A New Look at Fur
I’m not sure what to think about Fur. As soon as I came of age, I was against it. But I’m not sure I was really thinking for myself at that point. Well, I guess we’re all just composites anyway, evolving if we’re lucky. As a 20-something I went with the view that such costly luxuries were bad and that stuff just as good was lots cheaper, so why bother, and down with elitism besides.
I used to think that fur represented the worst of elitism and capitalism. Now I’m not so sure. I’m thinking that perhaps a state where one intentionally bloodies one’s hands, judiciously, would represent a pre-capitalist mentality. And that maybe a world of all factory-made clothes would be one that was more easily depraved.
I’m starting to think that the King is more likely a better friend to the common man than is the merchant. Someone is always in charge, and poor people know that, so it’s likely best to just come out with it and try to have a King who embodies as many virtues as any mind can think of, no matter what their income. I recently learned of a flipside to the first big democratic revolution in England. When the House of Commons was created to dilute the power of the King, historians generally say that is when the people had their first day. But the oligarchs who run any House actually have LESS in common with the people than the King. They have specific, and hidden, interests. It can be said that exploiting the people and caring not a whit about them is even more likely in a House situation.
This has a corollary to me in an acceptance of an elite. With an emphasis on HOW they live and rule over the fact THAT they exist. There will be domination. Someone will decide. The only question is on what basis. It might help if they are upfront about where they are coming from. What kind of fashion can help make a statement here?
It has a corollary to me in the human relation to the animal. We’re at the top of the food chain. Do we hide from this? Pretend anything? Or do we face it and take responsibility. There is blood on our hands. The only question is whether there is too much, whether it’s done wrongly, when it happens and how. Which is worse for animals, judicious use of fur or the factory paradigm? Which fits better with a true spirit of conservation and husbandry? Which is worse—the celebration of animal beauty on par with art and diamonds, just as beautiful only less altered by man? Or the praise of cheapness of petrochemical garments. Which would have more incentive to develop, insure and prolong and celebrate the beauty of nature? Which requires and glories in the realities of animals and which finds them optional except in the case of sales pitch and emotional comfort? Given the sneaky way of today’s world, I would trust the natural world and its diversity more with someone who wore fur. Not endangered fur, of course.
I see that all sorts of modes have their place and danger zones. ‘Customer’ being one of the weakest modes. I believe that the elite should not be ostentatious. A ruler in khaki is fine. A leader or business owner who rides a bike to work is a great thing. But owning a Citroen DS, owning some fancy art, going to fancy balls or classy restaurants isn’t bad. Nor is just walking around stylishly in the park in the winter. What shows more panache, a gortex parka, a nylon trenchcoat or a fur coat? But it seems interesting to me that as wealth concentrates, fur wearing declines. I suspect that fur belongs to more of a small world scene. People who do business with a handshake. Good judgement in fur would, it seems to me, would not likely result in also owning a ridiculous SUV car or a huge empty house. But I see snootiness and ‘offense’ against fur as often carrying ugly baggage and side effects. I like Amish and Hindu alike. Although which really has less impact on nature and which offers better insight to leadership in a hierarchy, I don’t know. Probably neither.
Among people of means, in a wealthy culture, to be ‘efficiently’ dressed it is easy to end up with a half dozen or more high-tech petro-coats, a dozen high-tech shoes—many of which prompty wear out. Would we rather promote the proliferation of factories or of handcraftsmanship? —With a fur coat that can last generations of steady use in a wide range of conditions including that of the highest fashion. Sure a petro-chem coat is cheap, but how does one want to look when going uptown to a fancy ball? Of the not so few who do like to good their best going out from time to time, what should they rely on for their beauty? What would bode better for nature? Separation from it by means of factories? Or fur combined with good judgement? Fur implies having made a judgement. Just like hunting does. It might creep some people out. For most this is likely largely due to lack of contact and familiarity. When you’re in a bind, wouldn’t you rather count on someone who’s made such judgements? I think of people who’ve had judicious contact with nature and the fate, health and safety of animals along the same lines as I think of people like doctors, EMT’s, nurses. Except maybe in the case of health professionals, health is their only interest. It seems like in a case requiring strategy and serious defense that someone who represents judicious domination might even be more trustworthy. Somehow I think that fur can lend itself to that kind of fashion statement.
A friend replied to the above partly with…
>The only thing that bugs me about fur is the same thing that bugs me about >meat – its that the production of it is sooo nasty and mean – really disrespectful to life in general.
Yes, conditions are bad it seems. For almost all ways of life. Plants included. Too much disrespect all around. It seems a function of the factoryization of all life. Mass society. Amishismness seems the only way out of that tight spot. How to unhook people from factories? That seems to go back to my angle that it kinda seems like fur coats might be a slap against factories, but all the cages and such seem to bring their own bad conditions. Maybe somehow less bad than otherwise. I’m not sure how my hunches work out here. Maybe it’s silly. Kinda like, if we think fur is bad, factories running without living things might somehow be even worse in their direct side effects on lifeforms. Like if we didn’t have fur/meat then maybe production would be even nastier. Maybe somehow keeping lifeforms directly in the cogs forces them to be more moderate. ?? Or at least to face up a little more to what they’re doing. Probably doesn’t make any sense.
*****
Here’s another post on the same topic…maybe it has some different notions in it, maybe not…
I’m inclined to suspect that a world where fur is the winter
outerwear of choice would be more ecologically diverse
and wilder than a world of factory clothes and (smug)
separateness from animal life.
Possibly such a world is smaller, more classist, but
I think it’s also likely more diverse and wilder than the
alternative.
I think that if outerwear switches over entirely to factory-
made petro garments that one could predict the deathknell of
culture connected to nature, which in turn would tend to
result, even indirectly, in a less diverse biosystem.
I think that the equation fur = harm = bad = less nature/wild
is one that doesn’t hold up. I think that it acts as a cover
for poisonous, pernicious depredation cloaked with the form
of righteousness which counterintuitively always accelerates
disaster.
I think that fur = beauty untouched by man, and that an ethic
which includes it will tend to have better overall impact on nature
than one which shuns it. I think also that fur = dominion, and
that such a declaration in fashion can readily include responsible,
judicious dominion which would end up with healthier nature than a
dominion by the factory ethic. Or by the ARA ethic which is a
just-as-dominant position which seeks to avoid interference with nature
but can’t and so mainly seeks to avoid *psychological* interference,
and so ends up being blind to hidden and more pernicious forms
of depredation.
Not eating meat or having obvious impact on animals, I think, can
readily result in a culture that has even MORE negative impact on
animals than its adherents imagine.
Aware, judicious predation seems better than the chaotic depredation that
results when a much-needed king tries to relinquish a throne when
there is no one else to rule and where all decisions have big impact
regardless.
