In class, when I want to demonstrate to students how most things (other than the natural sciences) are social constructs and society's values can shift, relatively quickly, I use the example of fur. 50-60 years ago, I argue, wearing fur was a sign of status; today it is unacceptable, but who knows what society will think about fur in the future. After all, we have used parts of animals for all of our existence – there is nothing objectively 'wrong' about wearing fur. What society thinks about wearing fur is impactful, however, especially if you are a company producing fur or using it to make clothes. I find that trying to understand how society changes its opinion so dramatically (and occasionally rapidly) on such issues is extremely challenging. All of a sudden, or over a long period of time, we stop believing one thing and start believing something else. And logic often has nothing to do with it.
Anyway, the article in the url below suggests I need to update my example as, apparently, fur is back:
"A few weeks before the Manhattan Vintage Show opened this month, its owner, Amy Abrams, was predicting a "fur-a-palooza," with vendors fielding an uptick in demand for fur. … The racks of fox, mink and Mongolian at booths, including the Igala NYC and the Jennie Walker Archive, which was selling a sable coat for $2,495, were swarmed by shoppers, many already wearing fur."
The shift seems sudden, and turns back a slide away from fur that played out over decades:
"It happened slowly — Calvin Klein banned fur in 1994; Ralph Lauren in 2006 — and then all at once. After Gucci announced in 2017 that it would eliminate real fur in its collections, the big luxury fashion houses followed: Michael Kors, Burberry, Prada, Versace, Tom Ford, Marc Jacobs and more. Since introducing her label in 2001, Stella McCartney has been a fiercely vocal animal and cruelty-free advocate. Fendi, which was founded in 1925 as a fur and leather shop in Rome and is owned by LVMH, remains one of the last luxury holdouts."
As a result, the "fur industry" may not be positioned for the revival:
"According to the Fur Free Alliance, global fur production is down 85 percent in the last decade. Roughly 20 million animals were killed as part of the fur trade in 2023 versus 140 million in 2014. The number of fur farms in the European Union fell to 1,088 in 2023 from 4,350 in 2018."
The moral compromise that many appear to be making is that they are wearing "pre-owned" fur clothes, which aligns with the recent rise in popularity of thrift shopping:
"For years, in much of the United States and Europe, wearing real fur has felt taboo. Except, suddenly, some people don't seem to care — especially if the wearer can assert the mantle of 'vintage,' as no animals were freshly killed and upcycling old clothes is more virtuous than buying new."
Some are even presenting vintage as the sustainable option:
"'I think people are really misunderstanding vintage fur versus faux fur,' [Carly Mark, the designer of the fashion line/art project Puppets and Puppets] said. Vintage, in her eyes, is the superior sustainable option. She cited plastics and microplastics in faux fur fibers, often made from petroleum-based materials, as 'worse for the environment in the big picture.'"
Understandably, animal rights activists are not impressed:
"Animal rights groups see vintage fur as a dangerous trend. "If someone sees a person wearing used fur and they don't know it's used, they could very well go buy new fur," said PJ Smith, the director of fashion policy for the Humane Society of the United States."
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023
Wearing It Proudly, and Pre-Owned
By Jessica Iredale
February 16, 2025
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
ST11
