In interviewing people about the meaning beneath their most prized and sacred garments, this idea of "God" within the GENEs of the piece has definitely come through. Definitely will be quoting this piece in the future...
So awesome to be exploring this in this letter. I’ve been interested in fashion for quite some time now and I usually only engaged with it on a surface/ material end but to be honest that was because that was the only layer being explored on a public sphere. I find menswear stifling in that end.
My interests in fashion has now gotten deeper as I’ve been exploring more concepts of beauty that carry across songs, literature, and clothing. So this particular line of questioning is very close to my heart.
I’m in the middle of Elaine Scarrys on Beauty and Being Just. I think if someone is interested in exploring this further they should read this book as it is trying to nail down why beauty matters and why fighting for beauty can be a just cause.
Thanks for writing this. I appreciate your lines of inquiry with clothes Jonah. ❤️
Long time reader, first time leaving something in the comments. Beautiful stuff today. Looking god in things - for me, it's about trying to find god in processes of all kinds, in the way we do things - is lifelong work. But doing that work, and doing it with intention, is the whole point. Anyway, thank you again. Really love what you do here.
truly, so many folks, including artists, makers, and our general world of creatives are affected by this - but more importantly look at all the helpers! the city has turned out in support and it's a beautiful thing.
I think discussing the ankle monitor in terms of a garment is really interesting, because ankle monitor is explicitly defined by it's obligatory nature. This activist is being forced to wear the ankle monitor; it isn't a decision. Choosing what garments to wear, and which sacrifices/burdens/ideology to advertise, is normally something we can decide for ourselves. You ask how many of us own/want to wear items like this, but are there even other examples of garments that display a spiritual and moral burden in the same way (i.e. things we HAVE to wear as opposed to things we want to)? If wearing the item were a choice, would it carry the same weight as the item one is forced to wear?
Your comparison to Nick Cave's definition of religion is also interesting. The rigour that he thinks is integral to religion is, as far as I understand it, only seen as such because religion demands a wholly optional devotion to some doctrine. How then, is the ankle monitor seen as emblematic of religious rigour if it is not a personal choice?
In this specific case the ankle monitor is both a symbol and a component of the legal trouble that an animal rescuer not only expects but actively courts, as a matter of strategy. So yes, it's not quite as straightforward a case as choosing to wear something, but having to wear it is an expected / sought consequence of a choice
Thank you for this essay. The human war on animals goes on unacknowledged, even by many of us on the Left. If you think it's hard to talk about class in the US (it is), try opening up a discussion of our profound debt to non-human animals. I also really admire the folks who agitate on behalf of our animal friends and kin. My solidarity and support goes out to them!
I care deeply for animals, but I’m decidedly not perfect. I don’t eat meat at all, eat very little dairy, but still have a little leather in my wardrobe. When online shopping, I’ll occasionally see things like “lamb skin,” “calf hair” etc and immediately not want it anymore. But I’m playing games with myself because I do have leather items! Anyway, every little bit helps even if I’m not perfect.
At the same time, factory farms are ghastly but they sure feel a damn sight better than the factories puking out "vegan leather," which 9 times out of 10 is basically plastic. I'm excited to see more of the leather alternatives coming down the line (mushroom leather feels impossibly promising), but the alternatives aren't always better than the original
As always, buy as ethically as one can ("no ethical consumption under capitalism" is not a blank check to be as awful as is convenient to a person), and think about the choices one makes and what one is willing to compromise with
There are many bio-based vegan alternatives in production and already available (cactus leather), but there are also long existing textiles that are often suitable: hemp, linen, ramie, etc. It's a common misconception that the production of animal-based textiles is more eco-friendly than synthetics, but it's not black and white at all, and consumption of animal-based textiles does support factory farms as a co-product, not a passive by-product.
We will have to disagree on this one - the factories puking out “vegan leather” are not a damn sight better than factory farms. You’re talking about the environmental impact and maybe you’re right - I don’t know enough about this aspect. But I, and many others, view animals as sentient beings who are truly suffering, so factory farming is far more upsetting to me. It’d be great to do what’s best for both animals and the environment, obviously!
Protest vs create is the sickness of our society. She is going away for 5 years instead of creating alternatives? How about create a fam where animals are raised humanly and then educate people on why this is a better way, despite difference in economies. But no, that would require years of hard work and commitment. Instead, let’s boycott something someone else create.
By an alternative farm that raises animals humanely, I assume you mean one that maintains (harmful) exploitative practices and sends the animals off for slaughter when profitable; so, I must ask why you think animals deserve that treatment instead of sanctuary when we are already conceding that their interests and experiences matter, and that they matter because they are no different from our pets, who are quite similar to us. The secondary dispute is that the high-welfare farms you're thinking of are not scalable by any means, they're not sustainable as it is and require immense support from the government. They can't afford to be less efficient and still make satisfying returns.
No, I mean humane raising and killing of animals for food. Carnivores kill other animals for food, that is the order of nature. By the way, most of the animals kill their prey in what one would consider to be rather inhumane way. Such is life!
Only certain animals need to kill others in order to survive - felines are a perfect example of this. Just because humans were/are smart enough to come up with ideas on how to slaughter animals doesn’t mean we need them to survive, nor is it the “Order of Nature.” Not for human beings. Even primates, our closest ancestors, rarely eat meat. And obviously it’s better if animals are treated more humanely before being slaughtered, but they’re ultimately still being slaughtered in order to end up on someone’s dinner plate.
We are omnivores... not carnivores. Regardless, I don't think many would agree that these categories are morally prescriptive of anything. Ours can be viewed as physiologically entailing the option to be fully plant-based, which coheres with scientific consensus. "Nature's carnivores/predators" aren't doing something morally righteous and good by killing other animals for their survival, it's just what they do while lacking our moral agency, morally neutral for the most part. In what other realm do we look for moral guidance and virtue from wild animals, and especially in their relationships with their victims? The animals we farm would not exist to be preyed upon by other savage animals if we stopped forcing them into existence for our pleasure.
That is actually anti creation. It occurs nowhere in nature, sick animals get killed by predators. That is the real nature, not some imaginary world that doesn’t exist
So first it's about (the lack of) inspirational human creation of institutions, projects, and structures, but now that people point out beautiful, loving, and compassionate creation that was there all along, it's suddenly about God's plan, some mythical telos, or law of nature. Should we let sick humans die and be preyed upon because it occurs somewhere, at some point in nature? Your prejudice towards non-human animals, although common, is substantially more unjustified than you'd like to believe. You should explore it and reflect instead of pushing dogma and taking positions you probably won't be proud of later.
I always thought socks were socks and Muji were fine. But then I tried a pair of Yahae, just to be sure. Oh my god, you guys have ruined me! I had to order a bunch more from Japan. They are wonderful. I hope I find God in them! Thanks.
Exactly— like we say, the symbolic status of the monitor is in dispute, ie shame vs honor. And yet it’s not *purely* a symbolic / aesthetic gesture because she went into a slaughterhouse, rescued animals, and got arrested — and that material act (of extreme commitment to her ideals, of sacrifice) is embodied in the ankle monitor and lends ballast to the symbolic gesture of the sticker
I must have misunderstood. You mean if an artist broke into a slaughterhouse, rescued animals, was arrested and ordered to wear an ankle monitor, and put a sticker that says "I RESCUE ANIMALS" on it, that would be powerful? I agree!
In interviewing people about the meaning beneath their most prized and sacred garments, this idea of "God" within the GENEs of the piece has definitely come through. Definitely will be quoting this piece in the future...
excellent article, thank you!
So awesome to be exploring this in this letter. I’ve been interested in fashion for quite some time now and I usually only engaged with it on a surface/ material end but to be honest that was because that was the only layer being explored on a public sphere. I find menswear stifling in that end.
My interests in fashion has now gotten deeper as I’ve been exploring more concepts of beauty that carry across songs, literature, and clothing. So this particular line of questioning is very close to my heart.
I’m in the middle of Elaine Scarrys on Beauty and Being Just. I think if someone is interested in exploring this further they should read this book as it is trying to nail down why beauty matters and why fighting for beauty can be a just cause.
Thanks for writing this. I appreciate your lines of inquiry with clothes Jonah. ❤️
Thanks, for the note and for recommending the Scarry
“maybe god is in cursed things, too” BARS😮💨😮💨😮💨
Long time reader, first time leaving something in the comments. Beautiful stuff today. Looking god in things - for me, it's about trying to find god in processes of all kinds, in the way we do things - is lifelong work. But doing that work, and doing it with intention, is the whole point. Anyway, thank you again. Really love what you do here.
thank you Jordan
Man maybe its all the ash in the skies here in north east la but this made me tear up a bit.
Our hearts go out to you, nightmare shit
truly, so many folks, including artists, makers, and our general world of creatives are affected by this - but more importantly look at all the helpers! the city has turned out in support and it's a beautiful thing.
I think discussing the ankle monitor in terms of a garment is really interesting, because ankle monitor is explicitly defined by it's obligatory nature. This activist is being forced to wear the ankle monitor; it isn't a decision. Choosing what garments to wear, and which sacrifices/burdens/ideology to advertise, is normally something we can decide for ourselves. You ask how many of us own/want to wear items like this, but are there even other examples of garments that display a spiritual and moral burden in the same way (i.e. things we HAVE to wear as opposed to things we want to)? If wearing the item were a choice, would it carry the same weight as the item one is forced to wear?
Your comparison to Nick Cave's definition of religion is also interesting. The rigour that he thinks is integral to religion is, as far as I understand it, only seen as such because religion demands a wholly optional devotion to some doctrine. How then, is the ankle monitor seen as emblematic of religious rigour if it is not a personal choice?
In this specific case the ankle monitor is both a symbol and a component of the legal trouble that an animal rescuer not only expects but actively courts, as a matter of strategy. So yes, it's not quite as straightforward a case as choosing to wear something, but having to wear it is an expected / sought consequence of a choice
Gotcha, that makes sense!
Thank you for this essay. The human war on animals goes on unacknowledged, even by many of us on the Left. If you think it's hard to talk about class in the US (it is), try opening up a discussion of our profound debt to non-human animals. I also really admire the folks who agitate on behalf of our animal friends and kin. My solidarity and support goes out to them!
I care deeply for animals, but I’m decidedly not perfect. I don’t eat meat at all, eat very little dairy, but still have a little leather in my wardrobe. When online shopping, I’ll occasionally see things like “lamb skin,” “calf hair” etc and immediately not want it anymore. But I’m playing games with myself because I do have leather items! Anyway, every little bit helps even if I’m not perfect.
At the same time, factory farms are ghastly but they sure feel a damn sight better than the factories puking out "vegan leather," which 9 times out of 10 is basically plastic. I'm excited to see more of the leather alternatives coming down the line (mushroom leather feels impossibly promising), but the alternatives aren't always better than the original
As always, buy as ethically as one can ("no ethical consumption under capitalism" is not a blank check to be as awful as is convenient to a person), and think about the choices one makes and what one is willing to compromise with
There are many bio-based vegan alternatives in production and already available (cactus leather), but there are also long existing textiles that are often suitable: hemp, linen, ramie, etc. It's a common misconception that the production of animal-based textiles is more eco-friendly than synthetics, but it's not black and white at all, and consumption of animal-based textiles does support factory farms as a co-product, not a passive by-product.
https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/leather
https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/leather-alternatives
We will have to disagree on this one - the factories puking out “vegan leather” are not a damn sight better than factory farms. You’re talking about the environmental impact and maybe you’re right - I don’t know enough about this aspect. But I, and many others, view animals as sentient beings who are truly suffering, so factory farming is far more upsetting to me. It’d be great to do what’s best for both animals and the environment, obviously!
Protest vs create is the sickness of our society. She is going away for 5 years instead of creating alternatives? How about create a fam where animals are raised humanly and then educate people on why this is a better way, despite difference in economies. But no, that would require years of hard work and commitment. Instead, let’s boycott something someone else create.
By an alternative farm that raises animals humanely, I assume you mean one that maintains (harmful) exploitative practices and sends the animals off for slaughter when profitable; so, I must ask why you think animals deserve that treatment instead of sanctuary when we are already conceding that their interests and experiences matter, and that they matter because they are no different from our pets, who are quite similar to us. The secondary dispute is that the high-welfare farms you're thinking of are not scalable by any means, they're not sustainable as it is and require immense support from the government. They can't afford to be less efficient and still make satisfying returns.
No, I mean humane raising and killing of animals for food. Carnivores kill other animals for food, that is the order of nature. By the way, most of the animals kill their prey in what one would consider to be rather inhumane way. Such is life!
Only certain animals need to kill others in order to survive - felines are a perfect example of this. Just because humans were/are smart enough to come up with ideas on how to slaughter animals doesn’t mean we need them to survive, nor is it the “Order of Nature.” Not for human beings. Even primates, our closest ancestors, rarely eat meat. And obviously it’s better if animals are treated more humanely before being slaughtered, but they’re ultimately still being slaughtered in order to end up on someone’s dinner plate.
We are omnivores... not carnivores. Regardless, I don't think many would agree that these categories are morally prescriptive of anything. Ours can be viewed as physiologically entailing the option to be fully plant-based, which coheres with scientific consensus. "Nature's carnivores/predators" aren't doing something morally righteous and good by killing other animals for their survival, it's just what they do while lacking our moral agency, morally neutral for the most part. In what other realm do we look for moral guidance and virtue from wild animals, and especially in their relationships with their victims? The animals we farm would not exist to be preyed upon by other savage animals if we stopped forcing them into existence for our pleasure.
The organizer you’re talking about rescued sick animals and brought them to a pasture where they can get better, live and chill
To give living things a safer life, recreating Eden for abused critters: is there any better example of creation? ❤️
That is actually anti creation. It occurs nowhere in nature, sick animals get killed by predators. That is the real nature, not some imaginary world that doesn’t exist
So first it's about (the lack of) inspirational human creation of institutions, projects, and structures, but now that people point out beautiful, loving, and compassionate creation that was there all along, it's suddenly about God's plan, some mythical telos, or law of nature. Should we let sick humans die and be preyed upon because it occurs somewhere, at some point in nature? Your prejudice towards non-human animals, although common, is substantially more unjustified than you'd like to believe. You should explore it and reflect instead of pushing dogma and taking positions you probably won't be proud of later.
I always thought socks were socks and Muji were fine. But then I tried a pair of Yahae, just to be sure. Oh my god, you guys have ruined me! I had to order a bunch more from Japan. They are wonderful. I hope I find God in them! Thanks.
They’re so good
I have a feeling you might like or already like Brauch Spinoza.
Im curious where you think one should start with Baruch and Spinoza in regard to this? Thx!
DMing you!
"If triangles could speak, they would say that God is eminently triangular."
Exactly— like we say, the symbolic status of the monitor is in dispute, ie shame vs honor. And yet it’s not *purely* a symbolic / aesthetic gesture because she went into a slaughterhouse, rescued animals, and got arrested — and that material act (of extreme commitment to her ideals, of sacrifice) is embodied in the ankle monitor and lends ballast to the symbolic gesture of the sticker
I must have misunderstood. You mean if an artist broke into a slaughterhouse, rescued animals, was arrested and ordered to wear an ankle monitor, and put a sticker that says "I RESCUE ANIMALS" on it, that would be powerful? I agree!