The Clothing Research Group warmly welcomes Rita Dominici who has come to SIFO for an internship.
Rita Dominici is a second-year student in the master’s program in “Sociology and Social Research” at the University of Trento. She earned a bachelor’s degree in sociology at the University of Bologna with a thesis titled “Fashion as a Social Phenomenon and Consumption Field: The Rise of Fast Fashion and New Paths Towards Sustainability” for which she researched trends in clothing consumption, focusing on current phenomena within production and consumption in the textile industry. She will be working in the CHANGE project during her internship.
Kinga, who has been with us since September, is now moving on and will start a new job as a product developer at Tufte Wear. We wish her all the best!
For the fourth time, University of Helsinki arranged the Artefacta conference. It brings together researchers and professionals interested in objects, material culture and our relationship to them (click here for full program helsinki.fi).
I had the great honor of opening the event with the talk “Product attachment in politics and wardrobes”. I described the development of the product-related research methods that Kirsi and I, and our colleagues at SIFO have worked with for close to 20 years. I also showed how the knowledge produced by such methods has become more relevant in the wake of emerging regulation aimed at apparel. It is a sad fact that as much as the EU quotes clothing research coming from SIFO in the knowledge summaries underpinning their policies, it is clear that they lack an actual understanding of our work. With that the potential for the polices to enact positive change (lower the environmental impact) is also greatly reduced.
The talk was well received. However, it would have been more fitting if I had based the talk on my cultural history knowledge and shown how this context had been important in my own research. Furthermore, I could have reflected around how a lot of what is talked and written about clothing and the environment, sadly, does not touch upon cultural history at all.
There is not enough time to do everything. The conference itself went more into depth on relationships and feelings than on the environment, climate, war, crises, with some exceptions. This gave a feeling of freedom. Many beautiful, empirical, thorough and thought-provoking presentations were presented. Being housed in the newly renovated main building of the university dating back to 1828-1832, our material surroundings could not have been more fitting, both spacious and stately. We moved between Greek statues and pillars with a view of the impressive view of the Storkyrkan standing right outside, built around the same time. Helsinki is a capital city, no doubt about it.
At the core of the Artefacta Conferences are objects and artefacts, as well as the materiality and material culture related to them. The Organising Committee, led by Riikka Räisänenin expressed that they welcomed “abstract proposals from all over the world and from interdisciplinary perspectives, including the fields of material culture studies, history, archaeology, anthropology, heritage science, conservation, craft science, art history, museology, ethnology, design and beyond”. Something they certainly succeeded in. Both the US and Australia made themselves known, and indeed the whole specter of artefact-adjacent disciplines were represented. From music historians who studied the chronology of different pieces starting with original sheets of music to art disseminators for an American museum specializing in aviation and space travel.
Thousand-year-old objects and perspectives on the future were presented. The latter was a great presentation by the only other Norwegian contribution to the program, by Georgina McDowal form Museums of Song og Fjordane. By positioning herself several hundred years in the future and describing how the archaeologist would have reported on the objects found at the bottom of the sea where Sogn og Fjordane is situated. The plastic life vest was perceived as a dangerous object and a symbol of the unrestrained use of plastic which has so prevalent in society in an unknown and uncomprehensible past.
The talk on “Is it Always Only Green” with Aarti Latkar and Neelakantan Poomangalath represented another reflection of plastic. They showed how in India, grass lawns are a symbol of the colonial times, with their sports and aesthetics, which is different from the associations in the western world. The meaning asides, it is interesting how grass spreads, most notably in the areas between inside and outside. It climbs on walls in the form of mats and can cover entire surfaces. “Plastification” was also a theme in her talk, and it was extensively covered.
There were many beautiful presentations, and a lot of work went in to the visual aspects, as mentioned previously. What is most striking in hindsight is how the presentation that I, and many other who I spoke with, will remember best was one without a single picture in it (including pictures of text). Julie Gorks was the speaker and she had conducted a wardrobe study on blind individuals’ wardrobes. “Blind touch: Feeling clothes as a material intimacy of blindness” omitted visuals completely out of the respect for the non-seeing members of society. She talked about how her participants experienced their clothes through smell and touch and how the sense of touched was used to “see” the garments, but also to get a feel of the garment. Colours had smells because of the pigments. The senses were present tenfold. Even the visual aspects had to be taken into account because the participants would be looked at by others. Their notion of colours, for instance, would be confronted with another way “to see”. This presentation was in the same session as Timo Rissanen’s talk on Australian leather title sashes and queer objects in museums’ collections.
This way, two marginalized groups and their material cultures were highlighted, showing the importance of research focused on smaller and specific phenomenon rather than the “normal” and “average”. The knowledge that comes out of this type of studies is valuable and can shed a light on aspects that can get lost in our daily lives. Doing research with differently abled individuals is one of many ways that could further clarify what it means to get and/or to be dressed. It was especially good to meet Timo again after approx. 20 years. The last we saw each other was at a conference which I helped arrange at OsloMet, long before we got that name. There is no digital evidence of the conference, but it is well remembered nonetheless.
Speaking of digital evidence (or lack thereof): The conference was brought to an end with the other key note speaker, Daniel Miller. Everybody was looking forward to this, ironically there was a material object that stood in his way; a lost passport (almost hard to believe in our digital age). Luckily Daniel was able to join us on the big screen and everybody did their best to make a note of what books he had in his shelfs.
The opinions on his talk were split. Daniel argued that he always had studied material culture and that there was not much difference between his studies on food in “Making love in the supermarket” and clothing in “The sari” and later his interest in information and communication technology. The conferencegoers did not necessarily agree on that point. The digital world is of course material, in the form of objects such as phones and tablets, and as such it also produces a lot of waste.
But pictures on the internet are not the same as on paper. Furthermore, the digital world has a lot of other characteristics. Spirited discussions followed over wine and dinner hosted by the university. Maybe this was his aim? Or maybe, as others pointed out, this lack of critique of digitalization pays off economically. Nobody was bored, truth be told, and it may be that the critique is connected to the high expectations ahead of his talk. It was a different experience for me and my talk. I am not only less known, but also mostly recognizable for my work with more culturally historical works with wool, washing clothes, bed linens and other kinds of unimportant objects.
With three sessions running simultaneously for two days from morning till evening, it was IMPOSSIBLE for me to see everything. In actuality, I could have been everywhere as everything was of interest. What’s more important than objects (and our relationship to them) is of course our relationship to each other. There was no lack in warm greetings and interesting exchanges, but for me one stands out, and that is my reunion with Mae Colburn.
She contributed with a poster presenting her and her mom’s collection of 600 wool skirts – believe it or not – which was inherited from her grandmother. The skirts did not stay on the poster, but showed up in different places in the form of small square pictures with different related motifs. Mae had also brought a postcard that showed a weave of a skirt made of the skirt fabric, melting the motif and the material together. Mae lives in New York and works as an artist in the crossroads between practicing weaving and academia. Since working at SIFO 15 years ago, she has developed into an artist and kept her fascination for wool (click here to check out the project’s webside woolskirts.cargo).
One of the many things Mae did all those years ago was compiling a bibliography on wool, of course it is still readable but maybe used too sparingly? (link here (clothingresearch.oslomet.no)) What it certain is that her time at SIFO has changed her and us, and what is often forgotten is how important such meeting are and how lucky we are to be able to work together.
The ability to affect sustainability outcomes is often culturally gendered. This article examines sustainability practices in fashion in the light of core themes in the gender and sustainability literature, drawing upon a re-analysis of a decade-old dataset of resourceful clothing use practices from the Local Wisdom project. In the dataset, evidence is found both of gendered practices and differentiated levels of involvement by gender. The article presents and examines these findings and then extends the discussion to the effects of gendered influence within the field of fashion sustainability more broadly, a field that may often be seen to be gender-blind. The article argues for a new attention to gender and for a re-imagining of the domain based on metabolism and relationship to overcome ideologies and practices based on separation of one group of people from another and of humans from nature.
This chapter explores the influence of gender on clothing consumption and the impact on differences in clothing volumes between men and women. Based on a qualitative and quantitative wardrobe study, we employ Schatzki’s (2002) social ontology of practice combined with Butler’s (1990) gender performance concept to examine the relationship between gender and clothing consumption in 15 households in Norway. The findings show that women had on average 497 items and the men had 258 items, and the main difference between male and female wardrobes was due to the number of items per occasion. These findings highlights the complexities and tensions faced by women in navigating clothing norms and maintaining a balance in the practice of dressing between appropriate dress, feminine expressions and having an ideal and more sustainable wardrobe. This chapter contributes to a better understanding of the interplay between occasions and gender dynamics that shape clothing consumption patterns. Moreover, it illustrates the potential of ‘occasion’ as an analytical concept and the implications of gender in clothing consumption, challenging the prevailing studies on clothing and fashion that often overlook the nuanced practices and actions that influence clothing volumes.
Two portraits from the Local Wisdom project. Photo credits: Kerry Dean and Paige Green.
The second article from CHANGE with gender as a main focus has been published, authored by Kate Fletcher: Gender, Fashion, Sustainability in Clothing Cultures.
Text: Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Tone S. Tobiasson
Kate begins the article with a review of what is obvious to us who work in the field, most researchers, most informants are female. And her research question is How does gender affect clothing use practices in the Local Wisdom Project?
The way Kate places gender, clothing and sustainability together is an important point in the article, however it encompasses more: Kate has returned to her wealth of stories about clothes from the Local Wisdom project, which was carried out between 2009 and 2014, a total of 415 stories from a total of nine countries, of which 316 ‘practices of use’ ended up on the website and in the study, 20.6% of them are from men, 79% from women and also included one non-binary.
So, what are they saying? Kate does a simple analysis and finds the themes that women and men highlight. And believe it or not… men are interested in economics and technology, women in most other things. Researching gender and clothing is not easy, because much of what we can and will find are obvious truths. Thus it is important to remember that the claims of ‘truth’ also need to be documented, discussed and explained. We need systematic comparisons. We need to put into words the obvious and see the limitations in ourselves. We don’t need a sustainability discussion only for women. We need everyone to be involved and everyone to contribute. We cannot continue to leave out half of the population just because they, well… are men.
At the same time, there is another perspective: To the extent that men and women have very different approaches, this is also reflected in the policies that are developed. This is not discussed in Kate’s article, but her research gives us a clue as to why policy development today uses a ‘male language’ and a male approach with spreadsheets and data-sets as the basis; while women have a completely different language and approach. So ‘lost in translation’ is perhaps something that needs to be explored further, to make EU policy make sense for both genders.
Link to the first article Comparing Male and Female Wardrobes: Gender Dynamics in the Practice of Dressing, authored by Vilde Haugrønning and Ingrid Haugsrud, can be found here.
SIFO’s advocacy work is influencing international public policy, step by step.
The Dutch Circular Textile Policy Program for 2025-2030, released in December 2024, includes measures to reduce the volume of raw materials used in textiles, including the reduction of incentives that stimulate consumption (low price, advertising, sales), measures to help consumers to make sustainable choices, and limiting the production and import of textiles. As such, this policy takes a daring step towards acknowledging that overproduction and overconsumption are the key challenges in enabling a sustainable clothing sector. In doing so, it shows a higher level of awareness and ambition of impact than the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles issued in 2022, where these issues are completely ignored.
The work of SIFO has been influential to these developments. Irene Maldini has conducted research on growth in the volumes of clothing circulating in the Netherlands and the associated environmental challenges since 2016 and on the development and impact of the Amsterdam policy initiatives to limit local consumption levels since 2020. This research was conducted in her previous affiliation at AUAS. In late 2024, a continuation of this research was published in the Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society, in the context of the CHANGE project and her affiliation at SIFO.
It was long thought that the amount of production is determined by demand, in particular the demand to replace a garment. Research shows that this is not true. The production volume is determined by growth objectives of companies and demand is driven by companies, including by the rapid succession of collections. This means that there is a production-driven system. As a result, textile consumption continues to grow, even though most Dutch people already have more than enough clothing at home. It therefore seems a logical step to investigate a production quota as a solution.
The way that this quota will be implemented has not been yet disclosed, but the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure has assigned the consultancy Sufficiency the task to investigate possibilities and implications. SIFO has provided input stemming from all relevant research conducted during recent years on this, including the proposal for a Targeted Producers Responsibility instrument.
In the context of rapidly emerging policy in recent years, we have worked hard to combine our research activities with advocacy work, so that the results of this research are considered and make an impact. It has not been easy, and we have found that scientific knowledge does not have the place it deserves in environmental policy development. But sometimes, we have found a way in, by being in the right place at the right time.
This case study of the Amsterdam Doughnut highlights how barriers for “strong” sustainable consumption policy pinpointed in the literature were to some extent overcome in the city policy of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in the period of 2018–23. The study builds on interviews conducted in 2020 and 2023 with key stakeholders participating in the policymaking process, and on the analysis of relevant policy documents. It identifies a few factors that played a role as levers of the barriers mentioned in the literature. These factors facilitated the inclusion of upper consumption limits in a few policy areas at a conceptual and strategic level. However, resistance to “strong” sustainable consumption measures hindered their translation into concrete actions, targets, and implementation. Lastly, a change of emphasis in the city strategy towards the “social foundation” of the Doughnut Economy framework during the period under study led to a stronger focus on the lower levels of sufficiency, leaving the emphasis on the upper levels behind.
In September 2024, we left autumnal Oslo behind to embark on a research exchange at the University of Melbourne with the Critical Fashion Studies research collective. This group, led by Professor Natalya Lusty and Dr. Harriette Richards, brings together fashion scholars, practitioners, and industry members to advance research on sustainability, ethics, and innovation in fashion.
During our stay, we had the privilege of attending several inspiring events. In October, we participated in an Ethical Fashion Walking Tour, facilitated by Ethical Clothing Australia as part of Melbourne Fashion Week. The tour took us around the suburb Fitzroy, where we visited local fashion businesses, including Denim Smith, Remuse Designs, and The Social Studio – all ethically accredited.
Among these, we were particularly impressed by Remuse, which works with recycled materials and natural, low-impact dyes. Inspired by their designs, we attended a highly anticipated fashion show later that week, where Remuse was featured. The show was an incredible experience, blending art and fashion in memorable performances.
In the week before Christmas, we were invited by Dr. Alice Payne and Dr. Yassie Smith to give a talk at the RMIT School of Fashion and Textiles for the staff. During the session, we shared insights and findings from our projects and received valuable comments and questions following our presentations. This opportunity allowed us to meet several colleagues who have worked with similar theoretical and methodological perspectives, fostering important connections for potential future collaborations.
The second week of January brought the highlight of our exchange: the Critical Fashion Studies Symposium at RMIT. The symposium focused on rethinking clothing and textile practices and consisted of three panels that explored key themes within sustainable fashion research. Anna participated in the first panel, which delved into circularity and disposal. She presented findings from her project on disposal practices and garment care, with a specific focus on participants’ expressions of care, both towards other people and their clothes. The following panel discussion touched on the challenges facing second-hand clothing markets in Australia. This session provided fascinating insights into how circularity is approached within the local context. The audience expressed interest in and prior knowledge of SIFO’s clothing research and inquired about funding opportunities in Norway.
The second panel explored wardrobe stories, and the personal relationships people have with their clothing. Vilde shared findings from her research on interviews with couples, emphasizing how gender dynamics play a significant role in shaping clothing consumption. She also mentioned some findings from our scoping review of wardrobe studies and encouraged those in the audience that have worked with wardrobe studies to contribute to the wardrobe studies blog on the website. The panel highlighted how wardrobe studies can capture everyday practices that support sustainability and included findings from an intriguing wardrobe study with individuals who are blind and therefore rely on sensory engagement with their clothing.
The final panel examined remaking and repair as innovative pathways to sustainability. Topics included remake collaboration processes, community repair in Melbourne, fashion-based social enterprises, and local fashion ecologies. The discussion emphasized the need for systemic changes to promote circularity, transparency, and place-based regenerative practices in the fashion industry.
Anna returned to Oslo after the symposium while Vilde still has some travelling to look forward to and will be returning later in February. Our exchange has been an incredible journey of learning and collaboration, filled with inspiration and new perspectives on fashion, design and sustainability.
Authors: Ingrid Haugsrud, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Kirsi Laitala
Abstract
The impact of the fashion industry on the environment is undoubtedly size-able. In response, the last decade has seen various changes in the fashion industry landscape, from new digital technologies that enhance zero waste productions, the emergence of the digital platform economy, to the development of innovative materials. This Handbook captures key innovations within the fashion industry and brings together work from leading academics, but also practitioners in the field. Offering a comprehensive and global perspective, it covers core topics such as: technological innovations and their impact on sustainable fashion, alternative models of consumption, the circular economy, the role of activism and the future of sustainable fashion. With clear managerial implications, chapters uniquely supplement conceptual work with short practitioner-led case studies that bridge the gap between theory and practice, making this a valuable resource for students and researchers.
The conference will be organised on 13th and 14th of February 2025 in Helsinki, Finland and the conference venue is in the Main Building of the University of Helsinki, right in the centre of the town. They keynote speakers; SIFO’s own Ingun Grimstad Klepp will speak on “Product attachment in politics and wardrobes” and Professor Daniel Miller from University College London will be holding a talk about “What kind of person is a thing?”. The talks will be held on Thursday the 13th and Friday the 14th respectively.
Programme can be found here (University of Helsinki webpage)
