign. One more thing: piling your dreads under that knit cap makes your head look like a Jiffy Pop about to explode. Yeah, I'm talking to you, environmentalists. It's time to keep up appearances.

Suit up, don't give up.

I'm sorry to be the one delivering the Carson Kressley-style bitch slaps to all you greens, but someone needs to broach this tender subject. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and fashion does matter. So get up off the tufted fainting couch, blot your swollen eyes with some unbleached, recycled tissues, and let me have a look at you. Oh my. You do look flaky in those pants.

I know it's repugnant to suggest that we focus on sartorial matters while trying to save our steamy, doomed planet, but the other team is running up the score. In late February, The Washington Post ran an article oozing with ardor for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who'd worn a black military-style jacket and sexy boots to an army airfield in Germany.

"Rice boldly eschewed the typical fare chosen by powerful American women on the world stage," wrote Robin Givhan in the Post. "She was not wearing a bland suit with a loose-fitting skirt and short boxy jacket with a pair of sensible pumps." Givhan went on to say that Condi's attire was not "overt" or "inappropriate." (This makes me wonder: If a female Democrat had worn that attire, would the media have swooned? I can just imagine the headline: "Vampy Dem Slut Struts for Troops." But I digress.)

Story continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

My point is, image consultants are working around the clock to ensure that next-generation oil barons keep their pudgy bottoms in the seat of power. These consultants know that even the simplest tactics can produce enormous results. If you don't believe me, slap a cowboy hat on your head and pepper your speech with folksy malapropisms, and see if you can sell a war.

Why all this focus on style? Well, it's no big secret that clothes send powerful signals. Humans long have worn animal skins and fur to convey dominance, sexuality, and power. If you doubt this, get thee to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, where, much to the chagrin of intellectuals everywhere, herds of people are racing by the predynastic Egyptian art to see mannequins in cat suits. They're part of the current exhibit "Wild: Fashion Untamed," which explores animalism expressed through clothes.

Let my sandals go.

Today, power is communicated by custom-made suits. We have television to thank for this trend. It most likely started in the 1960 presidential debate, when Richard Nixon, who was recovering from the flu, looked positively ghoulish next to the tanned, telegenic John F. Kennedy. To make matters worse, Nixon wore a suit that didn't contrast well with the television studio's background. Most radio listeners declared the debate a tie, but TV viewers gave the victory to JFK. Ever since then, presidential aides have been fretting over suit and tie color. Of course, image consulting is a tricky science, because the press and public are a fickle lot. Poor John Kerry was criticized for being too stylish, and then for trying too hard to be casual. All Kerry needed was a leopard-print tie. (Wow, I'm really good at this.)

Still skeptical? The proof is in the silken tofu pudding. My friend Karl Warkomski is not only a Green Party member, but also the mayor of Aliso Viejo, Calif. -- a remarkable feat in Reagan-swooning, Bushie-loving Orange County. At least part of his recipe for success is a Trojan horse strategy: he dresses like Thurston Howell III.

"We greens have to stop looking like we eat bark and live in a root cellar," says Warkomski, who sometimes accessorizes his preppy work attire with hemp canvas shoes, the eco-equivalent of bling. And his theory holds water: Aliso Viejo recently passed a seriously green building ordinance. I doubt Karl could have garnered support for it while sporting a "How did our oil get underneath their sand?" T-shirt (though he does wear that T-shirt underneath his dress-up clothes).

All I'm asking you to do is, like Karl, think about your image. Strategically. This doesn't have to mean selling your soul. There are manufacturers out there making ecologically intelligent clothes. And if you can't afford or find a fair-trade, Italian-cut, three-button wool suit for that speech on the merits of wind power, try buying secondhand. I once found a pair of late-model Prada shoes in my Sasquatch size at a used clothing store, so you never know. If you're still at a loss for where to buy pleather pumps, ask Umbra. Help drive up the demand for ecouture. (Yes, I just made that up.) Stop complaining about capitalism and make it your bitch.

Apathy toward image may be an expression of rebellion, but it's also a blown opportunity. You could be promoting a green lifestyle as one of vitality and flair, rather than one of dreary deprivation. Yes, my lovely, that flannel shirt makes me think of splitting wood. And no, it doesn't make me want to become a woodsman.

Before you toss that cup of wheatgrass juice in my face, I beg you to remember one thing: to be effective, you need to be taken seriously. In order to work on your nefarious liberal plan to make our planet healthier and safer for all of humankind, you have to get your shiny boot in the door.

Read more about: green living

Lou Bendrick is a former contributor to the High Country News Writers on the Range syndication service. Her work now appears in Northern Sky News.

Comments: (24 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Sad but true...

I couldn't agree more! Environmentalists are all too often written off as tree-hugging, duck-squeezing, dirt-eating hippies. These labels make us less relevant, and yet we encourage them! We work so hard for legitimacy and then it is all thrown out the window with one bad suit or dead-trout-shaped tie. As a professional environmental advocate in DC, I am faced with the task of rising above the hundreds of other interests that are fighting for attention. And while to me there is nothing more important than the environment (all issues are environmental, some would say) our legislators do not agree that ours is the ONLY issue. So when I end up in a hard-won meeting with an ally that refuses to wear a tie and insists on wearing toxic green clogs, I wince because I know we are already putting ourselves at a disadvantage. I am not saying that we should all wear tailored suits or bust our budgets with Armani... But I try to look like a serious lobbyist doing serious business - because I AM! And I'll tell you what - nothing feels better than coming home and hanging up my "battle armor" only to sink into my trusty ripped jeans, t-shirt (Clean Energy NOW!), and hemp hoodie.

by colinpeppard at 1:36 PM on 03 Mar 2005

I agree

Funny, I was just telling my boyfriend that I would have to put my weirdness on hold for my country's environment. Being someone normal and even savvy makes you relevant to the very people whose consumer habits you wish to change. Furthermore, I am definitely predisposed to walking barefoot, but dressing up is good fun too. I've always had an alter ego that buys designer duds. When people find out you're into the environment, there's not such resistance or stereotyping. I know this sounds really really sad and a wee bit awkward, but we're all instruments in making them think it's "cool" and normal to want to save the planet.

by bvmisa at 2:38 PM on 03 Mar 2005

Well Done!

This article has been long overdue. Unfortuanately some environmentalists take the title of environmnetalist as an excuse to have a "natural, earthy look" or to dress like a hippie. I'm here to tell you that as a young professional with a fresh degree in environmental studies, you have to look professional to get the job that will lead to the betterment of our environment. You can look professional while still having that earthy look, just by keeping the outfit simple. Leave your comfy birks at home and switch to the fitted suit. It may take a few days to get used to, but I promise you will be well received by your peers and those you hope to influence to become environmentally active!

by MoMoSims at 3:43 PM on 03 Mar 2005

What's your answer?

So we admit we're slobs and hemp ridden on the weekends...But one answer to the equation is of course, the trusty recycle! Ebay, make your own or "reconstruct" or learn how to hem (gasp), arrange clothes swaps with friends, and frequent establishments such as the amazing Buffalo Exchange to find current, hip, hot, professional etc. clothing at so very reasonable prices. (Oh how I miss living in a city with a Buffalo Exchange...) The answer is that it's just not as hard as some people think it is to dress sustainably professional.

What else do people do that doesn't cost a bazillion bucks?

by customconcern at 4:14 PM on 03 Mar 2005

Lookin' good on the cheap

I am certainly an advocate of learning how to sew and recycling old clothes. Retro is in, right? But sometimes, ya just gotta buy a new shirt! I am always amazed at the $50-$75 designer shirts that you can get for $10-$20 at places like Marshalls or TJ Maxx. $50 ties - Nautica, Polo, etc - for 12 bones! One time I got a sharp DKNY shirt - original price $55 - for 3 dollars! And for suits, I go to Joseph Banks, who is always having a sale. You can get an altered suit for 200 bucks. Not cheap, but also not the $500 to $750 that you would pay elsewhere. Any other good tips?

by colinpeppard at 7:05 AM on 04 Mar 2005
[ Parent ]

The medium is the message

These days, many enviros are trying to present the issues in ways that don't elicit the old, automatic, canned responses. For example, by talking about job creation and a 21st century innovation economy people are much more receptive, instead of just diving into bleak carbon dioxide statistics. When you're asking people to accept your ideas, on some level they are assessing whether or not they would like to be like you - the whole package. If your most important issue is your desire to be a free-spirit individualist then let your freak flag fly. But if it's not, keep the attention on your ideas, not your shoes - or lack of them!

by jhaygood at 7:08 AM on 04 Mar 2005

i, like, totally agree, you know!

I think lou has come with the perfect solution to all of our country's -- nay, our earth's! -- environmental problems: dress nicer!

Obviously, we environmentalists have been wrong by focusing on larger issues of human consumption and treatment of the planet, as well as gendered issues of heteronormative capitalist society like ownership and husbanding. No, what we need is to focus on axe commercials and clothing.

I think we need to start eating junk food, getting obese, and whitening ourselves to look like the republican party, all so we have more, as lou so brilliantly espouses, credibility. Because when we give up our ethics and pay our hard earned money for an arbitrary trend that relies on scaring the population through fashion, brought to you (copyrighted) by the world's poor, through sweatshop labor, then we will truly have made it!

Yes, i'll tell the little 13 year old cambodians to speed up their little hands; tell the fat slave owners in south america to spray more pesticides and fuel to create more and more clothing, because as we all know, clothes do make the man. No, thats not a tradition brought to us from centuries of sovereign rule (military clothing gave way to suits, etc) and based on a class-based hierarchy but actually a purely representative aspect of culture.

Thanks Lou, because of you, I now know i can pass all the clean air bills I want, because i'll give in to the us' consumer-industrial complex (which never, ever, ever takes attention away from the real issues like -- gasp -- environmentalism, or even poverty) because i'll be wearing a brand new shirt, that i am positive a) won't be out of style when the powers-that-be want it to be and b) i won't get sick of when i look in the closet.

Huzzah, the world's problems are solved!

by irony at 8:16 AM on 04 Mar 2005

Great article

It is a sad commentary on our times that fashion and your degree of "coolness" can make such an impact. But you are correct in saying that we need to be taken seriously if we truly expect to make anything happen. Right now, it just isn't cool to be green and realistically speaking people purchase and participate in many things because of trends. Maybe riding the trend train is unpalatable to some but if it gets the job done its worth it. Right now people are buying Hummers and SUVs because it is the "in" thing to do. Imagine if hybrid vehicles were the "in" thing. People vote more with their wallets than they do at the voting machines. If people spend their votes(money) on green merchandise, then businesses will take notice. Big business will take notice and get on the green bandwagon. Then they'll start demanding the government help them out. We all know if big business wants something, the government will give it to them. It is the way of things in this day and time.

Gina ~Being Green Reigns Supreme!

by sunflower1fl at 9:10 AM on 04 Mar 2005

Easy there, big guy!

If what you want to do is fight for the overthrow the entire power structure than be my guest - I support you 100%. And good luck! However, if you want to make the US a cleaner, healthier, and greener nation, there are rules that you need to play by (as Walter would say, "This isn't 'Nam, dude). Daring to repeat the words of another poster, maybe its unpalatable, but if it gets the job done than it is worth it.
Second, I think it is a big jump to go from dressing up for meetings with our elected officials, the media, etc. to the whitening, tanning, and Big Macs. The point of the article was not that every activist should start to primp like that Keaton boy every day. But when you represent your passions to the rest of the world (press events, meetings with officials, etc.) in an effort to change the way they live their lives, you have to meet them halfway. That can be accomplished without compromising your politics/policies if you present yourself in their image of a respectable and contibuting member of society. Which is exactly what you are!
The bottom line is that it isn't selling out or compromising to use effective messaging strategies. You simply cannot make environmental ideals the mainstream if you spend all your time attacking the mainstream.

by colinpeppard at 12:43 PM on 04 Mar 2005
[ Parent ]

Oh, thank you, thank you!

Good article. It's about time.

People are not going to embrace living green if it doesn't appeal to them. They won't. Not in any real fashion. The fact is, proto-typical enviro-chic has little appeal to the masses (face it, if it had mass appeal, most of us wouldn't embrace it, would we?).

I see nothing wrong with projecting an appealing image. If people are attracted to it, and become 20-30% more "green", that's a great start. I wish more people trying to "make change" would embrace the notion of making that change somehow appealing to the masses, rather than positioning it as something we have to do because it's the "right thing to do". If you haven't noticed, that does not motivate most people.

Don't like consumerism and marketing tactics that have people behaving unsustainably? Fight fire with fire, I say. Dress in your few pieces of high quality/durable duds, and project a person that most people would want to emulate - because green is hip, it really is... lets start presenting it that way.

by two43795 at 2:00 PM on 04 Mar 2005

ummm, excuse me, but

consumerism and dressing nice are very simply part of the problem. people focus on such external, superficial arenas of interpersonal communication instead of focusing on the larger issue. if, as an environmental activists, we give in to the idea that how you look is as important as your message, then quite basically the other side has won: they have proven that you need to buy into a particular society's temporal whims (in this case, suits or whatnot) that have no relevance to the greater good; that is, they are obfuscatory. i'm not advocating showing up in rags, smelling like shit, and raving at people to love the earth. i'm more saying that we can indeed be unique and yet be communicative, warm, and passionate about ideas. if somebody sees you wearing a nice suit, s/he will think about the suit instead of your minute arguments on land use: s/he will then think, oh, this is nice, but hey, where can i purchase a suit? where can i own a suit? and owning, a holistic approach to the environment and the planet, is what we are aiming at, right? (did anyone read the "death of environmentalism" essay?)

by irony at 2:45 PM on 04 Mar 2005

no, please, excuse me

The article is not suggesting that how you look is as important as the message you are sending. It is saying that how you look can influence how the message is recieved. And it is precisely because the message is more important than how you look that you might want to consider wearing clothes that don't distract the listener from the message you are delivering. In contrast to the scenario Irony describes, dreadlocks and sandals would probably distract your audience more than a suit, and in addition might turn your audience off to your message before you give it. And no matter how incredible your message is, if it is never listened to, you'll never make progress. Sure if you are wearing a really flashy suit it may also be distracting, but the idea isn't to do that either. The idea is to not let the audience see you coming, so you can avoid as much pre-message judgement as possible allowing the message to be delivered do a preliminarily unbiased audience (that is, not biased based on appearances which I think we both hold as personally unimportant, though the audience may not). Unfortunately other sources of bias are more difficult to combat.
I do agree that consumerism is part of the problem, but on a somewhat off topic note, buying second hand clothes doesn't help fight consumerism much. Second hand clothing stores are dependent on clothes being purchased first hand at some point. The only way not to be a consumer is to produce the clothing yourself. Even then you would be buying thread and sewing equiptment, so I am not sure consumerism is avoidable, but hopefully it can evolve. This second paragraph is speculation more than anything, presented in hopes of feedback. Any thoughts?

by Dasein at 5:16 PM on 06 Mar 2005

know where to fight your battles

I agree and add- "Consider your dress like camouflage- blend in, then create havoc from the inside."

My parents always said dress your best to impress. They also taught not to judge a book by it's cover. Unfortunately, in the real world people will not take your point of view seriously if you aren't dressed decently. Since we are all guilty of committing this offense, we should learn from our own mistakes.

I've made a career out of being green, yet when I go to the office, I am choked by the fashion noose and dress shirt with real cowhide shoes. What some biologists do may seem a sellout to some, but without people like us, roadways and developments would run flat-out, willy-nilly, all over creation, with no regard to the habitats they destroy in the name of progress. We keep development 'in-line', and speak from the place where builders will listen. And if you think they'd give a rat's butt to our opinion if we came in our 'week-end' garb of hawaiian shirts, shorts, and sandals, you really are out of touch with how the world really operates. Clothes don't make the man, clothes make the man's opinions count.

blind-penguin 2 follow the sun nosnowzone, Fla usa

by blindpenguin at 11:07 AM on 08 Mar 2005

Not all nice clothing is trendy

"if somebody sees you wearing a nice suit, s/he will think about the suit instead of your minute arguments on land use: s/he will then think, oh, this is nice, but hey, where can i purchase a suit? where can i own a suit?"

I am going to echo Dasein in saying that the exact opposite is true. People are going to be far more distracted by dreads, clogs and worn clothes that don't fit quite right, than a fitted suit. By dressing like your typical enviro activist you are letting your clothing speak for you. Unfortunately it doesn't always tell your story exactly as you would want to put it. In a nice suit the only message you send is that you care about your appearance. This is a message that doesn't subvert or distract from your voice, which is a much more precise tool for getting your point across.

You have to pick your battle here. Are you fighting for the environment, or against social conventions?

"Because when we give up our ethics and pay our hard earned money for an arbitrary trend that relies on scaring the population through fashion, brought to you (copyrighted) by the world's poor, through sweatshop labor, then we will truly have made it!"

The clothes you should be buying to look nice and professional are not trendy, they are classic. Classic cuts and styles take a very long time to go out of fashion, possibly a lifetime. Unless your body type is changing often, these are the sort of clothes you don't have to buy very often (if you take care of them that is). Not exactly selling your soul to rampant consumerism then. In fact, I would argue that this sort of buying is exactly the type of consumption we should be promoting.

These days you can also buy well made clothing that wasn't made in a sweatshop with harmful chemicals and such. Sure, buying quality clothing that is environmentally conscious is not cheap, but being that you will be able to wear them for many years to come they are a good investment.

by Nathaniel at 12:14 PM on 08 Mar 2005

yes

You have to pick your battle here. Are you fighting for the environment, or against social conventions?

Well said.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 1:38 PM on 08 Mar 2005

Don't forget Kyan....

Great piece. I would add that not only does dressing "neutral" help you get your point across, It helps you avoid media stereotyping.

Mainstream media inevitably pick people with dreads, do-rags and Birkenstocks as the all-too-visible "face" of the green movement (in crowds, protests, person-on-street interviews etc.), and then contrast them with cornucopians and neo-cons in suits.

The green "uniform" of anti-fashion - and it IS a uniform, let's not kid ourselves that it's not a case of "let's all be different together" - has already been associated in the public mind with soap-dodging hippies, and more recently with violence at WTO protests, etc.

To use George Lakoff's terms, the wearers of that style of dress have now been "framed" by their opponents. The average person is going to respond to them with suspicion at best, and hostility at worst.

Dressing "neutrally" doesn't mean selling out. Like it or not, we DO live in a particular culture, in a particular place and time, and it has a "mainstream" mode of dress for certain social arenas. One wouldn't wear a Paul Smith suit into the mud at Glastonbury, and neither should one wear a tube top in church, as the Etiquette Grrls have noted.

I'll go one further and add another level: grooming counts. I know, I know, hair is political. But politics means power, too - you have to tame your mane if you want to take the reins.

To start, one word: conditioner.

Guys, ponytails belong on horses and Steven Seagal. Combovers are NOT an option. Shave it if you can't behave it!

Ladies, the pre-Raphaelite, hair-to-the-waist look just drags one down. In 2005, the power flip with a bit of volume says Everywoman, thank Oprah!

On a serious note, there are some wonderful, green hair products made by Druide -- some of the few on the market not to contain sodium lauryl sulfates. (http://www.druide.ca/catalog/default.php?cPath=23&language=en) - it's all we use.

by ajkandy at 6:38 PM on 08 Mar 2005

Whatever

So many bold, frank statements of "truth" here. They seem all seem to be saying "come on, if we're going to get any respect, we need to be like everybody else." This sounds a lot like the "New" Democrats' whining that their party is seen as too fringy. Embrace corporate power! Redress social injustice by allowing free market economic radicalism to become the norm! Yeah, that tactic has sure served the Dems well. In general, the DLC Democrats are just a poor copy of what they're supposedly against. And now I'm reading left and right that Environmentalists should in effect be doing the same thing on both the organizational and the personal level. What do you hope to accomplish?

The caricatures being tossed about here - dreadlocks, long hair, "pre-Raphaelite", hippies, etc - are more about youth vs. age than anything else. 30- and 40-somethings can babble that we need to conform to make a difference, but that's going to fail to inspire teens and young adults who are very keen to "be" something, in a physical as well as intellectual way. These same younger members of our society are also the foot soldiers (please excuse the term), the get-in-the-mud workers, the rising surge of environmentalism. To insist that environmentalism requires "office casual attire" is suicidal! Can you imagine Greenpeace telling a group of 20 potential canvassers that they cannot work for $7.50 an hour unless they look like IBM office workers? A few may conform - many more well say "fuck it" and head somewhere else - perhaps to the anti-nuclear group just starting up, or to the nearest Rainbow Gathering.

Does environmentalism need more social conformity? Would it be better to let those Rainbow hippies, pierced anti-WTO punks, bike-riding Critical Massers, dreadlocked anarchists and nature freaks just... go? Allow them to be marginalized, so that the Serious Environmentalists can get down to the business at hand? "Go home, Tree sitters! You're hurting Environmentalism, making us look bad! Come back with haircuts and oxfords! We're more effective without your stinkiness!" Um, general, you just dismissed the entire infantry, and those loggers look pleased.

Environmentalism, and liberalism generally, isn't going to achieve anything this way. Environmentalism needs more inspiration, more eloquence, more cooperation, and more inclusion, more personal involvement and more love. This internal move to make environmentalism an intellectual ideal, one that is independent of lifestyle and social choices, accomplishes none of those things. We, or rather You, since I'm not doing this, should not be looking to dissociate from those images. You should be embracing them, making them mainstream. You leaders of enviro groups, you should not attempt to look like politicians on vacation. You should look like environmentalists. When you environmental lawyers walk in to courtroom, let there be no doubt which side you are on - give everyone the visual cues to be sure. Let them frame you! Take the sterotypes and embody them, improve on them. Walk proudly! Anyhow, do you honestly think you'll escape "framing" if you use enough hair products to blend in well with a crowd?

Or, go ahead, blame the "failure" of [your] environmentalism on the way you used to (or still do) dress, or blame those dirty dreadlock hippies, blame Condeleeza Rice's sexy new modern fascist attire. Blame your frumpy clothes for the increased levels of airborne mercury. Blame your long hair for the desertification of the rainforest. Or maybe it has more to do with the fact that you have given more money to the US Government and Big Oil, more working time to earning money, than to effecting environmental change. Who hasn't?

Count me as one who is unafraid of being framed. I'll make sure that they know I'm pro-nature by dressing accordingly. I'll speak and act in such a way as to inspire others to be like me. I'm in this for the long haul, for my children's children's children. Let them say I am irrelevant. Let them say my long hair belongs on a horse, that my face should be bald, and that I ought to make myself look more like them. Let them keep saying it. I'm not here to win over swing voters in red states. I and so many others are here to inspire love for this earth and all Life. Get past this stupid argument and join us.

by anaxamaxan at 12:03 AM on 09 Mar 2005

Precision

I believe that the original article was refering mostly to spokespersons. I don't think it matters much if the people working in Greenpeace's office, out of the public's eye, are dressed in any way they please.

But when you are trying to get your message accross, your clothes are a non-negligible variable.

Just imagine watching the evening news and the anchor is wearing a hawaian shirt, sunglasses and has bleached hair and a nose ring.

--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.

by MikeCapone at 9:19 AM on 09 Mar 2005

Public vs Non-public

There aren't many enviro activists who are non-visible, "out of the public's eye." Canvassers, protesters, etc are good examples already cited by others above. Are enviro groups going to attempt dissociate themselves from those people who don't look close enough to television news anchors or at least like office workers...? Foolishness. Sure, you can push for a certain level of cleanliness, but this "Queer Eye" thing is ridiculous. Need an activist look like s/he a Seattle Young Urban Professional in order to be taken seriously? You want a uniform, go ahead and emulate Oprah. You want social change, make your words and deeds your style, act with respect and diligence. Make your style attractive by making yourself attractive. It doesn't work the other way around.

by anaxamaxan at 12:10 PM on 09 Mar 2005

Sticking my oar in

It's long been the case that it's easier to achieve conviction by seduction than by any other means. Hammer people in the head, or help them see the rather obvious benefits of an eco-sensible lifestyle? One way is appealing to feelings of guilt and horror - emotions that never particularly did any good to people and their actions - the other is leading people to make positive choices. Personally I think an attractive surface is perfectly appropriate packaging for an attractive life style. Rather that than attractive and seductive surfaces being reserved for crap contents only.

Are we after getting some good and long overdue - not to say urgent - changes in the ways things happen, or are we after profiling ourselves as 'alternative', looking the part, etc? I think it's useful to know oneself. It's way easy to end up preaching to the converted if your presentation is overtly opinionated. The sandwich-board-wearing Christian doomsday prophets don't seem to have a very good take-up rate, for example. But the slick marketing people do, whatever one may think about that.

On a personal level, I think it's far more attractive to find out through conversation or other more detailed interaction where someone is coming from than having it shouted at me via their dress sense. I've been an environmentalist as long as I can remember, so I have kind of lost the interest in looking like one. However, I live in an 'alternative' type of place, and there is a never-ending stream of fresh kids who've moved away from home, got the dreads, the T-shirts, gone veggie, etc. And some of them can be extremely shallow in their way of assuming that anyone who doesn't look the part can't share their convictions. Most, but not all, grow out of it.

Some critics of the article claim that in order to effect change we must not be concerned with the surface - in which case it shouldn't upset them that some environmentalists fancy updating their look towards the nattier end of the scale. I like recycling too - glamorous vintage dresses and accessories being some of my favourite objects for re-use. And no, I'm not rich, I'm just getting by as a single mum. Doing the hair shirt thing just doesn't turn me on. Heaven knows there's enough misery and things to panic about if you want - but neither penance nor panic is going to help. Positive choices might.

CW

by carina at 4:14 PM on 09 Mar 2005

Yup, the left are humorless and thin-skinned..

....or at least, that's the way the popular image would have it. And of course there's a grain of truth in that.

Remember that great SNL parody game show sketch from the 80s..."Make Joan Baez Laugh?" (Or as recently as last night, SNL's celebrity-roast sendup of the overserious Sean Penn?)

Is your identity so tied up with "being a rebel, man," that you've become as equally fusty, reactionary, and humorless as the college dons of yesteryear? Then read on...

Getting progressive views out there, getting progressive views accepted, into the mainstream, and more importantly, getting progressive candidates elected and policies enacted -- requires careful, calculated (but honest) perception management.

Carina's point above is completely valid -- once you outgrow your early-20s identity crisis and no longer feel the need to shock people, it doesn't mean you blend in and shut up, but you find more effective means to get your point across.

Of course, if you're out on a Zodiac hounding ships dumping waste at sea, no one cares if you're wearing Gap khakis.

But if you're working for a public-interest research group, meeting with government committees and citizens alike, appearing on television news, even marching in a protest, you will be listened to more, and trusted, and make a better impression, if you look like the audience you are trying to reach -- the undecided, the unconvinced, middle-class and working-class.

If your group needs to make a case before city council, you're free to come in looking like the cast of A Mighty Wind, but realize in advance that you're going to polarize your audience before you say a single word!

Dress quietly and carry a big joke. Demolish your opposition with well-chosen bon mots. Rent those Margaret Cho DVDs. Make progressive values fun and glamourous, something to be emulated. And remember - If Tim Robbins -- as progressive as mainstream hollywood gets -- can laugh at his own image, well, then so can we, and then those stereotypes no longer have any power.

by ajkandy at 10:29 PM on 13 Mar 2005

polarization and humor

But seriously folks...

How do we be truly inclusive? I want a world where you can wear what you want and I can wear what I want, and it is not a major issue if I want to put on a tie or wear my tie dye undies with the big red heart on my butt depending on the occasion. I want to be an ally for my permanently tattooed friends, the folks with those crazy streched ears, and all of their struggles, as well as be able to have our messages recieved by people who dress "normal," vote republican, and shop at the mall. Were all in this together, durn it!

Why is it so easy to get lost in craving or rebeling against another's approval of our appearance? I'm not saying that what we wear does not have emotional impact on our intended audience. Obviously, I will encounter less potential "negative charge" if I tone down my inclination towards flamboyance in front of a group of primarily mainstream people, and they will be more apt to hear my message. If, as the poster before suggests, I throw in a good joke, it may not matter if I have dreads, a nose ring, or what ever... I wonder how much is our appearance, and how much is how seriously we take ourselves.

I have at times, siddled into the hippier than thou camp, out a desire to combat the pain of feeling judged by the "mainstream." But it's just not any fun to maintain an aloof persona and feel disconnected from the whole of humanity including mainstream folks.

On a side note, and I've been as guilty of this as anybody, wearing "what ever you like" often ignores the privilege that white, middle class folks have, and their ability to move in and out of personas in ways that people of color, and poor people cannot always do w/ any assurity of safety. I wonder if part of what we are actually resisting as flamboyant, or just earthy, white "hippies" is the authority that our skin color confers because of instituional racism and the mechanisms of white privelege. Wouldn't it make sense to sacrifice some of our polarized identities as resisting the dominant system and responsibly utilize our privilege to garner media attention for our causes, namely, co-facilitating sustainable transformation?

Be the change you want to spange

by tawnk at 2:01 AM on 16 Mar 2005

Unfortunately true.

It's really sad that people are judged on their appearance so much. And I disagree that we should allow them and adapt to their wishes and expectations. That way, we may win the environment but we lose ground in other areas.
Quote: "You have to pick your battle here. Are you fighting for the environment, or against social conventions?"
I believe we CAN do both!!! If you do look unconventional, but remain calm, make good arguments in a rational tone of voice, you will, bit by bit, convince people that someone who's barefoot or wears a tye-dye shirt is not just a crazy drugged hippie... and sure you can do so while protesting just like you can do so when discussing anything else. If protesters wear suits when protesting the environment, then social conventions will gain strength; people will -like in this article- point out that 'see, it is better to be well-dressed' and that'll also make people look down on unconventionally dressed people in other situations. It may work, actually I'm certain it will -but at what cost? In this day of harsher dress codes, school uniforms etc, we certainly shouldn't do anything that helps those who want us all to conform!

by Myranya at 5:13 AM on 18 Mar 2005

Hope is on the way

I love this article. For a long time I shared similar frustration. After all, I'm a pretty mainstream guy save for the fact that I think our environmental predicament is appalling. Still, I want a lifestyle that lets me enjoy a fantastic quality of life while simultaneously treading lighter on the planet. And since I didn't see too many options out there that would enable me to lead this kind of lifestyle, I decided to create them.
So I founded Vivavi, a company that is part of the new market-driven environmentalism - a movement that understands the realities of consumer behavior, speaks the language of marketing and is grounded in an authentic commitment to making the world a cleaner, healthier place. We bring together cutting-edge eco-designers like Stewart+Brown, Ecoganik, Bart Bettencourt and Peter Danko so consumer activists can easily align their values with a modern aesthetic. The options are out there. And there's more coming as the design world and the business world wake up to the vast earnings potential associated with offering consumers the latest in green chic.
Yes, this is a profit driven environmentalism. And I fully embrace it. Would it be better if we all consumed less? Obviously. But since that's not going to happen any time soon, the options these companies are putting out there in the marketplace are significantly better than the alternatives. And that is a gigantic step in the right direction. So now we can all look good and do good at the same time.

by JoshDorfman at 4:22 PM on 19 Mar 2005

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Queer Eye for the Green Guy

Yes, clothes really do make the activist