Luxury: Are We Preaching Into the Wind?

Social responsibility seems all the rage right now. Terms like "ethical luxury" and "sustainable luxury" have crept into the lexicons of luxury CEO's and marketeers alike. It's hard to tell where this new social conscience will lead but it does remind me of the debate over the ethicalness of wearing fur. I came across these images of Blackgama adverts and Peta's 2005 parody on a blog called Planet Fabulon (a veritable visual feast of glamorous imagery which I highly recommend).

I suppose you could look at these images as evidence that attitudes towards fur have come a long way. Throughout the 1970's, Blackgama's "What Becomes a Legend Most?" campaign featured a veritable parade of well-known celebrities from the world of film and fashion. Today, I don't know too many celebrities who would lend their star power to the fur industry for fear of being targeted by militant groups such as Peta. Leaving aside the heavy handed tactics of militant anti-fur groups, have preachy, judgmental campaigns really been all that effective in changing attitudes towards wearing fur?

While the fur industry may no longer be able to recruit high-wattage celebrities to promote their products, all it takes is a quick perusal of Fall/Winter 2009 collections on Style.com to conclude that fur still plays a significant role in fashion. Fashion by its very nature remains a moving target and it seems to me that the demand for fur waxes and wanes less in accordance with Peta's campaigns than with fashion trends and the fortunes of those who follow them. Are luxury and fashion brands who publicly espouse social causes merely preaching into the wind?

Sincerely,

The Luxe Chronicles

Comments

[John Agee Paris]

I would never be patronizing to someone who believed passionately in his cause, but the anti-fur movement to this observer is often preachy and annoying. There is an inconsistent puritanism in American life that often rears its head and this is a perfect example. The mentality seems to be "I don't approve of it, therefore I want to limit YOUR access to it." Sounds a little bit like, oh I don't know, religion maybe? If it's the cruelty involved in the killing of these animals that angers organizations like PETA, then they are being inconsistent. Animals are routinely killed for the benefit of humans beings, many times for positive reasons, namely food. Where do they draw the boundary? These animals are not endangered, and most are ranch-bred. Women's continual love of wearing fur is proof that people are not being cowed into it.

I remember these ads as a kid, and I think they're fabulous. Who would deny how amazing Lauren Bacall looks?