Why Suits Don’t Suit Greens

 

In a recent article in the New Statesman, a former Green Party candidate declared that ‘t shirts with slogans and sandals’ were not helpful to the Greens. He was described himself in the article as wearing an ‘immaculate suit’. On the same day the Green MEP, Molly Scott Cato, was photographed wearing a t shirt in the European Parliament, with the slogan ‘No to TTIP’. The Green MP Caroline Lucas made a famous appearance in a No to Page 3 t shirt in the House of Commons in 2013. And, most pointedly, the popular Green political broadcast in the run up to the May election this year was at pains to differentiate the Greens from other parties on this very issue– a quartet of white men in suits was foiled by a more informally dressed young black woman.

So who is right? Should Greens be wearing suits?

Purists might query whether or not it matters what one is wearing – the policies and principles are what counts. However clothes do matter. As sociologists and communication specialists know, clothes convey meaning – they are signs. The suit suggests business, efficiency, competence and leadership. This is why some Greens advocate its use – they believe that it will enhance their credibility and more people will vote accordingly.

There are significant problems with this approach. The suit itself is a masculine affair: women’s suits are evolving but a woman who dresses in the full jacket, trousers and tie sends out quite a different message to that of a man in the same outfit. The Greens pride themselves on gender equality and suit-wearing may put women at an inherent disadvantage.

But there is a deeper problem. The suit is primarily a sign of the middle classes. It is not something you can wear while doing manual work. Class is an issue at the centre of the Green Party and the Green movement. The party already has a middle class image, which may or may not be deserved. Its policies may be ones that benefit the most disadvantaged – environmental destruction affects the poorest the most and austerity is targeting these groups too, but having the right policies does not mean that people trust or feel an affinity with the party.

Of course, wearing jeans and a t shirt does not make you working class and does not automatically engender the trust of the working class (the opposite may be true). But accepting the status quo and donning suits is to accept and reinforce the desirability of being middle class and alongside it the principle that it is only the (male) middle classes who are really capable of leading and managing our economy and society.

Digital Billboards & Green Economics for Tories

‘Advertising on roadside presents a multitude of street-level opportunities, targeting your audience while they are engaged in some form of transportation. OOH International can provide your campaign with enormous opportunities across many roadside advertising mediums. Surfaces such as phone boxes and lamp-posts can be transformed from outdoor furniture into purveyors of your business, with options escalating as far as fully wrapped buildings and motorway trailers.

The commuter of today spends more time out of their home than previously in history, which means that your publicity will be vastly strengthened by a carefully organised plan. As advertising platforms have the possibility of illumination, there is nothing limiting your visibility – from dusk until dawn, your brand can unavoidably walk alongside the public as they engage in their daily journeys.’

This is an extract from Out of Home International’s website – the company which Mayor George Ferguson wants to install digital billboards in Bristol.*

The Greens were mocked in the Bristol City Council meeting today for their opposition to digital billboards. One Conservative declared that he could ‘not understand Green economics’, on the basis that we were against austerity but also against generating income from digital billboards.

I’ll explain it to him.

Green economics arises from the very simple scientific fact that there are finite natural resources on this planet. Using up these resources rapidly – mining, soil degradation, overfishing – creates a poorer world in the long term. In addition all sorts of complications arise from the extracting, processing and disposing that industrial production and consumption incur. We now have climate change and toxic waste on a massive scale as a result of the accelerated consumption of natural resources.

We depend on our environment to continue providing us with the basic physical necessities of life – food, clean water, warmth and shelter. The famous Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has these as the most fundamental.

Advertising exists to promote consumption. It does exactly the opposite of what we need to do. Along the way it creates a host of other problems for mental and social wellbeing, creating discontent and objectification of people, undermining the next tier of Maslow’s pyramid (for some excellent insights see http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ziad-elhady/the-dogma-of-advertising-_b_2540390.html).

What Green economics offers is the idea of investment in wellbeing rather than in growing consumption (which is the basis of GDP orientated economics). We want enrichment of people’s lives – hence we are opposed to an austerity that cuts vital services and the incomes of people who need help. We want investment in technology and systems which minimise and reverse environmental impact. We believe that a fairer taxation system could provide this. We don’t need digital billboards to fund this investment – that would be counter-productive.

The Tory councillor who could not understand Green economics was operating in a paradigm where profit and income generation are thought to be intrinsically good. It is ‘self-evident’ to him that any profit is good profit. This is part of a fantasy culture where consumption can be infinite. Greens are accused of not living in the ‘real’ world; in fact we are the only political movement which fully acknowledges the limitations of the planet.




*It turns out it is a different company with a very similar name. The principle holds however.