Boycott this, boycott that – where do you draw the line? Progressives and posturing nationalists don’t seem to know
- Models drop fashion brands perceived to have threatened Chinese sovereignty, while US progressives start a boycott of a Trump-supporting gym owner and developer
- It’s never been easier to accuse brands of giving offence, but in their selective choice of targets, accusers are being inconsistent, if not hypocritical
The fear of causing offence that has been running rampant in the fashion industry with the recent rise of watchdog culture reached new heights this month when two very different, but in a way quite similar, controversies broke out in the United States and China.
On August 7 news broke that Stephen Ross, chair of the company that owns trendy gyms Equinox and SoulCycle, would be hosting a fundraising dinner for US President Donald Trump.
It didn’t take long for celebrities, including comedian Billy Eichner and model Chrissy Teigen, and fashion designers such as Prabal Gurung, to call for boycotts of those companies.
While taking a stand has become a requirement for brands trying to stay relevant with millennials and younger consumers, there are some questions worth asking.
If people want to strictly adhere to their progressive beliefs and shun brands associated with those who support conservative causes, what about Uber, a company that has received major funding from Saudi Arabia’s wealth fund? Besides the widely publicised human rights violations that Saudi Arabia is known for, its royal family has close ties with Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner.
Uber is far from the only company taking Saudi money. Office messaging service Slack, co-working space WeWork and food delivery service DoorDash – brands that have been fully embraced by younger consumers – have all received funding, directly or indirectly, from the Saudi wealth fund.
While Uber has come under fire in the past for its sexist office culture, its connections to Saudi Arabia are not as widely known. One wonders if fashion insiders would be as quick to shun one of their favourite ride-hailing services as they did a company whose owner shares political beliefs that they simply don’t agree with.
This new-found attention on perceived threats to Chinese sovereignty is down to the current anti-government protests in Hong Kong. But young Chinese internet users had become extremely vocal in calling out brands and celebrities for their supposed wrongdoing long before the recent tensions in Hong Kong.
Such nationalist posturing puts luxury companies in a tough position.
Aware that China is on its way to becoming the largest luxury market in the world, brands are more than willing to kowtow to its demands, often forgetting about the many human rights issues that the Chinese government is embroiled in. One can’t help wondering if, in the very unlikely scenario that China takes military action against Hong Kong protesters, brands will still keep quiet and let money speak louder than principles.
Given the current call-out culture and the ease with which campaigns against companies spread via social media, fashion brands, editors and influencers face the constant risk of offending someone, no matter how lightly they tread and how #woke they claim to be.
Vincenzo La Torre is the fashion editor of the Post