DOING LAUNDRY MORE SUSTAINABLY: Disrupting everyday practices through media conversations
DOCTORAL THESIS
Holly Wilhelmina Kaye-Smith
School of Humanities and Communication Arts Western Sydney University
2017
Dedication
To the most inspirational, intelligent and capable woman in my life, my mother, Stephanie Cass.
WE MADE IT!!!!
ii
Acknowledgements
My thank you list is quite large because I had so many people come together to participate and help with my research. This includes my supervisors, film crew, actors, and social research participants and I am so grateful to all who contributed. Firstly, to my brainy supervisors Dr Alison Gill and Dr Abby Lopes whom I have learned so much from and who have provided endless support and guidance.
Thanks to my tireless film crew and friends Kellie Green (the founder of combat research!), Stephanie Cass, Abhinav Gauba, Ross Page and Mark Thomas. To my technical advisors Todd Clarke, Mitchel Hart, Greg Holister, Rob Leggo, Lauren Oaklands (I would still be formatting my thesis if it weren’t for you!), Greg O’Reilly, and Iqbal Barkat. To my video cast and research participants. Finally, to my dear friends Michelle Muule, Rachel Bentley and Hayley Porter for your friendship, help, coaching and support, and to my patient and caring partner Ross Fader.
iii
Statement of Authentication
This work has not been submitted for a higher degree at any other institution and it is original and a result of my own research endeavour.
…………………………………………… Holly Kaye-Smith
17 January 2017 …………………………………………… Dated
iv
Table of Contents
List of Tables ...... 1 List of figures ...... 2 Research Question ...... 4 Abstract ...... 4 Introduction ...... 6 Chapter overview ...... 9 CHAPTER 1. MEDIATING SOCIAL CHANGE ...... 11 Overview ...... 11 1.1 Vignette ...... 12 1.2 Summary of ‘Fashion Victims’ ...... 14 1.3 Investigations and exposition ...... 15 1.4 What help is ‘raised awareness’ and consumer action? ...... 18 1.5 Presenting issues as too big can overwhelm the audience ...... 26 1.6 Signs of hope: ‘Fashion Victims Part Two’ ...... 28 1.7 Conclusion ...... 37 CHAPTER 2. CHANGING WAYS OF DOING ...... 40 Overview ...... 40 2.1 Ways of doing laundry ...... 40 2.2 Laundering less ...... 42 2.2.1 The ground-up strategy to reduce laundering’s heavy environmental burden ...... 42 2.2.2 Why launder so much: The not so squeaky clean reasons to wash ...... 43 2.2.3 Who’s talking dirty? Slow fashion theorists ...... 46 2.3 Making public what we do in private: Talking about personal laundering practices ...... 49 2.4 Less about the products and more about the practice: Applying a framework of social practices to laundry ...... 51 2.5 The visual representation of laundering ...... 56 2.6 Conclusion ...... 62 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY: CONVERSATIONAL SOCIAL RESEARCH TO EXPLORE THE CHANGE-ABILITY OF LAUNDERING ...... 65 Overview ...... 65 3.1 Timeline and research methods summary...... 66 3.2 Practice based methods: Constructing a media space to learn about laundering ...... 67 3.2.1 Media and communication experiments ...... 67 3.2.2 Trial proto-practices that could replace a conventional wash ...... 74 3.2.3 Initiating and mediating conversations about washing less ...... 85
v 3.2.4 Continuing the conversation: Turning the video footage into a story to share ...... 94 3.3 Screening and discussion groups ...... 99 3.4 Think-alouds ...... 106 3.5 Conclusion ...... 108 CHAPTER 4. TALKING LAUNDRY RESEARCH FINDINGS: THE POTENTIAL TO ‘WASH LESS’ AND FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT ...... 109 Overview ...... 109 4. Insights from conversational social research ...... 110 4.1 Insights while filming ...... 110 4.2 Screening and discussion unlock user insights ...... 113 4.2.1 Screening and discussion group survey findings...... 113 4.2.2 Reflections about the habitual and inconspicuous nature of laundering ...... 115 4.2.3 Conversational insights into the social aspects of cleanliness and laundering ...... 117 4.2.4 Discussions and comparisons about laundering routines...... 120 4.2.5 The feeling of clean...... 121 4.3 Leverage points that emerged from key themes with the potential to disrupt laundering practices ...... 123 4.4 Think-aloud participants and recordings ...... 126 4.4.1 Kat and Jenny ...... 128 4.4.2 Polly ...... 130 4.4.3 Tracey ...... 131 4.5 Outcomes ...... 132 4.5.1 Conversations and practice to shift perceptions of cleanliness ...... 132 4.5.2 Patterns of practice and opportunities for design interventions ...... 137 4.5.3 Mediating detrimental laundering practices ...... 139 4.5.4 Summary of key findings...... 142 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION: PARTICIPATORY SOCIAL RESEARCH AND MEDIA MAKING THAT EXPLORES WASHING CLOTHES LESS ...... 145 References ...... 149 APPENDICES COVER PAGE ...... 159 Appendix 1: Flip books ...... 160 Appendix2: Survey outcomes………………………………………………………………………160 Appendix 3: Screening and discussion groups ...... 168 Group 1 ...... 168 Group 2 ...... 170 Group 3 ...... 174 Group 4 ...... 179 Group 5 ...... 182 Appendix 4: Think-aloud interviews...... 185 Kat and Jenny ...... 185 Polly ...... 190 Tracey ...... 192
vi LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Breaking down a 'practice', adapted from Pantzar, Shove and Watson, 2012, The Dynamics of Social Practice, p.7-14. Copyright 2012 SAGE Publications Ltd...... 53 Table 2. Social Practice Theory applied to laundering, content drawn from Pantzar, Shove and Watson, 2012, The dynamics of Social Practice, p.7-14. Copyright 2012 SAGE Publications Ltd...... 55 Table 3. The elements used when trialling the proto-practices...... 76 Table 4. Filming public performance of prototype practices and to recruit sniffers from The Sniff Test video, Holly Kaye-Smith 2014...... 99 Table 5. Participants involved in video screening and discussion groups...... 102
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Timecode 00'05'29 from ‘Fashion Victims’ [Screenshot]. Adapted from Four Corners, 27 July 2013, Retrieved October 15 2013 from www.abc.net/4corners. Copyright 2016 Australian Broadcasting Corporation...... 19 Figure 2. Online image search of 'laundering clothes' [Screenshot]. Google Images. Retrieved 10 July 2016 from www.google.com.au. Copyright 2016 Google...... 57 Figure 3. Online image ‘Woman Laundering Clothes in Washer’ [Screenshot]. Dreamstime. n.d. Retrieved July 10 2016 from www.dreamstime.com. Copyright 2016 Andrey Popov...... 58 Figure 4. Online image ‘Launder Properly’ [Screenshot]. Money Crashers. n.d. Retrieved July 10 2016 from www.moneycrashers.com. Copyright 2016 SparkCharge Media, LLC...... 58 Figure 5. Online article ‘The better way to wash your clothes’ [Screenshot]. Men's Health. June 4 2015. Retrieved July 10 2016 from www.menshealth.co.uk. Copyright 2016 Men’s Health...... 59 Figure 6. Online image ‘clothes on a clothesline’ [Screenshot]. Fashion Lady. June 9 2014. Retrieved 10 June 2016 from www.fashionlady.in. Copyright 2016 Fashionlady.in...... 60 Figure 7. Online image ‘Fresh air scented detergent’ [Screenshot]. Method. n.d. Retrieved June 10 2016 from mthodhome.com. Copyright 2016 method products, pbc...... 62 Figure 8. Scene 3 in author’s video documentary [Screenshot] Fashion Footprint, 2008. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 68 Figure 9. Storyboard flipbook 1 excerpt, Appendix 1 [Image]. ‘De-skilling the user and garment resources’. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 69 Figure 10. Storyboard flipbook 2 excerpt, Appendix 1 [Image]. ‘Fast Fashion vs Slow Fashion’. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 70 Figure 11. Storyboard flipbook 3 excerpt, Appendix 1 [Image]. ‘Machine dry vs Line Dry’. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 71 Figure 12. Author on stage at ‘Pitch Night’ AMP Bright Sparks [Screenshot] September May 2015. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 72 Figure 13. Opening scene of author’s crowd source funding video [Screenshot]. We can’t consume our way out of climate change! December 2015. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 73 Figure 14. Asia Pacific 3MT semi-final slide [Photograph] Changing the way we ‘do’ things. September 30 2016. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 73 Figure 15. Clothes airing on authors clothes horse [Photograph]...... 78 Figure 16. Outside view of authors gym clothes getting sun and air [Photograph]...... 79 Figure 17. Purple line shows authors laundry route through her home [Floor plans]...... 81 Figure 18. The dotted purple line shows clothes route, post launder, back to my drawers [Floor plans]...... 82
2 Figure 19. Green line shows eco-refreshing route [Floor plans]...... 83 Figure 20. The green dotted line shows the eco-refreshing routes to return clothes to the drawer [Floor plans]...... 84 Figure 21. Compares authors conventional, higher intensity laundering route (in purple) with the eco-refreshing route (in green) [Floor plans]...... 84 Figure 22. Sample board of authors eco-refreshed clothing [Photograph]...... 88 Figure 23. Sample board and megaphone in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2014. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 88 Figure 24. Onlookers listening to the megaphone spiel in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2014. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 90 Figure 25. Sniffer examining sample in a Sydney market in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2014. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 90 Figure 26. Volunteer sniffer on bus in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot] The Sniff Test. December 2014. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 91 Figure 27. Image of author editing the footage into a story [Photograph]...... 94 Figure 28. Girls participating in a Sydney market, in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2014. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 95 Figure 29. Student examining samples at a Sydney University in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2010. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 96 Figure 30. Woman examining samples on bus in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2010. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 96 Figure 31. Footage of author visualising the 'doing' of an eco-refreshing method in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2010. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith...... 97 Figure 32. Post video screening survey...... 105 Figure 33. Visualisation of conversation themes and which groups discussed them...... 114
3
RESEARCH QUESTION
How can my media prototype activate participation in alternative laundering practices in order to intervene in unsustainable, inconspicuous consumption?
ABSTRACT
This research experiments with a video prototype created to activate user participation in ideas for washing clothes less. Washing clothes can be an extremely resource intensive process, and only 7.5% of the clothes that we wash are considered ‘heavily soiled’, suggesting many clothes are washed unnecessarily. Clothes laundering is referred to as a form of inconspicuous consumption because this routinised activity often goes unnoticed as it melds inconspicuously into everyday life. This is problematic because the routine of the activity can play a greater role in the clothes being washed than the actual need to clean the garments. This research recognises the significant environmental gains that could be met by reducing unnecessary habitual washing. A reduction in washing could be accomplished if clothes users simply questioned whether a garment was ‘dirty’ enough to be put through a washing machine. If the garment is not, the wearer may implement a less resource intensive cleansing method, such as airing the garment on a hanger.
This research also responds to the need for social change advocates and people who make media such as, documentarians, film makers, designers and bloggers, people who I refer to as ‘media makers’, to foster ground-up interventions and strategies for change that could help reduce consumption-related social and environmental problems. The research also explores how media makers can incorporate more inclusive approaches that involve their audiences in contributing to social change. The research seeks ways to equip clothes users with ideas and skills that bypass consumer-oriented ventures in order to capitalise on everyday activity as a form of activist intervention. The investigation began theoretically, and then moved on to auto-ethnographic trials that tested ‘wash less’ methods, before recruiting members of the public for conversational social research in a video shoot, video
4 screening and discussion groups, and finally laundry trials and interviews. The findings suggest that discussion about alternative laundering techniques can be harnessed as a form of disruption that can be augmented by practice-orientated media.
5
INTRODUCTION
In a consumer society that prizes ‘faster, newer, cheaper’ commodities, people are more familiar with being profiled as a ‘consumer’ than a ‘citizen’. By that I mean a ‘consumer’ profile has conditioned people to respond to issues of the world through product selection (such as boycotting brands) and buying eco-friendly or fair trade versions of products (The Story of Stuff Project, 2013). The unfortunate reality of consumer-oriented action is that we cannot consume our way out of climate change or end poverty by buying bottled water for charity. Many social issues and environmental problems stem from unsustainable levels of consumption. Therefore, calling for people to respond to consumption-derived issues through consumer- oriented ventures does not amend the environmental and social problems. Reducing a ‘consumer’s’ impact through enlightened consumption or channelling consumer conscientiousness for an ethical cause becomes, as social and environmental scientist Michael Maniates explains, ‘paradoxically, a consumer-product growth industry’ (2001, p.34). Therefore, rather than responding to issues of the world by merely pruning or limiting consumption, individuals must understand themselves as citizens in a participatory democracy. A ‘citizen’ can intervene in issues of the world in more ways than consumer oriented ventures, such as hands on day-to-day activities and collective citizen action.
By reconfiguring ‘actions’ to explore possibilities beyond the product, citizens can work together to create and enable impactful change that challenges the underlying forces that create and perpetuate consumption-oriented problems. However, as Maniates (2001, p.50) explains,
this future world will not be easy to reach. Getting there means challenging the dominant view – the production, technological, efficiency-orientated perspective that infuses contemporary definitions of progress – and requires linking explorations of consumption to politically charged issues that challenge the political imagination. Walking this path means becoming attentive to the underlying forces that narrow our understanding of the possible.
6 An intervention that overturns an ecologically and socially problematic capitalist system set on unbridled and irresponsible growth could be perceived as unattainable due to the scale of such an ambition, or it could be perceived as being too difficult to orchestrate. It is unlikely we will see such initiatives coming voluntarily from the top down. For example, they are not likely to come from highly profitable fast fashion brands that could, for example, design clothes to last longer and encourage their customers to buy less and to select products for longevity. Therefore, the disruption is more likely to come from people like you and me, whom Maniates and The Story of Stuff Project describe as ‘citizens of society’. The disruption will need to come from many angles such as grass roots community initiatives and political interventions. This research seeks to activate discussion and learning about laundering by using what anthropologist Sarah Pink describes as ‘everyday life and activism’ in an approach in which the everyday is seen as a site for change and activism that recasts the politics of everyday activity (2012, p.5).
My research experiments with how media making and conversations can be used to leverage everyday activities for sustainability. I explore the enormous potential in design theorist Tony Fry’s interpretation of sustainability. He considers people’s ability to know and act, and their ‘ability’ to ‘sustain’ – the sustain-ability of an activity (Fry 1999, p.ix). An interpretation such as Fry’s complements Pink’s vision of harnessing everyday activity as a form activism. Such perspectives prompt my attention on grassroots, or ground-up, strategies for addressing issues that could benefit from a social change – social change with a focus on everyday practices and activities. I take a participatory approach to research and media making and foster user-oriented social change that positions the user as a community-minded citizen rather than merely a consumer. The area I select for intervention is unnecessary/habitual clothes laundering, which consumes a significant amount of water, energy and chemicals (chemicals in whitegoods production and product-based laundry detergents and cleaners). Up to 82% of a garment's energy use occurs when it is being used by the wearer, predominantly in laundering (Franklin Associates, 1993 in Fletcher 2008, p.78), yet only 7.5% of the clothes that we wash are considered ‘heavily soiled’ (Laursen and Hansen, 1997 in Fletcher 2008, p.86). The inconspicuous consumption of resources associated with clothing maintenance is
7 more significant than most people realise, particularly if over-laundering, and the unnecessary washing of clothes that are not dirty, are factored in.
Washing less is the most effective way to combat all aspects of the laundering issue, from water wastage to detergent packaging. Part of reducing washing frequency is questioning why and when a garment is put through the wash. The wearer needs to evaluate whether a wash is actually necessary and consider alternative ways to tend to a garment between wears if it is not ‘dirty’ enough to be put through a washing machine. My research tests Dombek-Keith and Loker’s (2011, p.103) suggestion that clothes users ‘loosen’ their definitions of ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ and turn to laundering alternatives such as spot cleaning and airing clothes. Drawing on theories of social practice, I frame laundering as a social practice of clothing use in order to illuminate the human ‘doing’ component of the activity and to enable conversations to encompass all aspects of the activity, rather than getting stuck on individual factors such as detergents or drying machines.
My communications approach responds to sustainability theorists Fletcher and Grose’s call out for ‘a deeper and broader communications and education movement’ in order to ‘build ‘literacy’ in the general population around ecology and natural systems and their interconnections with human systems’ (2012, p.158). Alongside efforts to build literacy in the general public, I foster Illich’s argument that people need to be cast as competent individuals with valuable ideas and skills to share with the fashion system (1975 in Fletcher, 2011, p.174). I use documentary video as a media prototype to model ideas for change, and to activate participation in alternative laundering practices and washing less. I start a conversation about washing less in a guerrilla style film shoot around the streets of Sydney where people discuss and interact with no-wash laundering samples. The footage was then edited into a video and the discourse continued in video screenings followed by a group discussion. Finally, the last part of the conversation entailed participant-led 'think- alouds', as volunteers trialled no-wash techniques and recorded these trials as an expression of their practice.
Sustainable fashion theorist Tullia Jack’s (2012, p.4) research into washing less suggests ‘that collective conventions have utmost influence on actions, implying that intervening in social discourse has high potential to enable pro-environmental default practices’. Responding to the power of collective conventions, I experiment with a
8 participatory social change media approach that focuses on and rewards innovation in individual practices. These innovations are then shared in an effort to influence social norms. I employ the online climate change communication resource Talking Climate’s suggestion about fostering sustainable initiatives by normalising proactive behaviour and I strive to appeal to ‘self-transcendent values’ (Climate Outreach and Information Network and the Public Interest Research Centre 2011, who will now be abbreviated to ‘COIN and PIRC, 2011’) that nurture feelings and actions which encourage people to act for the greater good. I experiment with a media and conversational approach that casts clothing users as proactive doers, learners and innovators, and with a focus on the possibilities for ‘sustain-abilities’ (Fry, 2009; Gill, Lopes and Kaye-Smith, 2016). In doing so, some light is shed on the ability of citizens to implement changes in laundering practices and to change societal perceptions of cleanliness.
Chapter overview
This thesis explores how a participatory approach to research and media making could facilitate a social discourse around reducing laundering frequency. It is an approach that capitalises on the skills of its audience and gets people primed for, involved in, experimenting with, and modelling change. The first chapter looks at ‘mediating’ social change: how forms of media construct audiences through modes of address. The chapter is divided into two parts. The first is a vignette of my response to ‘Fashion Victims’, an episode of the ABC TV documentary program Four Corners (Ferguson and Jolley, 2013). It describes my personal experience as a viewer watching an exposé on current affairs television. The vignette illustrates conventional forms of representing a problem and considers both ‘what’ and ‘how’ the narratives are reproduced. The vignette is followed by a discussion around the media’s agency, and what I see to be a missed opportunity for the media to enable ground-up grassroots change from its audience. The second part discusses how social change advocates and media makers address and construct audiences in expository documentaries and social change media. I examine the limitations and implications of the filmmaker taking an authoritative role, which positions the audience as unknowing. I argue that such an approach does not capitalise on the capacity of its
9 audience to contribute meaningfully and creatively to social change beyond being ‘enlightened’ about a topic.
Laundering less, the social change issue that I ‘mediate’, is discussed in Chapter 2. Here, I highlight the need to reduce clothes washing frequency, and establish a practice framework for understanding laundering and washing less. The framework sees laundering as comprising of, not only several related practices, such as putting a load of washing on and pegging clothes on a clothes line, but as bundled up in the tacit flows of everyday household activity. My research methodology is outlined in Chapter 3. The methodological aim is to construct a media space that facilitates learning about laundering practices and washing less, and generates further discussion. To achieve this, I first conduct auto-ethnographic research into laundering less. I then take a participatory approach to research and media making in order to recruit and engage participants and generate user-oriented discussions. I invite the reader to view the prototype video at a point marked in chapter 3.
The findings in Chapter 4 reveal what came from putting the user at the centre of the research, and the surprising willingness of people to volunteer and participate, discuss and experiment with ideas for washing less. Some very personal information about cleanliness perceptions and laundering practices are shared and, importantly, shifts in cleanliness perceptions and laundering practices are evidenced. The chapter illustrates the power of conversation and its disruptive value by making people think and share in order to move into a proactive citizen role. Chapter 5 outlines findings and imagines how these innovations could be applied in future interventions.
10
CHAPTER 1. MEDIATING SOCIAL CHANGE
Overview
What is the point of an audience being made aware of a shocking, moving or maddening issue if they cannot contribute to changing it? This chapter illustrates how audiences can be underutilised in some expository documentaries and media stories. By expository, I mean media that exposes a problem or injustice, and I discuss how such media stories can evoke disempowering and depressive feelings in the audience. These depressive feelings can be an obstacle to any efforts at communicating ideas for change that the audience can then enact. Instead, expository media could mobilise the audience by incorporating a communication goal/strategy for social transformation. This chapter discusses contemporary audiences’ communication needs and expectations, as well as the documentary (or media maker’s) own expectations of the audience. Communication techniques/conventions are evaluated to imagine strategies that transcend the individualised consumer- oriented action that is so often prescribed to audiences, in order to provide the audience with skills and prime them to participate in bringing about change. These are referred to as ‘ground-up’ strategies that utilise collective citizen action and everyday activity in order to destabilise socially and environmentally damaging conventions of normative, everyday practice. This chapter argues that for the audience to be able to contribute to change, they need to feel empowered and integral to change.
The chapter opens with a vignette about my viewing experience of an episode of ABC Four Corners ‘Fashion Victims’ (Ferguson and Jolley, 2013). It then moves into a broader discussion that unpacks some conventions of expository documentaries (and other expository media) that can be unhelpful in inspiring audience involvement for change. Expository conventions, such as a fixation on the backstory and the enormity of an issue, can disempower audiences by making their individual efforts feel insignificant. Feelings of insignificance are not a productive tactic for provoking action. Instead, the media maker could invite a more participatory response in the audience that, I argue, is more conducive to enabling social change, by modelling involvement.
11
1.1 Vignette
So here I am. My third attempt to watch ‘Fashion Victims’, a story about the Rana Plaza collapse that killed 1,129 garment workers in Bangladesh, and I’m psyching myself up to start the viewing. It’s morning, so I will have the rest of the day to work and recover from the emotional turmoil l anticipate … People often assume, given my interest in sustainability and humanitarian issues, that I would be the first to jump online and watch this story. However, this is not the case. In fact, I have postponed watching ‘Fashion Victims’ for three weeks now. I have procrastinated because I know that when I do watch it, I will meet the victims and witness the tragedy, and I will feel deterred and devastated.
I do care about the offshore garment workers I’ve recently heard so much about in the media (prompted by the ‘Fashion Victims’ exposé), and I also care about many other issues, and I by no means ignore them. Quite the opposite, I am the shopper who forgets her bags, and so balances a pyramid of groceries in her arms, like an aspiring Cirque Du Soleil artist. My dog is a rescue, and I am ‘that person’ who donates to Oxfam rather than buying a present at a toddler’s birthday party. Interestingly, in recent years the Oxfam donation has provided a newly recognised benefit in our first-world battle to store the detritus of the excessive consumption in which we indulge. This was articulated perfectly by my best friend after her two- year-old’s birthday party. Rubbing her forehead and surrounded by gifts – toddler clothing, fluffy bears and plastic toys – she exclaimed, ‘what am I going to do with all this stuff?’
Despite my proactive nature, I am probably the first person to quickly change the channel if a distressing advertisement comes on about animal welfare or starving children in Africa. I find the emotions provoked by these kinds of media almost unbearable. I do actively try to do the ‘right thing’, but I do this because, after being told what is or could be the ‘right thing’, I do it because it feels good. However, I do not like feeling the empathetic trauma or guilt brought on by shocking and depressing media – hence my knee-jerk, channel-changing reaction, and procrastination around watching ‘Fashion Victims’.
OK. Deep breath in, slow exhale. Press play.
12 Forty-five minutes, three tissues, and half a green tea later, it’s finally over and I am absolutely devastated. I feel drained by the relentless emotional barrage of shocking content. When I wasn’t distressed by frightening imagery about the victims who are killed, manipulated, exploited, abused and helpless to change their situation, I was angered by details about the constant neglect that big business retailers are guilty of. They had many opportunities to intervene and prevent the disaster (but didn’t), and their attempts to deny culpability were disgraceful.
The scale of the problem causes a strong sense of frustration, which was overwhelming and disempowering. I am left feeling outraged but helpless because this disaster has already happened, so the lives are lost and there is nothing I can do to change that. I feel overwhelmed and helpless because this kind of garment production is still happening right now and I’ve learned it is increasing in scale. I am offered no suggestions as to how I can intervene, and I am left feeling frustrated and dejected. I commend ‘Fashion Victims’ for exposing inhumane processes and for publicly shaming and pressuring retailers to implement and uphold Australian occupational health and safety requirements, but this leaves me with no hope at all. Big businesses were shown to have no integrity, and no institution that effectively keeps them in line apparently governs them.
I have just endured 45 minutes of traumatising investigative journalism for what? To feel like crap, and to be told that ‘consumers’ need to recognise their cheap clothes have blood on their labels? I immediately look down at my favourite Muppets Show tracksuit pants that I am wearing, twist the waist to reveal the tag. Yep, made in China. My Bond’s top? China. OK, thanks, I recognise my (presumably) bloody labels and I feel terrible about it. So what do I do now ‘Fashion Victims’? ... Absolutely nothing, that’s what. The retailers commissioning this kind of garment production, and the workers in Bangladesh, India or China, feel so far out of my reach that they are untouchable and unhelp-able. So I throw away my tissues, make a fresh cup of tea and shift my focus back onto work, burying my head in the sand.
13 1.2 Summary of ‘Fashion Victims’
Sarah Ferguson and Mary Ann Jolley’s ‘Fashion Victims’ was a timely and evocative Four Corners episode broadcast on 24 June 2013 by the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) two months after the Rana Plaza collapse. As the double meaning of the title indicates, ‘Fashion Victims’ uncovers, for Australian audiences, the human cost of the offshore labour conditions under which the latest fashion garments are manufactured, and to which these audiences might fall ‘victim’ as fashion consumers. The program is a moving exposé that explains the shortfalls and corruption of fast fashion, global brands, factory management and the mistreatment of workers. This story is particularly shocking for those who, as fashion consumers, are potentially implicated in this scenario. I selected ‘Fashion Victims’ to discuss in this chapter because it is a media work that clearly illustrates some of the conventions of expository documentary, a primary mode of documentary according to Bill Nichols in Introduction to Documentary (2010, p.76). ‘Fashion Victims’ presents a strong argument based on an authoritative investigation of a problem.
The episode provides the viewer with insights into what really goes on behind the scenes, evidence of what ‘has been’ and ‘what is’ the way many clothes are made. Background information is combined with expert opinions and personal testimony from workers, their families and rescuers involved with the Rana Plaza factory collapse, to present a strong argument that these processes need to change. The flawed system of clothing supply tragically fails those who are most vulnerable.
The story opens by drawing the audience into the lives of those who survived the collapse and those who didn’t survive – suffering amputees, loved ones searching for their partners, and young children who had lost their parents. The audience then learns about the perpetrators, namely fashion brands who dominate the fast fashion market and the factory management who are also responsible for the breach of human rights, which forced employees to work in an unsafe factory. Ferguson and Jolley humanise the issue by uniting stories about big business’s blatant failure to prevent the suffering, injury and death of the otherwise faceless workers that make our clothes. The documentary mostly alternates between the wrongdoing of big businesses, personal testimonies from factory workers and expert opinions about the need for change.
14 1.3 Investigations and exposition
Ferguson’s onscreen persona is a classic example of an investigative informant who will enlighten the audience through her intense and invasive inquiry, in the course of constructing a picture of the problem. She takes an informative approach that aligns with what Nichols describes as the ‘corresponding voice of authority – someone we see as well as hear who speaks on behalf of the film’ (2010, p.60). Ferguson’s authoritative role provides a commentary designed to persuade the audience of her argument, and assumes they should agree with her and care about it. Ferguson gives the back story of the Rana Plaza collapse and makes people ‘aware’ of a failing system of clothing supply. There is an emphasis on the enormous scale of the problem, which is often required when telling the backstory of an issue in order to stress its importance, captivate the audience and capture their attention. The backstory told by ‘Fashion Victims’ made justice seem very unlikely, as big businesses were shown to avoid culpability, and to avoid paying compensation to the victims while victims are portrayed as being helpless and doomed. In constructing the story, Ferguson and Jolley would have selected the most extreme cases of the Rana Plaza collapse victims and the most infuriating and neglectful stories about the perpetrators. Without these shocking stories, ‘Fashion Victims’ would not have felt so dramatic, evocative and horrifying. As Frank (2013, p.1021) explains, although the film maker wants to establish trust in and credibility of her story,
what makes for credibility can serve to undercut the entertainment value of a film. If the film is not entertaining, then – the filmmaker fears – she may lose the audience before she is given the opportunity to tell her story…. But, in order to establish herself as our representative through film, she must entertain us. And, entertaining us often involves presenting pictures of the experience viewers did not have that are not – strictly speaking – representative of that experience. Instead of showing something like the average of an experience – for example, what an average example of police brutality is like, or what daily life as a transgender teen often looks like – the filmmaker shows a particularly striking example of police brutality, or a particularly challenging moment in the life of a transgender teen as a means to showing why viewers should respond.
15 Ferguson speaks about, and speaks for, those involved in the Rana Plaza collapse and constructs a narrative through information and facts that ‘make points about the world we share’ (Nichols, 2010, p 60–61). Another classic example of the informant approach is ‘The Voice of God’ (VOG). This is when a narrator is not seen, only heard, and the technique implies authority and knowledge (Nichols, 2010, pp.59–76). An example of a VOG is Ted Danson narrating the documentary The End of the Line (Clover 2009).
Ferguson provides evidence against big retail businesses and the plaza owner, which exposes their wrongdoing through media releases, paperwork found in the rubble, and interviews with workers. Retailers and the plaza factory management are constructed as the ‘bad guys’, while garment workers are portrayed as exploited, abused and powerless. Ferguson reveals the plight of the garment workers through interviews with workers and rescuers, news reports, and vision taken on mobile phones leading up to and during the collapse. We also see representatives from some garment factories that do pay a living wage, and we also see first world activists, such as Californian politician George Miller who works to hold the fashion industry and consumers accountable for the occupational health and safety conditions of garment workers. Miller explains the public needs to understand that their cheap clothes have blood on their labels, and they need to ask themselves if they want to continue buying these garments. Along with this public awareness of bloody labels, it is implied that consumers also contribute to the driving down of production costs, which leads to the outsourcing of cheap labour. As Four Corners anchor Kerry O’Brien states in his introduction ‘Australians love a bargain, what’s the real cost of cheap clothes from the sweatshops in Bangladesh?’ Despite such claims about their role, the public, or ‘consumers’, are mostly left out of the story told in ‘Fashion Victims’.
Unlike the VOG narration, we see Ferguson there in the context of the action – a human being like other human beings. However, as the informant, she does not represent the audience because she is not part of the everyday world we viewers exist in. Instead, she is bravely intervening and informing the viewer remotely, in the thick of the catastrophe’s aftermath, in Bangladesh. She is seen rummaging through the Rana Plaza rubble, interviewing factory workers and exposing corrupt management and retailers. Therefore, in ‘Fashion Victims’, the audience see the authoritative
16 informant (Ferguson), the victims (garment workers), the perpetrators (big businesses retailers, plaza and factory management, and to some degree consumers), and the heroes trying to intervene (such as Ferguson and Miller). However, one character is missing within the narrative of ‘Fashion Victims’– a character that represents the audience, and this creates a sense of disconnect between the viewer and those on screen. The viewer is left feeling more of an observer to a scene that is being revealed to them. This is problematic because the viewer should be able to relate to the points and arguments made by Ferguson, and to see where they are positioned in this system of oppression. However, aside from a quite extreme reference to consumers having blood on the labels of their cheap clothes, the ‘Fashion Victims’ audience is positioned outside of the story, and their connections to it are unclear. A person who stands in to represent the audience could have been very helpful in shedding light onto where the audience ‘fit’ and what the audience could do to help change the unethical working conditions they learn about. An on- screen representative could have discussed and modelled intervention strategies that utilise the audience and connect the big picture (the backstory of the systemic wrongdoing) to the small (the viewer’s world and how they might intervene).
Regarding the authoritative approach to informing the audience of an issue, Heather Smith’s study Emotional Responses to Documentary Viewing and the Potential for Transformative Teaching (2014, p.229–230) suggests the authoritative approach may not always be the best to convince the audience of the film maker’s argument, particularly if the audience is to feel connected to the issue. As Heather Smith’s study found, the most convincing documentary communication strategy employed in her study, a strategy that was used in a documentary about racism, was one that presented (without narration) real-life footage about racism in everyday life. The film compared the daily experiences of a white man and a black man, and the footage shocked and surprised the audience, triggering ‘further exploratory thoughts rather than an end point’. These thoughts led the audience to distinguish between ‘objective or intellectual knowledge and a more human perspective’, which, in turn, led towards understanding societal influences on racism and racialization’ (2014, pp.229-230). Smith’s insights provided an opportunity to break away from more traditional or conventional modes of address, and explore less didactic approaches. Smith’s insights also show the power of capturing what she calls ‘real life’, the
17 dynamics of everyday life as it unfolds, and capturing real life experiences - as they happen - rather than dictating a narrative or other conventional approaches such as re-enactments and a focus on the backstory of an issue. I see the appeal of using unscripted footage because of its ability to bring an essence of raw and unbridled experience. The viewer is able to undergo a sensorial experience as it unfolds with and through those in the documentary.
1.4 What help is ‘raised awareness’ and consumer action?
Awareness-raising media that is retrospectively fixated on the problem and its backstory can provoke depressive feelings. The depressive feelings can hinder the audiences’ ability to understand the issue they are being shown as they become overwhelmed with their own emotions. This introduces the risk of the viewer spiralling into self-absorption as they recognise and embellish their own pain and distress about the story. As Hytten and Warren (2003 in Smith, 2014, p.225) explain, ‘self-absorption’ is an ‘almost obsessive focus on one’s own feelings, reactions, and experiences’ and can lead to a ‘lack of understanding of how others are affected’, due to the fixation on one’s own feelings. The entire episode of ‘Fashion Victims’ was about a system that is corrupt and offers no empowering material in the audiences’ sphere of ability. My experience of watching ‘Fashion Victims’ relates to Hytten and Warren’s description of ‘self-absorption’ as I was unable to lift myself out of distress. In order to write this chapter, I watched ‘Fashion Victims’ several times and never became desensitised to moments like the terror of the factory workers, who knew the building wasn’t safe and didn’t want to go back inside, but were blackmailed and physically forced to re-enter the building against their will. Nor did I become desensitised to the image of two corpses in the rubble, a man shielding a woman from the collapsing ceiling (see Figure 1).
18
Figure 1. Timecode 00'05'29 from ‘Fashion Victims’ [Screenshot]. Adapted from Four Corners, 27 July 2013, Retrieved October 15 2013 from www.abc.net/4corners. Copyright 2016 Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I see Figure 1 as one of the most powerful images in the story, and it evoked in me emotions so strong that, only five minutes into the story, I was soon lost in my own distress, making ‘Fashion Victims’ almost unbearable to watch. Figure 1 initiated an exploration of these emotions, which I likened to those found in Smith’s study and description of the audience becoming absorbed in overwhelming reactions (2014, p.229-230). Such images trigger morbid thoughts of an unjust reality of cheap clothes and a broken system. It encapsulates the last moment and embrace of two dying people and the trauma of those involved in rescuing victims. The man looks to have tears trickling down his face – possibly blood tears – transformed by the film into a symbol of the trauma and tragedy in the last moments of their lives, and of the abuse and violation of human rights the garment workers endured, and of the blood shed for the fast fashion garments we mindlessly consume. Images such as Figure 1 haunt me, coupled with stories like that of ‘teenager Suki [who] spent 5 days buried alive surrounded by the dead’ (Ferguson in Ferguson & Jolley, 2013), and Mukta who described the intense heat under the rubble, how insects were crawling all over her body, and the dead body of a Hindu girl decomposing next to her.
Undoubtedly, these powerful images and insights are important and have a place in exposing wrongdoing and emphasising its tragic consequences. Disaster imagery, similar to Figure 1, gain media visibility and traction to catch public attention, making them appealing to news sources and effective in reaching a broader
19 audience. A prime example of this is photographer Nilüfer Demir’s (2015) image of the drowned body of three year old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi.1 The image went viral online and in global news media. Adam Kurdi’s lifeless body found on the beach became the image of family tragedy in an international refugee crisis. Such images that capture people at risk and loss of life are shocking and can prompt political or institutional change. However, it is imperative that the use of this sort of imagery is coupled with ideas for involving the viewer, citizens, in ground-up activities that can help to work towards change.
Connecting an issue to the audience must be handled with care. As Fletcher and Grose explain in Fashion and Sustainability: Design for change, ‘put simply, when working with sustainability ideas and practices, nothing exists in isolation’ (2012, p.143). If the audience is made ‘aware’ of an issue that they could or do play a role in, this awareness could provoke feelings of guilt, which, as online climate change communication resource Talking Climate explains, ‘carries a considerable risk of backfiring’ (COIN & PIRC, 2011). Ferguson and Brandscombe (2010 in COIN & PIRC, 2011) explain that guilt can trigger defensive responses against the perceived threat or challenge to one’s sense of identity (as a good, moral person) making the audience justify their behaviour. If efforts to construct and engage the audience are not included, confronting material of the type described above is ‘likely to trigger barriers to engagement, such as denial’ (Stoll-Kleemann et al., 2001; Lorenzoni, Nicholson-Cole & Whitmarsh 2007 in COIN & PIRC, 2011). Boiler (1999, p.191 in Smith, 2014, p.226) explains that the defensive response to guilt about a topic that is deemed ‘too much’ may result in the viewer resisting the message, quite often angrily, as the viewer protects their beliefs, values and identity. Another consideration is that the audience may even reject culpability by seeing themselves as victims, in ‘Fashion Victims’’ case, of an unjust production system that has been hidden from them.
Therefore, when confronting audiences with shocking and depressive content I see it as imperative that the storyteller also gives the viewer hope. Talking Climate recommend dealing with big issues such as climate change by taking an approach that says ‘we know this is scary and overwhelming, but many of us feel this way and
1 The image was leveraged to create policy change that has helped refugees worldwide, however to respect the Kurdi family whose loss has been broadcast worldwide, I have not included this image.
20 we are doing something about it’ (COIN & PIRC, 2011). Jane Caro also sees the value of a more optimistic strategy, as is documented in her radio interview on ‘The World Today’, explaining optimism is under-utilised in social change discussions such as climate change. In reference to climate change and influencing societal practices, Caro (in Lauder, 2014) explains
Scientists have tried very hard to leverage fear, and I think to some extent they’ve succeeded, but I think what they’ve failed to do is leverage hope and, in fact, their opponents have leveraged the hope that the scientists are wrong and that if you just ignore it, they’ll go away.
Caro’s point is important because without hope and the possibility of change, the issue could feel unchangeable and doomed, which is disempowering for the audience and provides no motivation for them to respond.
In ‘Fashion Victims’ the lack of clarity as to how the audience can help improve working conditions for garment workers is problematic. The diegetic world of the story is centred on the background to the disaster and its aftermath and, other than brief mentions of consumers, there is no clear picture as to where the audience ‘fits’ and nor is there a goal that the audience can actively work towards. By default, the ‘Fashion Victims’ viewer must identify as a remotely located consumer, a consumer who has contributed to driving the price of clothes down, and who has therefore made an impact on the working conditions of production. This is because ‘consumers’ are mentioned in ‘Fashion Victims’ in a way that unclearly, or indeterminately, implicates the audience. This is demonstrated by former Four Corners anchor Kerry O’Brien who asked, when opening the show, ‘is there a person in this country who hasn’t benefited from cheap clothes made out of sight in a very different part of the world?’ After naming familiar Australian brands connected to the collapse, O’Brien states that an Oxfam study revealed Australians would pay more for clothes made under better conditions, however no further insight is provided for the audience to act upon. Couple O’Brien’s insights with Miller’s arguments for consumers to be aware of the blood on their cheap clothes’ labels, and an audience could assume that consumers should pay more for their clothes.
The comments of both O’Brien and Miller could also imply a consumer boycott may be one course of action the viewer can enact. However, an individual
21 consumer boycott is a momentary solution that does not tackle the cause of the problem, a problem that is complex and systemic. For a boycott to have a significant impact it needs to be on a significant scale. The implementation of informed consumer choice or consumer-oriented ‘action’ is important when goods need to be purchased. Australian consumer advocacy groups such as Choice, a network established to enable mindful and informed consumption, support the consumer’s right to make well-informed choices between one product and another. However, such initiatives are only beneficial if the information for evaluating products is widely available, including full disclosure of manufacturing processes. ‘Fashion Victims’ informed the viewer about poor offshore labour conditions, however no further insight is provided about the impact, nor whereabouts, of better choices that clothing consumers could make.
‘Fashion Victims’ exemplifies how a media work can expand and challenge our social, political and environmental knowledge, but offers little in terms of what the audience can do to contribute to change. It raises awareness about the issue but what help is this? After viewing the documentary, I felt it was simply wrong to think about buying clothes. Further to the ambiguity of constructing the audience, by default, as ‘consumers’, there is a problem in implying that only consumer-oriented action is the only possible choice. Instead, the audience needs to be constructed as skilful and capable citizens who are integral to the forces that can create change. Sustainability theorist Kate Fletcher considers it necessary to rethink the narrow view that assumes the only individual agency people have is their capacity to consume, and she argues people need to ‘be recast in roles other than just as consumers but also as competent individuals and suppliers of ideas and skills’ (2011, p.174). Such an approach means shifting the focus from making better purchasing decisions, or buying improved ‘stuff’, towards hands-on innovation in our daily lives to circuit-break a flawed system. Fletcher even looks to clothes users to investigate innovative insights into the craft of use in projects such as Local Wisdom (Fletcher, 2009). Local Wisdom is a global initiative where researchers interview clothing users about a treasured garment, its history and how they care for it. The interviewer also photographs the garment and then uploads the image and story to the Local Wisdom website. The online research provides user-oriented data that can be adopted and/or incorporated into future designs and social change interventions. Fletcher’s work
22 demonstrates the value of a social dialogue with clothes users, a strategy that casts people as valuable contributors of ideas that we can all learn from.
The line of thought that suggests more consumption is a remedy to a problem is often deeply flawed. This is because the perpetuation of consumption (that is in many cases already excessive) contributes to, and can even amplify, the humanitarian and ecological sustainability issues associated with excessive consumption. For example, it was estimated that 12.5 billion tonnes of textiles are sent to landfill (Bianchi & Birtwistle, 2012, p.336) in Australia each year. Australia has been described as a high producer of textile waste when compared to other developed economies (Hyder Consulting, 2008 in Caulfield, 2009, p.3). Textile waste contributes to the formation of leachates, which can contaminate groundwater, and even the disposal of organic fibres produces large amounts of ammonia which is highly toxic to both terrestrial and aquatic environments (Caulfield, 2009, p.4). Such insights illustrate the problem of promoting more consumption to remedy waste problems, regardless of how ‘ethical’ the production processes and materials may be perceived.
Alongside the sustainability issues, suggesting more consumption is ineffective in creating the radical (often complex and systemic) change that is required to truly resolve issues like those shown in ‘Fashion Victims’. Amongst other theorists, Eva Heiskanen and Mika Pantzar point out that ‘consumption is the reason anything gets produced, and consumption and production together are the source of all man-made stress on the natural environment’ (Jamison, 1992; Heiskanen, Karna, & Lovio, 1995 in Heiskanen & Pantzar, 1997, p.409). Social scientist Michael Maniates explains, when looking to resolve our larger systemic issues, that consumer-oriented remedies to environmental and social problems are ineffective in truly addressing consumption related problems. Maniates argues that society cannot ‘plant a tree to save the world’, meaning we cannot ‘fix’ our problems by continuing to do detrimental activities and think somehow we can balance them out, or offset them, with a small gesture of remorse. In fact, Maniates argues, ‘living lightly on the planet’ and ‘reducing your environmental impact’, has become, paradoxically, ‘a consumer-product growth industry’ (2001, pp.34–50).
Gill Seyfang, furthers the argument of theorists, such as those above, in ‘Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment’. Seyfang argues ‘consumers’
23 are not offered real choice about their consumption and lifestyle because they are restricted to whatever the producers offer. Seyfang says, ‘for example, a person might choose one brand of washing machine over another because of its greater energy-efficiency, but what they cannot easily choose is to purchase collectively and share laundry facilities among a local group of residents’ (Seyfang, 2004, p.14). Seyfang’s example demonstrates how ‘the market offers us just an illusion of choice, and consumers are effectively locked in to a particular consumption pattern by the overarching social structures of market, business, working patterns, urban planning and development’ (Sanne, 2002 in Seyfang, 2004, p.14). Therefore, the ability to operate outside of ‘consumption patterns’ needs illuminating, exploring and co- exploring with citizens. As Seyfang explains, the present situation and raft of sustainable consumption policies do not represent developed, democratic and participatory governance at all. Rather, the ever-encroaching dominance by the market and by an ideology which parades a narrow version of environmental citizenship along the supermarket aisles.
Such an approach cannot conceive of lifestyles which do away with supermarkets altogether, or which evaluate ‘quality of life’ above material consumption. The collaborative consumption movement exemplifies a crusade that is currently disrupting traditional ‘consumption patterns’ that prioritise individualised ownership. Central to the rise of collaborative consumption is the establishment of a ‘sharing economy’, which indicates the strength of collective citizen action. As Rachel Botsman explains, a sharing economy can enable access to underutilised assets and for people to pay for that access to goods and resources, rather than ownership (2015). Therefore, when considering alternate economic and consumption models that step outside of narrow, individualised, market oriented ideologies that offer the illusion of ‘choice’ we see how a great opportunity for sustainability and indeed environmental citizenship is missed. What remains is a superficial change rather than the deep-rooted and fundamental shift in social structures that many believe is necessary (Seyfang, 2004, p.16).
Matthew Bentley, John Fien and Cameron Neil explore a reduction of consumption in their report Sustainable Consumption: Young Australians as agents of change (2004). Bentley et al. remind the reader of previous interventions, dating back decades, such as Living Better With Less (Pausacker, 1981 in Bentley et al.,
24 2004) and the Australian government’s major publication More with Less. Bentley et al. provide insight into the 1981 government report, that looked at sustainable consumption influences such as information, education, incentives, and new products. However, they explain ‘the strategies for action fall short of encouraging lifestyle changes as well as educating and empowering young people to bring about lifestyle changes in the wider community’ (1996, 1981 in Bentley et al. 2004, p. 22). These changes to lifestyle are critical in overturning unsustainable consumption practices. Through lifestyle changes that citizens can enact, there lies the potential to, as anthropologist Sarah Pink explains, harness everyday life activity as a form of activism. Therefore, making everyday activity a site for change and activism recasts the politics of the everyday (2012, p.5). Part of this is breaking down ‘lifestyle changes’ to achievable everyday activities.
Expository texts like ‘Fashion Victims’ do not explore the strength of collective citizen action and fail to acknowledge what Maniates describes as the ‘collective ability to imagine and pursue productive responses to [social change and] environmental problems’. The productive imaginings and responses that Maniates refers to are those that stretch beyond consumer-oriented actions or campaigns because consumer behaviour is ‘constrained, shaped, and framed by institutions and political forces that can only be remade by collective citizen action’. Therefore, it is important to consider the power of collective citizen action that challenges problematic systems and consumption itself. The Story of Solutions (2013) emphasises the power of collective citizen action and illustrates how every citizen’s skillset can be harnessed to create change, and it even suggests collective citizen action could remake the capitalist economy that is built upon the idea that more is ‘better’. The Story of Solutions vision is explored and touched on by other theorists and films. Examples include Carl Honore, writer of In Praise of Slow: How a Worldwide Movement Is Challenging the Cult of Speed (2005), and the documentary The True Cost (Morgan, 2015) that asserts our current business model of growth for profit is completely unsustainable. The ‘sharing economy’ is one response to challenge a capitalist logic of accumulating materials and wealth. As described in ‘The rise of the sharing economy’, ‘at the core of the sharing economy is people renting things from each other’. It is a form of ‘collaborative consumption’ which allows ‘owners to make money from underused assets’ and allows renters to ‘pay
25 less than if they would have bought the item themselves’ (2013). The environmental gain is that less new items are demanded therefor less resources used and less waste produced. For example, the car share initiative Go Get enables patrons to hire communal vehicles for a few hours or longer when needed – as opposed to buying their own car. In working towards change, citizen and collective action could be harnessed by media makers looking to create social change and possibly increase the impact of their messages. Media makers could invest more time investigating, creating and communicating ground-up community-based interventions that could utilise and mobilise audiences who want to contribute to change.
1.5 Presenting issues as too big can overwhelm the audience
Too much emphasis on the enormous scale of an issue can overwhelm an audience with the problem and leave them, like myself after watching ‘Fashion Victims’, feeling disconnected from the perpetrators who remain untouchable. Smith attributes disconnect to documentaries that are older or filmed overseas (2014, p.234). However, I also relate a feeling of disconnect to the audience member who feels unable to help change an issue, as they feel disconnected from its sphere. ‘Fashion Victims’ shows extreme and distressing cases of abuse, neglect, victimisation and the enormous scale of the problem, so the audience sees and feels for the victims but is provided with no insight into how they can contribute to change. This makes the story overwhelming and the problem seem difficult to fix, and therefore the viewer may take no action because it feels too hard. As media analyst Jane Caro points out, people are more attracted to ignoring an issue – the easier option – rather than radically changing the way they live to combat it (in Lauder, 2014). A Berkeley University study found apocalyptic messages around climate change can even trigger scepticism in the audience (Feinberg & Willer, 2010 in COIN & PIRC, 2011). Here, I see a missed opportunity, because if an audience puts an issue in the ‘too hard basket’ and feels like they cannot intervene, then the media maker could miss out on harnessing the passion of their audiences who would like to contribute to change.
To date, ‘Fashion Victims’ has had over 44,000 views, which is a substantial number of people who could potentially contribute towards change. As the Social
26 Impact Evaluation Report for the documentary The End of the Line (Channel 4 BRITDOC, 2011) quantifies, only 2% of the UK population watched the documentary, whereas 9% (4.7 million people) of people heard about it through media buzz and word of mouth. If more expository media works considered how audiences might be addressed as citizens (rather than consumers) with the ability and potential to do something to intervene beyond the retail context, then there might be opportunities to develop communication strategies to prompt individual and collective action and contribute to change initiatives. This provides an opportunity to also establish and enforce more impactful strategies that could truly overturn problematic and exploitative systems. Empowering viewers and prompting collective citizen action is one strategy that could help overturn the ‘underlying forces’ that continue to reproduce unethical practices and problematic systems (Maniates, 2001, p.50). Such insights suggest that the scale at which the problem is presented needs to take account of our ability to change it. This is important so as not to trigger undesirable and unhelpful responses in the audience.
However, in ‘Fashion Victims’ the ratio of the overwhelming content to hopeful or uplifting content is dramatically off kilter, as is the case with many expository media works. ‘Fashion Victims’ emphasises the scale of the problem through a fixation on the disaster and backstory. I am not suggesting they did so merely for ‘entertainment’ in shaming companies, as the issue is enormous and incredibly important. By naming and shaming perpetrators and big businesses that produce clothing under inhumane conditions ‘Fashion Victims’ puts pressure on these companies to change. Additionally, by providing a platform for exploited workers to communicate their experiences, ‘Fashion Victims’ humanises the problem, making the audience empathise with the victims, and the documentary also presents a strong argument as to why the production processes need to change. However, the audience is exposed to the thousands of helpless mistreated garment workers and the big retail businesses, such as Mango and Benneton, which were portrayed as being so large as to be almost untouchable. This leaves the audience to grapple with the overwhelming scale of the problem and the feeling that they are insignificant in ‘the big picture’ and unable to help change the big bad world we live in.
27 Some signs of hope are flagged at the end of ‘Fashion Victims’, such as when O’Brien states that fifty brands worldwide, including for example Kmart, Target, and Cotton On, have allegedly agreed to sign up to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh (International Labour Organisation, 2013). However, this tacked-on ‘sliver of hope’ is dwarfed by the enormity of the problem. Such commitments seem inadequate for addressing all the systemic problems related to labour conditions and worker safety. The workers still appear to have no protection from big business, and this can perpetuate feelings of disempowerment and helplessness for the audience, coupled with fear for the workers’ wellbeing. These feelings of disempowerment align with Talking Climates’ rationale about leveraging fear, as it can ‘be disempowering – producing feelings of helplessness, remoteness and lack of control’ (COIN & PIRC, 2011).
1.6 Signs of hope: ‘Fashion Victims Part Two’
The main problem I see in ‘Fashion Victims’ is a fixation on the backstory that severely limits the scope of possibilities for hopeful and creative responses. I see ‘Fashion Victims’ as telling only half the story. If ‘Fashion Victims’ were to look beyond what is and what ‘has been’ the problem and on to ways the audience could help change the issue, they could have produced a ‘Fashion Victims Part Two’ that focused on empowering audiences. The part two of ‘Fashion Victims’ could have leveraged the desire to make a difference and generate ideas that are doable to utilise the passionate and newly informed viewers by showing them how they can contribute to change. An approach such as this means broadening the focus - from just the production of garments - to not only consider how the audience can voice their desire to change working conditions, but also and importantly, how their garments can be better used. The focus on ‘use’ is known as the ‘use phase’ of a garments life which includes the way people purchase, maintain, re-use and recycle their clothes. The way a garment is ‘used’ makes a significant difference in its total environmental and humanitarian impact - from water and energy expended through washing and drying to working conditions, product demand and disposal – making it a worthy site for focus. This provides an opportunity to show the audience what changes are required in their own day-to-day lives, and/or collectively, what is needed to combat the issue. ‘Fashion Victims Part Two’ could be conceived like the
28 second part of ‘Gut Reaction’ episode of the ABC Catalyst program, about the ‘western diet … contributing to a whole litany of diseases by causing an imbalance in the bacteria deep inside our gut’ (Catalyst, 2014). ‘Gut Reaction’ exemplifies how an audience can be told about an issue or problem, in part one of the story, and then be informed and shown, in the second part, how they can implement practical day-to- day initiatives that can counteract the problem.
Like Honore, Fletcher and other theorists, I see value in questioning the speed of the ‘fast fashion’ business model that underpins the story in ‘Fashion Victims’. I ask, what if Ferguson and Jolley invested time in investigating ground-up initiatives to counteract fast fashion shortfalls, such as how to adopt slow fashion practices? Slow fashion approaches emphasise extending the life of a garment and buying less and second hand, effectively closing the loop on new fast fashion ‘inputs’. Extending the life of products by slowing down consumption is a well-established response to fast-consumption (Fletcher, 2008; Fletcher, 2011; Fletcher & Earley, 2003; Fletcher & Tham, 2004; Payne, 2011). Slow fashion practices could transcend individualised consumer ‘band-aid’ solutions, solutions that merely treat a symptom rather than deal with the root cause, and move into collective citizen action. I see it as critical to present and explore ideas such as these that are doable, for plausible citizen-oriented change. These doable ideas need to include everyday activities in order to capitalise on the everyday as a form of activism (Pink, 2012, p.5).
With the intent to prime an audience for change and encourage participation, the message needs to be tailored in a way that makes participation desirable, and the ideas for change socially acceptable and possibly even already underway. As Discussed in Earth Hour Every Hour, literature about changing practices in order to save electricity (as a domestic climate change initiative) suggest it is time to move on from awareness raising initiatives and into providing practical assistance that can support change in everyday life activities. These strategies need to present alternative opportunities that can meet different lifestyle needs (Lopes & Andrew, 2010, p.4-7). Such flexibility could make change feel more doable. Communicating these ideas should not be solely done by creating fear or guilt (COIN & PIRC, 2011; Smith, 2014) that could provoke undesirable responses such as resistance and defence (Boiler, 1999, p.191 in Smith, 2014, p.226) or self-absorption (Hytten & Warren, 2003 in Smith, 2014, p.225). Media communications need to leverage hope in order
29 to, as Mike Shanahan explains when discussing media coverage about climate change, ‘have a role to play in empowering people to make informed choices’ (2007, p.3) and this could be the key to encouraging change that is desirable.
Talking Climate suggests media makers show many people partaking in proactive initiatives as this can help normalise change. COIN & PIRC (2011) explain it is an effective method for encouraging the uptake of proactive and desired behaviours, because most often people will follow the majority and showing ‘collective action’ can promote ‘an enhanced awareness of what other people are doing, and a stronger sense of collective purpose can be developed’ (COIN & PIRC, 2011). Collective action can also make participation seem more appealing because ‘it is very rarely that people act purely as individuals. Most of our behaviour is social’ (COIN & PIRC, 2011). The social aspect that COIN and PIRC refer to complements Maniate’s theory about individualised consumer-oriented ‘solutions’ being problematic. Not only do consumer-oriented ‘solutions’ perpetuate excessive consumption without significantly changing the systems at fault, they also fail to capitalise or celebrate the skills of citizens and the power of the collective. Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein and Griskevicius (2007 in COIN & PIRC, 2011) suggest that using pictures and videos of ordinary people engaging in sustainable practices is a simple and effective way of generating a sense of social normality (2007 in COIN and PIRC, 2011). Normalising and discussing personal activities, with initiative, could even aid in the advancement of existing practices, as investigated in Local Wisdom. Thus evoking and portraying a more optimistic focus on sustainability and the plausible change that is underway. Talking Climate also suggest appealing to the audience’s ‘self-transcendent’ values, the uplifting values that motivate people to do things for the greater good (2007 in COIN & PIRC, 2011). Communicating a sense of collective action and normalising desirable activities provides an opportunity for media makers and interventionists to promote and even design social norms to redirect practices.
To return to ‘Fashion Victims Part Two’, a focus on slow fashion practices and modelling slow fashion in everyday life: slow-fashion advocates could create a demand for better quality clothes and promote industries who produce them, such as recycling fabric and making alterations to clothes. It could include approaches to resourcing more ethical and quality manufacture in Bangladesh and highlight
30 initiatives that provide more income options for poverty-stricken workers, which the viewer could support and popularise. These options change the terms of consumption by closing our of the loop poor quality new fashion products and it supports long lasting recyclables. Although these options still relate to ongoing consumption, which is not the answer to this or many other issues, they do work towards keeping garment workers employed and eradicating some of the social and environmental issues associated with fast fashion. The audience could also be directed towards campaigners and proactive communities, such as mass clothes swaps like Kate Luckins’ The Clothing Exchange (2004), to which they could connect with communities that foster user ingenuity, proactivity and collective citizen action.
‘Fashion Victims Part Two’ could prime the audience for change by proposing and/or modelling that change. Shanahan also endorses a focus on change, and suggests media could focus more on solutions and ways to adapt to climate change, by focusing ‘less on the frightening statistics – to move from denial and despair to action’ (2007, p.3). The storyteller could equip and remind the audience of their skills and offer doable day-to-day ideas for change, transforming the audience from passive consumers into proactive citizens. In order to show the audience what change might look and feel like, an onscreen citizen representative could be useful. She could stand in to represent the viewer as well as contribute to the entertainment value through her involvement with the people and the space. Such an approach could be valuable, particularly in focusing on everyday life activity that may seem familiar or mundane to the viewer. Auto-ethnographic documentaries and television programs, for example, have quite a history of compelling stories and entertaining audiences by putting the host or film maker’s body ‘on the line’, while conveying their message. To give a recent example, David Farrier and Dylan Reeves’ Tickled (2016) looks at the world of competitive endurance tickling. Charismatic Farrier, who takes an onscreen role, requests an interview with an associate of the sport, Jane O’Brien Media, but was rejected with an email stating an ‘association with a homosexual journalist is not something we will embrace’ and other offensive comments like, ‘shame on you!’, and ‘little gay kiwis’ (referring to his New Zealand nationality). This homophobic reaction encourages him to investigate further and leads him to reveal allegations of bullying and sexual harassment that open a legal minefield in which he is very much implicated. The Guardian’s article about Tickled states that
31 the documentary ‘is no laughing matter for its subject and producers’ (May 21 2016). Louis Theroux is another participatory figure putting his body on the line. In Under the Knife Theroux undergoes liposuction when investigating plastic surgery and why people have these procedures (Theoroux and Stuart Cabb, 2010).
Morgan Spurlock in Supersize Me (Spurlock, 2004) conducts a self-experiment that involves a month-long diet of consuming exclusively McDonalds ‘food’, with radical impacts upon his health; Damon Gameau in That Sugar Film (2014) explores the hidden sugar in commonly perceived healthy food and drinks by eating these perceived low fat ‘health foods’ for six weeks that has, like for Spurlock, shocking health repercussions; Michael Mosely took a close look at parasites by infesting himself with tapeworm and lice, and attaching a leech to himself, in the interests of discovery (Infested! Living with parasites, Williams, 2014); The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s science series Catalyst regularly involves experiments performed on the investigator, such as the previously mentioned Gut Reaction (2014) where Dr. Graham Phillips experiments with the impacts of diet and the gut bacteria that cause a plethora of illnesses such as asthma and cancer. Phillips puts his body ‘on the line’ when, amongst other things, he sends his own faecal samples to pathology to be analysed. Or Anja Taylor’s Fit in 6 minutes a week (2015) which, by using herself as the guinea pig, reveals the benefits of short bursts of interval training such as a reduction in body fat, increased muscle mass and an increase in mitochondria. All of these productions, and more, provide the audience with an on- screen representative of the everyday, often hyper-sensorial, experience of the presenter, and insight into the immediacy of what they are exploring as media makers.
The opportunities for an on-screen personality to orchestrate and steer a moment into one that utilises humour and satire could be a desirable trait for the production to make the everyday available for investigation. Filmmakers such as Spurlock and Theroux use such an approach, but one of the pioneers of this mode of presentation was Ross McElwee’s 1986 documentary Sherman’s March. As self- titled blogger ‘Jay C’ explains on ‘The Documentary Blog’, McElwee originally set out to make a documentary about General Sherman’s Civil War march, but due to a relationship break-up with his former girlfriend, the film acquired a second plot. The second plot is McElwee’s quest for love and his own historical path of romantic
32 destruction. McElwee cleverly wove Sherman’s March into his story and quest for love, which constructed his character as a ‘neurotic, self-deprecating, anti-hero. Ross McElwee is a real life Woody Allen’ Jay C [screen name2014).
Through filmmakers such as McElwee I see great potential for introducing and warming an audience to an issue using uplifting tactics such as humour and satire. Such an approach can be used for some of the most serious of topics. In Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine (Moore, 2002), Moore includes an interview with the president of the US National Rifle Association, Charlton Heston. Moore ambushes Heston with questions that provoke answers that belittle Heston’s integrity and pro-gun arguments, casting him as somewhat ridiculous, an impression emphasised by his scuttling off screen.
Kate Kenny’s (2009, pp.222–232) examination of activists and film makers, The Yes Men, demonstrates ‘how the internet, documentary and parody can form a potent mix for re-imagining dominant institutions and organisations’ and how they can destabilise perceptions. The Yes Men follows Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno, two activists who pretend to be corporate representatives and who deliver cringe worthy presentations and conduct media interviews at industry events. As described on their website, the duo ‘use humour, truth and lunacy to bring media attention to the crimes of their unwilling employers’ (The Yes Men, n.d). Kenny argues that, ‘parody plays an important role in the ways in which we make and remake our understandings of particular institutions’ (Hariman, 2008; Hodgson, 2005 in Kenny, 2009). Kenny explains humour is critical to enabling a successful parody:
If parody is to work, it needs to make us laugh (Butler 1990; Westwood, 2004). For Hariman (2008), laughter enables us to ‘relax’ around power. Laughter takes away the ‘fear and piety’ we may have held in relation to particular discourse; it makes an object familiar and, therefore, available for investigation (Hariman, 2008, p.255).
The value in breaking down barriers by making light of a situation is poignant. Kenny and Hodgson describe the attributes that make the Yes Men’s work a success (humour and spectacle) as holding the potential for disrupting and remaking our understanding of issues that need to be addressed. The spectacle can also be
33 considered vital in order for the parody to work. As Kenny explains through Hariman (2008 in Kenny, 2009, p.225),
in addition to the laugh the spectacle is vital as it needs to be ‘held up to be seen, exposed and ridiculed’… To work, parody must push that which is powerful, yet taken for granted, directly into the spotlight to be copied and displayed as a ‘carnivalesque spectacle’.
The idea of the audience being ‘in’ on the joke could help build a sense of camaraderie and co-education in the audience, through shared experience. This could segue to Talking Climate and Maniates’ suggestions about harnessing collective citizen action and create a sense of social acceptability. Another point to be made about making a hypothetical ‘Fashion Victims Part Two’, and other productions that look to harness the audience and/or everyday life as a form of activism, is to avoid overt spoon-feeding of information. This is because audience members’ everyday routines are extremely familiar to them so can be perceived as mundane and instruction may seem patronising. Therefore, the audience may not take notice, or if they are watching they may even tune out. Media specialists argue that audience requirements and responses are changing (Maniates, 2001; Smith, 2014; COIN & PIRC, 2011), so there is now a need to reconsider communication strategies and tailor approaches accordingly. Conventional approaches to asserting credibility in a documentary may no longer convince an audience that the argument being presented to them is true. As Smith (2014, p. 226) shows, the assertion of authority by the messenger can trigger resistance. The resistance could even result in the viewer completely denying the truth of the claims being made, or picking holes in the methods or credibility of the study – a reaction that is very unhelpful when looking to evoke meaningful action or priming an audience to make lifestyle changes.
Another challenge in communicating change that the audience can implement in their day-to-day lives is that everyday life can feel so familiar and/or boring that the audience doesn’t pay proper attention. Academic and science communicator Derek Muller provides some interesting insights into learning about content that seems or feels familiar, and the power of conversation and co-exploration in learning. Through his teaching of physics, Muller’s research showed that when his students were dictated (or spoon-fed) information that they thought they already knew, there was a tendency to tune out and not listen properly, which inhibited their
34 learning. Muller (2013) explained that his students knew information about topics learned from day-to-day life, however a lot of this information is wrong. So when information about the topic was spoon-fed to the students, they thought they already knew the information/answers and therefore did not pay full attention. Therefore, Muller suggests instead facilitating a discussion to uncover misunderstandings through social dialogue. Muller suggests starting a class by showing physics misconceptions, and then using these as the starting point to spark conversation, debate and learning through conversation with and amongst the students. Due to Muller’s innovative and conversational approach, his students’ exam scores nearly doubled. Muller attributes the success to the engagement of the students with the content. Those who engaged in the dialogue invested significantly more mental effort, which resulted in their improved learning and understanding. Muller engineered a space where the students’ voices could be heard and their ideas and questions explored. Although I am not suggesting all media must start with misconceptions, I am illustrating the danger of spoon-feeding information that the audience thinks they are familiar with and the value of getting people involved in theorising. Muller’s approach evidences the value of an exploratory social dialogue to uncover memorable insights and learnings. Such an approach complements a perspective that positions people as more than consumers, as valuable contributors of ideas and skills (Fletcher, 2011; Maniates, 2001; Pink, 2012) as Muller constructs an expectation that his audience can contribute creatively and thoughtfully, relative to their experience.
This approach of co-exploration could be likened to what Jeff Frank refers to as an ‘elaborate transaction’ (2013, p.1024). This is when the viewer critically views the information that is presented to her (in the documentary) and she understands it by relating it to her own life and her own life experiences. Frank uses the observational documentary The Salesman to illustrate how this transaction can be facilitated via the messiness of everyday life. Frank explains that The Salesman doesn’t argue a point; rather, it ‘presents an alternate perspective on our experience, or brings a range of experiences to our attention for the first time’. Therefore, rather than engaging with the film agnostically (that is, deciphering whether the viewer believes the argument that is put forth), the viewer is instead presented with
35 information and she tries to understand and appreciate what is being communicated to her in relation to her own life and her own life experiences.
In facilitating an elaborate transaction, the aim for the film maker is to present information and construct a narrative in such a way that translates into the viewers life. In other words, the aim is for the audience to reach a similar conclusion and leads them to agree with the argument that film maker is making. To do so via an elaborate transaction may pose a challenge because every person has had different life experiences. This may even be one reason why Frank refers to the exchange as an ‘elaborate’ transaction, because it is complex and challenging to achieve due to the variability of each person’s life experience. However, if the media maker does facilitate the transaction, Frank asserts that the viewer may conclude that her experience of the world is changing (2013, p.1042). This change could be extremely valuable if mobilised. It could be the first step in initiating changes in perceptions about problematic social issues and practices and coupled with ideas for change that the viewer can enact or try. For example, if a viewer engaged in a piece of media that challenged or changed their perceptions of cleanliness, they may consider washing less frequently.
I see great value in the idea of elaborate transactions, as it could help to avoid overt spoon-feeding of information and instead nurture co-exploration between the media maker and the audience. This transaction could be mobilised by using the familiarity of everyday life, everyday life touchstones that are familiar to the majority. Devising these ‘familiar touchstones’ that can be related to by the majority may seem a challenge considering variations in individuals’ interests, hobbies, jobs, locations and ancestry. However, as Jane Caro (2011, personal communications) explains, human experiences and interests differ; experiences such as bearing a child or a passion for science will vary from person to person. But a basis for commonality can be found in the experience of human emotions, because the majority of people have felt, or can relate to, love, embarrassment, pride, shame, etc. Caro’s insights signal an opportunity to gain access into the audience’s life, through common emotive touchstones, in order to facilitate elaborate transactions that change the way the audience experiences the world.
Facilitating ‘elaborate transactions’ could trigger a deeper engagement with media content as the audience members piece together their ‘own’ perspectives and
36 opinions based on the media work’s content and their own life experiences. Such an approach, that leads to exploratory thinking, is similar to methods employed by the most convincing documentary in Smith’s (2014, p.229-230) study on emotional responses to documentary. I see potential for these transactions and co-exploration to contribute more ideas about how to bring about social transformation as each individual brings their own perspective. These perspectives could help advance existing theories if the ideas are shared in a dialogue where different voices can be heard.
1.7 Conclusion
Audiences are underutilised and underestimated by media makers who either don’t offer ideas that the audience can implement, or predominately offer consumer oriented ideas (Maniates, 2001; Seyfang, 2004; Fletcher, 2011). The use of an authoritative persona informing the audience may not always be the best approach, especially if the audience has some connection to the issue. Therefore, rather than authoritatively dictating facts and information, another alternative could be to involve the audience in everyday life and ideas which the audience can assess and evaluate. This can lead to a more humanised perspective of an issue and trigger further exploratory thoughts in the audience (Smith 2014, p.229-230).
A fixation on the scale and tragedy of a problem can lead to disempowering reactions such as self-absorption and ‘a lack of understanding’ due to a fixation on the viewer’s own feelings (Hayton & Warren, 2003 in Smith, 2014, p.225). Depressive feelings evoked by an almost exclusively retrospective and reactionary focus on the backstory of an issue, and the enormity of the problems involved, may be a consequence of emphasising the importance of an issue. However, these emotions do not necessarily translate into proactivity in viewers who would like to contribute to change.
Additionally, if the audience is connected to the issue and feels guilty, this could lead to resistance, and often anger (1999, p.191 in Smith, 2014, p.226). Evidence suggests that to resolve systemic problems associated with consumption and production, which ‘together are the source of all man-made stress on the natural environment’ (Jamison, 1992; Heiskanen, Karna, & Lovio, 1995 in Heiskanen &
37 Pantzar, 1997 p.409), strategists and media makers need to look further than consumer-oriented ‘solutions’, portray human scale impacts on the environment as changeable, and leverage more hope to make change feel possible. The media maker needs to offer the audience practical citizen-oriented (rather than consumer-oriented) ideas that they can enact in their own lives and build upon (Bentley et al., 2004; COIN & PIRC, 2011; Caro in Launder, 2014; Maniates, 2001; Fletcher, 2009; Fletcher, 2011; Heiskanen & Pantzar, 1997; Seyfang, 2004; Lopes & Andrew, 2010; Pink, 2012; The Story of Stuff Project, 2013; Seyfang, 2004). Everyday life and activism (Pink, 2012) can be explored and melded to create doable ideas for change. A focus on collective citizen action could be harnessed to create change, by uprooting problematic processes and systems from the ground up, and could attract people to join the initiative (Maniates, 2001; COIN & PIRC, 2011).
Audiences need to be primed for change in a way that makes participating in it feel desirable. As Shanahan explains, media makers have a role to play in empowering audiences to make informed decisions about their actions (2007). The empowering ideas they communicate can be ‘normalised’ by associating them with collective citizen action. This can entice people to participate (COIN & PIRC, 2011). Humour, public spectacle and other surprising and/or uplifting approaches to communicating ideas could serve as icebreakers. Humour and public spectacle are two examples of ways to bring attention to an issue, re-imagine dominant institutions, and destabilise perceptions (Kenny, 2009). Such approaches could possibly even create a sense of camaraderie and a community through shared experience and learning. When speaking about a topic that may seem familiar to the learner, such as everyday activities, relaying information and overt spoon-feeding of facts can result in disengagement with the content. Instead, as Muller (2013) demonstrated, people can respond better if they engage with a problem and work together, through conversational co-exploration, to figure out the answers.
In short, expository documentaries can magnify the part of the system the ‘consumer’ cannot substantially address. For an audience member who learns of an issue that could be addressed by their participation in a social change initiative, and one they would like to contribute to, investigations into viewer/citizen-oriented initiatives would be helpful – initiatives and ideas that the viewer can immediately enact. This can involve having an onscreen character that represents the audience and
38 models and investigates possibilities for change, while providing a relatable and sensorial insight into what change might look and feel like. I suggest, particularly when investigating changes in everyday activities, media makers avoid taking an overtly authoritative stance and instead construct and represent the audience as valuable, competent and skilful citizens to foster participation that could lead to generating change. Therefore, the media maker should consider strategies that do not underestimate the audience and instead cast the audience as innovative proactive doers.
39
CHAPTER 2. CHANGING WAYS OF DOING
Overview
In the previous chapter a vignette of the Four Corners story ‘Fashion Victims’ illustrates the overwhelming and depressive content involved in telling the backstory of a complex global-scale problem with numerous social and material impacts. This created a feeling of helplessness and a lack of direction as to how the audience can help change the problem. Following the vignette was a discussion of media conventions that can be disempowering for the audience. I also discussed ideas for more empowering, human-scale communication approaches that could motivate and enable viewers to implement small changes in their daily lives. The previous chapter also stressed the importance of harnessing everyday practices (rather than focusing solely on shopping practices) as a form of activism. This chapter discusses laundering as an everyday practice, the need to wash our clothes less, and the standards and practices of cleanliness challenged by a ‘wash less’ strategy. It includes an outline of what needs to be considered when devising communications to engage and inspire clothes users to trial reducing machine washing.
2.1 Ways of doing laundry
Laundering is a mundane everyday practice that, as Christopher Crouch and Jane Pearce and would describe, is made up of ‘doing’ the activity as well as the ideas and theories that influence and inform the way it is done. The laundering practice involves ‘interacting objectively with the material world’ but is also shaped by ‘social interactions and [is] adopted as part of a shared ideology’ (Crouch and Pearce, 2013, p.81). The patterns of practice made when ‘doing’ laundry provide an experiential ground to investigate routines, variations and generate ways to wash less. The ‘doing’ of laundering, although seemingly mundane, draws on tacit competencies, and requires skill and multi-sensorial engagement. Pink (2012, p.70) explains,
Doing the laundry is one of the skilled multisensory practices of everyday domestic life. It involves embodied knowing, sensing, ways
40 of doing that are rarely articulated verbally, but that are essential to the successful accomplishment of its various stages (see Pink, 2005; 2007d) and to the constitution of the home as place.
It is recognised that the ‘doing’ of laundering is in fact incredibly malleable as the person adapts to changing environments and tools (Pink & Leder Mackley, 2015, p.19). For example, a backpacker may find him or herself washing underwear in a basin and drying it over a chair in their hostel, and wearing a shirt a few times before cleaning it. A week later that same person may find themselves with relatives, and so they may wash all their garments after one wear, with a washing machine, and they may dry them in a machine dryer. The adaptability of the person is what Pink and Leder Mackley call the ‘improvisory potential’ of a person whereby the person modifies their practice in accordance to their surroundings, and the person adapts to their continually changing environments by performing ‘mundane improvisations’ that are ‘entangled with other processes and embedded in routines and logics’ (2015, pp.19-23). In these mundane improvisations, the wearer demonstrates that their sustaining abilities offer a window of opportunity. The wearer’s ‘sustain-abilities’ are the process of developing and changing practice through attention to resources and resourcefulness, and they are revealed by reflection about what the carrier or practitioner is ‘doing’ while performing the practice. This mindful and reflective process of ‘sustain-abilities’ considers the practice beyond the immediacy of ‘doing’, or performing it, in order to improve and adapt it accordingly.
The tacit knowledge (Crouch & Pearce, 2013 p.87) and the skill of the person performing the laundering practice, their improvisory potential, and the laundering patterns or routines that are created when performing the practice, combine to provide research opportunities for ground-up, practitioner-oriented, investigative ways to reduce machine washing frequency. Design theorist Tony Fry also sees the potential in practitioner-led or -oriented creation of sustain-ability – that is the potential of people to sustain an activity which ‘supports and extends being’ from everyday abilities (Fry 1999, p.ix). This exercise of their agency, by which I mean the ability for a person to act in response to their reflection and their empowered ability to make rational choices (Barnes, 2000 in Crouch & Pearce, 2013 p.79), can lead to action. That action could be the act of researching or designing, or the co-
41 relationship of the two. It is ‘the ability to conceive of action, because of one’s agency, [that] enables change.’ (Crouch & Pearce, 2013 p.79).
2.2 Laundering less
2.2.1 The ground-up strategy to reduce laundering’s heavy environmental burden
Laundering is an extremely resource intensive activity and produces much inconspicuous waste. Washing and drying carries the biggest burden over a garment’s life, using as much as 82% of energy use, 66% of solid waste and over half the emissions to air are amassed during washing and drying (Franklin Associates, 1993 in Fletcher, 2008, p.78) and the routine nature of laundering can mean that there is a creeping tendency to over wash. Despite laundering’s heavy environmental impact, aspects of resource consumption, such as energy use, can go unnoticed because ‘people do not consume energy per se, but rather the things energy makes possible, such as light, clean clothes, travel, refrigeration and so on [original quote in italics]’ (Wilhite, 2005, p.2 quoted in Pink, 2012, p.69). Therefore, laundering, as an ordinary cleaning practice, is affected by social conventions, and it includes both conspicuous consumption – that is, of clothes, materials and machines that signify standards of cleanliness and social status – and inconspicuous consumption – that is, water and energy use (Shove & Ward, 2002). There are also the material impacts of washing detergents to consider. They are associated with the pollution of water and the consumption of energy. In addition, one needs to consider the more conspicuous destructive impact machine agitation can have on garments that are often not designed for resilience. This results in further clothing purchases. All of these are ongoing aspects of consumption rather than one-offs such as clothes or machine purchasing. Waste is another inconspicuous by-product of laundering. For example, laundering is contributing to oceanic micro-plastic waste from laundry grey water and it creates the risk of synthetic micro-fibres infiltrating the food chain2.
2 Mark Browne in a University of Sydney study found coastal sites around the world are littered with pieces of plastic, mostly polyester, acrylic and nylon, less than a square millimetre in size. Micro plastic is transported by laundry grey water and is of growing concern because these pieces are small enough to enter the food chain. Browne’s lab experiments show that once ingested, the micro plastics move into marine life’s blood and blood cells and they are still there months later (Browne in Lauder, 2012)
42 The ecological consequences and resource intensive nature of laundering has sparked the interest of government departments and researchers in ‘managing transitions in technology and practice that offer larger potential to achieve environmental gains’ (Elxen et al., 2002 in Shove, 2003, p.118). This means looking at everyday life activities – patterns, habits and routines of clothing care – and the relationship we have with our technology and ‘doings’, that are often unthinking and performed on autopilot. We need to examine these activities in order to reduce laundering’s conspicuous and inconspicuous environmental impacts. While innovation occurs at the top end of the laundering sector to lessen the environmental burden of particular products, from the ground-up we clothe users could consider the necessity of washing our clothes and whether we could wash our clothes less. The simple act of washing less will reduce the effects associated with clothes laundering. Admittedly the idea of washing clothes less could be met with some resistance. So, to get the ball rolling, a conversation with clothes users about ideas for change, and what they are willing to try, including what they are already doing, could provide insight into the practical possibility of laundering less. This conversation about washing less is what I seek to initiate through my research and media work. In order to facilitate a meaningful discourse, it is necessary first to understand ‘the beast’ (clothes laundering) in order to attempt to tame it. The conversations could explore the un-taming of laundering practices and the un-training of the launderer to reveal leverage points for intervention and gateways of opportunity into washing less.
2.2.2 Why launder so much: The not so squeaky clean reasons to wash
The way we clean our clothes has changed almost beyond recognition. In the 1800s, clothes were boiled in a metal boiler or ‘copper’ on a stove and wrung through a mangle. This practice has evolved into a task that involves an ever- changing array of new devices, materials and appliances. The way we ‘do’ laundry has become an incredibly profitable industry that appropriates the practice to create new services such as steam or dry cleaning and products and technologies like fabric softener and clothes dryers. The management of all these products and technologies requires tacit skill, although the competencies involved are rarely acknowledged and are largely overlooked. Laundering is accomplished by the active coordination of a
43 multitude of relatively independent sociotechnical systems and constitutes a form of work that can be divided, allocated and managed between domestic and commercial settings (Shove, 2003, p.117).
The reasons why we wash is an interesting area for investigation and raises the question, how ‘clean’ do we need to be? Despite our drop in ‘dirtiness’ and our rise in bathing over the last century and a half we are washing and drying our clothes more than ever (Shove, 2003, p.17). Fletcher reveals only 7.5% of the clothes we wash are ‘heavily soiled’ as defined by Laursen and Hansen’s Environmental Assessment of Textiles (1997 in Fletcher, 2008, p.86), which indicates a tendency to over wash. Reasons for this could include meeting high standards of cleanliness or simply routine use of convenient devices such as machine washers. Tulia Jack’s study titled No Body Was Dirty highlights that the reasons for laundering are not always considerations of hygiene, meaning there is a gap or disconnect between laundering practices and hygienic requirements which is filled with a social concern about cleanliness. Jack’s research into reducing laundering frequency recruited participants who wore their jeans five days per week for two months without putting them through a conventional launder. She explains (2012, p.2):
The maintenance of clothing has the most significant environmental impact of all the phases in a fashion lifecycle, consuming water, energy and chemicals, yet laundering is based on cultural mores, rather than hygienic requirements. The gap between basic sanitation and current cleanliness practices offers opportunities to save environmentally critical resources.
A modification in society’s definition of ‘clean’ would have major implications for washing routines and frequency – any small change in user perceptions of cleanliness would likely bring far-reaching environmental benefits from washing less (Fletcher, 1999, p.35, 2008, p.9). Dombek-Keith and Loker (2011, p.103) recommend that clothes users loosen/broaden their definitions of clean and dirty and turn to spot cleaning, airing clothes, and where possible purchasing garments with anti-odour or anti-stain finishes. Dombek-Keith and Loker’s alternatives to conventional laundering move away from machine washing and a particular meaning of machine-agitated clean.
44 I agree with Jack, Fletcher, and Dombek-Keith and Loker about reducing washing frequency and broadening the definition of clean; however, bringing about this shift is not without its challenges. Petterson, Boks and Tukker (2013) explain that only a minority of clothes users are willing to change their washing and drying routines. Fletcher explains that ‘no issue is more central to the complex relationships between people, textiles and laundering than our societal perceptions of cleanliness’, and the reasons we wash are more closely linked to religious piety, and a multibillion dollar detergent industry than they are to hygiene (Fletcher, 2008, p.91). These complex relationships and perceptions hold cleaning practices in place. The concept of ‘dirty’ is an ambiguous one since removing ‘dirt’ has been likened to the removal of perceptual/subjective ‘disorder’. Douglas explains:
As we know it, dirt is essentially disorder. There is no such thing as absolute dirt: it exists in the eye of the beholder. If we shun dirt, it is not because of craven fear, still less dread of holy terror. Nor do our ideas about disease account for the range of our behaviour in cleaning or avoiding dirt. Dirt offends against order (Douglas, 1984, p.2 in Shove, 2003, p.82).
Representations of the working classes as the ‘great unwashed’ create a class distinction due to physical repulsion (Orwell, 1937, p.15 in Shove, 2003, p.88) based on unsightliness and smell. The social stigma behind ‘stench’ is another contributor to the complexities of cleanliness. The concept of ‘stench’ has evolved to take on several meanings over time. For example, in the 17th and 18th centuries, the stench emanating from cemeteries was believed to penetrate the fragile margins of the body therefore it was believed that one should protect oneself with perfume (Corbin, 1986, p.36 in Shove, 2003, p.86). The modern version of ‘stench’ could be likened to, or has adapted into, body odour (colloquially known as BO by abbreviation), which advertisements for scented deodorants tell audiences is undesirable. These examples demonstrate deep-seated meanings formed around cleanliness, such as the morally contentious nature of dirt.
To change the meaning of clean, and its opposite dirty, requires challenging and overcoming cleanliness ideals which trap cleaning practices in a ‘moral, social and symbolic’ web of meanings (Shove, 2003, p.80) that include pride, respect, attachment, and the capacity to care for oneself and demonstrate care for others. The
45 meanings around cleanliness and how these play out in the ways we do things such as launder, is just as inconspicuous as the forms of consumption discussed earlier, and it needs to be brought into ‘discursive consciousness’ (Hobson, 2003; Giddens, 1984 in Lopes & Fam, 2015, p.36) to enable reflection. The fear of ‘smelling’, judgement, and social exclusion, or non-acceptance, is common to many. But, promisingly Waste & Resource Action Program’s (abbreviated to WRAP) report Valuing our clothes: the true cost of how we design, use and dispose of clothing in the UK suggests four in ten people would ‘seriously consider’ wearing clothes a second time without washing (especially young people) if their clothes felt fresher for longer, and nearly all adults surveyed wear at least some clothes more than once before washing them, notably trousers, jeans, knitwear and fleeces (2011, p.31). This evidence indicates the potential to explore how clothes could be made to feel fresh or be freshened between washes, where ‘fresh’ becomes an alternative to machine- agitated clean.
Despite the complications and considerations of changing meanings, the point here is that ideals of cleanliness and ‘cleaning’ are subjective and constantly evolving. Shove explains that people do what they think of as ‘cleaning’ depending on the beliefs and technologies of the day (2003, p.85). Hacket argues (1993, in Shove, 2003, p.85) that cleanliness is best understood as the outcome of whatever it is that people do in its name. This, excitingly, suggests that the way we ‘clean’ is malleable and therefore alternative ways of ‘doing’ laundering, like Dombek-Keith and Loker’s (2011, p.103) non-washing machine suggestions, are plausible options that might ‘keep clothes feeling fresher’. Such insights suggest new, more mindful ways of ‘doing’ – that extend the wear period – could be explored and potentially adopted if the end ‘goal’ is similar to that of the original ‘cleaning’ or ‘cleansing’. Perhaps the 92.5% of clothes that are not heavily soiled, (Laursen & Hansen, 1997, in Fletcher, 2008, p.86) yet are still put to wash, could be a good place to start washing less!
2.2.3 Who’s talking dirty? Slow fashion theorists
Focusing future research efforts on the collective conventions that are created around normative and alternative practice could provide insights into how to effect lasting pro-environmental routines. Of particular interest for future research is the
46 way cleanliness is presented in popular discourse, and the interaction between its presentation, interpretation and enactment. Considering the imagery of cleanliness in the media, popular culture, public spaces and in the collective consciousness may provide an understanding of the ideas, expectations, actions and repetitions that constitute practice. Exploring the representation of cleanliness in popular culture presents opportunities to leverage discourses for effective interventions that reduce the resource consumption of cleanliness practices. A consideration of the way cleanliness is represented could provide insights from which to develop policy and communications to create perceptions and expectations that diminish resource- consuming practices. Promoting cultural expectations that are in line with environmental goals may provide the key to enabling enduring sustainable social practices (Jack, 2012, p.96).
The multidimensionality of laundering makes it an interesting case study that encapsulates continuously evolving contributors and considerations. Historical, infrastructural, technological and cultural influences shape the practice and have morphed it into something that meets perceived needs relating to comfort, social acceptance, habit and societal perceptions of cleanliness. Discussions around laundering are often situated in slow fashion theory about changing clothing production and how it clothing could be manufactured and used more sustainably. The literature on slow fashion theory includes: Fletcher and Grose (2012), Fletcher (1999, 2008), Fletcher, Gwilt and Rissanen (2011), Fletcher, Dewberry and Goggin (2001), Fletcher & Earley (2003), Fletcher & Tham (2004), Jack (2011, 2012, 2013) and Dombek-Keith and Loker (2011). Extending the ‘use phase’ (the period of time the wearer owns and uses the garment) has been identified as a slow fashion sustainability initiative that slows down consumption because the wearer keeps her clothes longer and therefore isn’t required to buy new ones as often. Laitala and Boks (2012, p.124) explain that product life extension is built on the assumption that by keeping a garment longer, the manufacture of a new garment may be prevented. From extended ‘use’ and prolonging care of clothes, comes the notion of laundering less. The reduction in laundering frequency means the wearer considers and values their experiences during the ‘use-phase’, and in doing so they not only reduce resource usage but also clothing degradation, thereby contributing to the extension of the garment’s life.
47 Theorists that consider the ‘use-phase’ lend themselves to whole system and closed-loop thinking (Payne, 2011; Braungart & McDonough, 2003 & 2010), referring to a holistic model of sustainability across a product’s lifecycle that considers the production, use and disposal of a product from its design phase to the end of its life. Closed loop thinking ‘eliminates’ waste by ensuring the product is either biodegradable or able to be recycled; this obviously implicates the materials used in production. ‘Sustainable’ industrial designers also consider how the product will be used in order to reduce the environmental impacts of the use phase. This holistic perspective reveals that, as with most sustainability areas, the slow fashion system does not exist in isolation, as it is also enmeshed with many other systems (Fletcher & Grose, 2012, p.143) such as transport for distributing textiles and clothes, and domestic infrastructure, such as building an additional room for the purpose of laundering with the accompanying inputs of labour, building resources, water and energy. In terms of systems, laundering has been described as an ‘enterprise’ that ‘is built around intersecting interests and interdependent component parts’ (Sommerton, 1994 in Shove, 2003, p.118). Modifying use practices, like laundering, can have far-reaching impacts, not just in the use phase of an individual product but also upstream and downstream in intertwining lifecycles.
Reducing washing frequency can and should be addressed in the design phase, for example by using anti-bacterial fabric, or by designing garments that consider ventilation and add stain resistant areas, as Fletcher and Earley did in designing their ‘no-wash’ top that provocatively defied the requirement of laundering (2003). However, the fact remains that billions upon billions of garments that are already owned are currently being used, and the washing of these clothes needs to be considered. Allwood (2006, in Dombek-Keith & Loker, 2011, p.103) also suggests a reduction in washing frequency because ‘reducing the number of loads washed by 50 per cent would halve use of energy, water and laundry additives and could reduce energy consumption over a garment’s lifetime by 15 – 30 per cent’. These reductions could be achieved if clothes users simply considered (and valued) the use of their clothes and got only one extra wear out of their clothes before washing.
48 2.3 Making public what we do in private: Talking about personal laundering practices
What is known about tending to – cleaning and maintaining – clothes? There is an abundance of media and advertising about the need for whitegoods and detergents, showing these products in the home, but do people follow the care instructions on these products or are they developing their own methods? What exactly are the experiences of laundering in the home, that is performed behind closed doors, as a commonplace activity of households? Pink, Leder-Mackley and Morosanu see the value in investigating mundane domestic themes, such as laundering. The authors interviewed twenty different clothes users about their indoor clothes drying practices and argue new understandings of everyday practice are urgently needed in order to ‘confront questions of climate change, and health and housing design challenges’ (2012, p.14).
Individualised laundry activities, whitegoods and detergents are popularised and marketed in the public domain. It is the commercial sphere that dominates laundering instruction as detergent and whitegoods marketers tell clothing users how they should launder their clothes, by using their products, through advertising and packaging instructions. Glover (2015, p.269) explains that a social practice such as laundering can be considered to take place in both public and private domains. In laundering’s case, some elements, such as marketing and social consciousness lie in the public realm, and others are found in the private realm, where the activity is performed. In spite of the private location of ‘doing’ laundering, it is in fact a widely performed and reproduced social practice that is tied to social mores and cultural representations.
Product advertising largely controls the visual representation of laundering in the public domain, everyday practices and preferred methods are infrequently discussed outside of households. Therefore, users have very little on which to base judgements about what is ‘normal’ or ‘most common’ for laundering practices, or about what is ‘excessive’, ‘below average’ or ‘innovative’ in the home. As Shove (2003, p.108) explains about related washing practices:
People do not generally discuss bathing and showering habits so they have little knowledge of what goes on behind other bathroom doors.
49 Because these most private arrangements are none the less important social practices, individuals tend to think their washing routines are normal and deviance from the norm is minimal or confined to rare cases of obsession or extremes of personal neglect.
In agreement with Fletcher (2011) and other slow fashion theorists, the experiential knowledge and skills of the clothing user are dramatically underrepresented, undervalued and under-discussed. This poses a communication challenge when re-imagining how we might ‘do’ laundering, and how to share insights, knowledge and the possibility of washing less. What happens when these private laundering activities are made public through conversations so that launderers can gauge the appropriateness of their own routine practices and evaluate commercial instructions? What if, when sharing, it was discovered that the recommended detergent doses were excessive, and therefore not necessary?
Opening up a conversation about our laundering practices, to make public what we all do in private, presents an opportunity for launderers to evaluate their own routines against those of other people and potentially share and build upon insights around slow-user innovation. This discussion could potentially counteract or instigate critical thinking around commercial marketing messages that promote resource intensive activities, updateable whitegoods and detergent campaigning. Fletcher and Grose (2012, p.158) see the value in communications to train and educate people in order to transform the fashion sector.
A deeper and broader communication and education movement has to develop to build ‘literacy’ in the general population around ecology and natural systems and their interconnections with human systems. It is here that opportunities for designers emerge to communicate a vision of fashion and sustainability in new ways; to provide tools, examples, skills and language to amplify a collective voice so that deep change can come to the sector more rapidly.
The importance of how these communications are initiated and carried out is critical in engaging and inspiring active citizens or ‘doers’. Fletcher and Grose make a strong point in that effective communications do not have to be delivered in traditional forms, and nor do education strategies have to be confined to the classroom. Fresh visions, artefacts and services could interrupt current ways of
50 thinking and result in new hands-on ways of doing, and calls to action ‘once designers start to work outside the usual corporate and culture mould, there are few limits’ (2012, p.158). I would argue that part of the communication problem is that a lot of information and insights lie in more traditional forms such as academic texts, which are not widely accessible. The challenge is confounded by the underrepresentation of the performance of laundering, and also by the fact that those laundry improvisations or innovations that could postpone a wash are infrequently discussed outside household routines. Therefore, a lot of messages reaching the masses are driven by marketing and reinforce the clothes users’ positions as mere ‘consumers’ rather as skilful practitioners, let alone innovative citizens. Consumer- driven instructions provide few tools or occasions that promote knowledge building but instead reinforce and reproduce prescribed activities. Stepping away from convention may be a more appealing and easily digested way to communicate, discuss and harness the course of everyday activity. As Pink and Leder-Mackley explain (2015), in order to move towards more sustainable showering (an activity with similar considerations to laundering) we first ‘need to seek ways in which to harness the course of everyday activity as it continually spills over into its future, taking with it both incrementally learned expectations and improvisory capacity’ then look at the configuration of processes and aspirations for which washing and showering are the outcomes. The communication challenge here lies in actually engaging people in a discourse about their tacit everyday practices like washing clothes.
2.4 Less about the products and more about the practice: Applying a framework of social practices to laundry
When looking to initiate a change in the way we launder, or perform any activity, there is more to address than attitudes, morals and opinions. Other factors include culture, routine, technology and infrastructure that can underpin any single practice. In fact, campaign-like initiatives that appeal solely to a person’s moral code can fall short in what is required to enable change because morals are not the only considerations that shape the way we do things and constitute a complex landscape of everyday activities. As Petterson et al. (2013, p.71) explained,
51 Rather than seeing consumers as moral actors that need to have their attitudes changed so global goals can be achieved, and efficient technologies as silver bullets against unsustainable practices, it is necessary to acknowledge the role of the complex, dynamic landscape in which consumers lead their life, where technologies are intertwined. Questions should rather centre on the possibilities for redesigning this environment, to make more sustainable practices viable.
Therefore, it is helpful to consider the behaviour–technology split as being obsolete and shift the focus from being on ‘attitudes’ and ‘energy usage’ to also include the ‘interactions’ and ‘actions’ that take place. In this way our day-to-day routines can be seen as being entangled with technologies, buildings and infrastructure like equipment and the water and energy utilities that support them (Petterson et al., 2013, p.71), and the ‘activities’ can be viewed as ‘outcomes of social and technical design, rather than individual choice’ (Glover, 2015, pp.265- 266). This approach would signal that we need to do more than change minds to change how we ‘do’ things.
To consider all laundering as the outcome of a landscape of activity with multiple components, it can be helpful to frame laundering as a social practice, as a ‘route through which to enter the complexity that everyday life is’ (Pink, 2012, p.21) and, importantly, it offers access to the dimensions of ‘doing’ involved in laundering. By framing laundering as a social practice we can position people as acting within the framework of their historical, cultural and infrastructural environment, thereby reframing laundering as a collective convention embedded with skills and motivations. Instead of restricting the considerations to psychological or economic factors, this re-framing can transform laundering into a resourceful and resource- sensitive practice with a larger, more complex net effect than any individual can see (Jack, 2012, p.26). The practice can be broken down into elements after Pantzar and Shove’s theoretical schema (2012, pp.7-14).
52 Table 1: Breaking down a ‘practice’
The Elements • Materials – including equipment and tools, technologies, tangible physical entities, and the stuff of which objects are made • Competencies – this encompasses skill, know-how and technique • Meanings – these include symbolic meanings, ideas and aspirations.
The Entity The entity is the organisation of elements.
The Performance The performance is the moment of ‘doing’ of the activity. The performance can vary each time and/or reveal patterns that emerge through repetition.
The Carrier (or The carrier is the host, or person, who performs the hosts of practice. practices, or actor)
Table 1. Breaking down a 'practice', adapted from Pantzar, Shove and Watson, 2012, The Dynamics of Social Practice, p.7-14. Copyright 2012 SAGE Publications Ltd.
Pantzar and Shove’s theorisation of social practices can be applied to the analysis of laundering as a configuration of elements.
Social Practice Theory applied to laundering
The Elements Materials – clothes, dirty washing basket, bucket, detergent, stain removers, fabric softener, spot remover, water, washing machine, machine dryer, clothes horse, clothes line, pegs, sun and air (for drying), iron, ironing board, starch. Note: the boundary here is set to what human hands directly engage with in washing clothes.
Competencies – these encompass skill, knowhow and technique; product and technology operation (detergents, washing machine, dryer, iron), infrastructural operations (washing line, laundry room management, basin and taps), use and maintenance of objects (bucket, washing
53 basket, dirty laundry basket, clothes pegs, clothes horse); planning and scheduling laundry duties for and around work; social and family considerations; inherited/learned techniques for stain removal and garment maintenance; researching skills (personal inquiry or online) to investigate how to launder or remove stains from new items; adaptability to new infrastructures or materials and personal performance innovations
Meanings – feeling fresh, feeling clean, looking well groomed, eliminating traces of wear and tear and human traces (i.e. marks on fabric, human and environmental smells, the shape of the body in clothes), respecting others by meeting cultural expectations of clean and groomed, pride, love and care, comfort, social status, labour and domestic work.
The Entity Various ‘patterns’ have been analysed by Pink (2012, 2005). In an ‘entity’ that is comprised of a set of practices one could assume each individual’s laundering ‘pattern’ will vary according to his or her schedules, infrastructural set-up3, materials, cultural influences and expectations. An example of a laundering ‘entity’, a cluster of related practices, could be;
1. Wearing clothing. 2. Disrobing and putting used clothes in a dirty laundry pile. 3. Later in the week moving the dirty laundry pile into a washing machine, adding detergent and turning the machine on. 4. Once the load is complete, put the damp clothes in a washing basket and move them outside and peg them on the clothesline. 5. Once the clothes are dry, unpeg them and put them in the clothesbasket. 6. Carry the basket of clothes and sort and pair clothing. 7. Erect an ironing board and iron wrinkles from clothes. 8. Put clothes on hangers and in drawers and put
3 Infrastructure variables such as the washing and drying utilities, tariffs and restrictions that influences the scheduling of peak and non-peak times to wash.
54 clothesbasket in its resting place.
The Performance Involves patterns as described above in ‘entity’, and the way in which these patterns are performed. For example, one person may do small and frequent loads, another may do full infrequent loads. One person may do hot washes another cold. Some may overdose on detergent another may use oxidising laundry balls rather than detergent.
The Carrier (or Almost everyone either performs a laundry routine or hosts of participates in some aspects of it. Even a newborn baby practices, or participates by ‘wearing’ clothes that will later be actor) laundered.
Table 2. Social Practice Theory applied to laundering, content drawn from Pantzar, Shove and Watson, 2012, The dynamics of Social Practice, p.7-14. Copyright 2012 SAGE Publications Ltd.
Considering peoples’ ability to adapt to changing tools, products and infrastructures frees the practice to be re-imagined by the improvising user. Glover (2015, p.268) considers what happens when the elements of a practice are altered, and he argues not all elements of a practice are equally dispensable. He explains, ‘there must be a recognition as to which elements are more central to a practice, and those that are less so’. Glover refers to this as the ‘element’s intensity – the extent to which it is central to the carrying out of a practice’ and he uses soccer as an example to illustrate this. A ball in soccer practice is a higher intensity element than a corner flag; the game can adapt to the absence of corner flags, but removing the ball would make the game unrecognisable. To relate this to washing clothes, it may be unrealistic to completely remove the washing machine, as this would drastically change ‘the game’, much like removing the ball in soccer. However, what happens if washing less is posed as a viable option and the washing machine is occasionally taken out of the equation? It could be more realistic to change clothes laundering by reducing the frequency with which the washing machine is used. This is an important consideration for imagining ways to postpone a wash and make ‘sense’ to people in order to uphold similar meanings and expectations, making the non-wash option more appealing.
55 2.5 The visual representation of laundering
Figure 2 is a reproduction of images of laundering found using Google Images and entering the terms ‘clothes laundering’. In general, the search captured images from instructional blogs and articles about operating equipment and laundry tips, and advertisements for laundering products. This collection of images shows that the visual representation of laundering is product oriented, involves a narrow register of gender representation, and uses clichéd expressions of brightly coloured cleanliness.
56
Figure 2. Online image search of 'laundering clothes' [Screenshot]. Google Images. Retrieved 10 July 2016 from www.google.com.au. Copyright 2016 Google.
The activity and its outcome (i.e. being fresh, bright and soft clothing) is often the focus of the imagery. Usually, the operators are not represented as skilful actors doing ‘the work’ because it is the machine or detergent that magically produces such pleasing results, so it is the product that is ‘skilled’. Interestingly, although the images above are mostly not advertisements, certain images still illustrate what design for sustainability theorist Ezio Manzini calls ‘product-based well-being’, as exemplified in Figures 3, 4, and 5. This is a concept that encapsulates the extent to which human well-being has been linked to product consumption, or to being dependent on individual product choice and ownership (Manzini, 2003, p.9). Product-based wellbeing is illustrated in the images that show idealised/desirable,
57 mostly female, operators beaming with satisfaction over their bright whites and colours.
Figure 3. Online image ‘Woman Laundering Clothes in Washer’ [Screenshot]. Dreamstime. n.d. Retrieved July 10 2016 from www.dreamstime.com. Copyright 2016 Andrey Popov.
Figure 4. Online image ‘Launder Properly’ [Screenshot]. Money Crashers. n.d. Retrieved July 10 2016 from www.moneycrashers.com. Copyright 2016 SparkCharge Media, LLC.
One of the few images that include a man is from a men’s health article giving tips about washing clothes (as seen in Figure 5). Although the article provides tips
58 such as buying clothes to hide stains, the image visualises chaos. Due to his awkward positioning – holding a spanner and head first into a washing machine as if leaping into the unknown magical land of Narnia, and surrounded by a chaotic dispersion of clothes, the image could be interpreted as belittling the male ability to perform the practice, or perhaps portraying him as being unable to compete with the ‘skilled’ machine.
Figure 5. Online article ‘The better way to wash your clothes’ [Screenshot]. Men's Health. June 4 2015. Retrieved July 10 2016 from www.menshealth.co.uk. Copyright 2016 Men’s Health.
59
Figure 6. Online image ‘clothes on a clothesline’ [Screenshot]. Fashion Lady. June 9 2014. Retrieved 10 June 2016 from www.fashionlady.in. Copyright 2016 Fashionlady.in. In the sample of images, there is a clear pattern and focus on the product/commodity and on clean clothes, which tells the viewer what ‘clean’ looks and feels like. This sets a benchmark for the viewer to aspire to, if they too want to feel happy and ‘clean’. These images reproduce the kinds of messages that are constructed in detergent advertisements. As Hasret Aktas and Mücahid Zengin (2010) explain, key messages of detergent advertisements include economics, softness, scent, and whiter than white appearance (to imply hygiene). Marketing strategists often only include a human in their visualisations to capture the attention of a viewer and imply the success and/or happiness the product will bring to the consumer. Advertisers are concerned about making consumers aware of a product and service, not the skill of the person using it. They are concerned about presenting key features of a brand, making consumers know the brand, recognise the package, and know what the product does (Aktas & Zengin, 2010, p.32).
The problem with the abundance of media and visual representations of laundering that emphasise the product’s ‘ability’ is that there are few representations of the user’s ability. By that I mean, a lack of visuals that emphasise the expertise and skill of the launderer. Aktas and Zengin’s study shows the limitations of the marketing approach Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results (DAGMAR). Regarding the visual analysis of a social practice like laundering, the
60 objective of DAGMAR fails to assess how the awareness of certain products translates into laundering practices. Aktas and Zengin’s study is not practitioner- oriented; it is brand oriented. This brand and product - focused imagery dominates the public domain when it comes to laundering. Therefore, these types of messages influence practitioners’ aspirations and activities when ‘doing’ laundry. The messages and imagery contribute to the ‘form’ the laundering activity takes as the practitioner actualises it through repeat performances. Glover (2015, p.269) explains form regarding the performance of a practice:
… [t]he form describes the way in which an element has come to be actualised in practice. This involves the recognition of key real world differences in implementation and orientation that shape how a practice has come to be carried out in its present form. An element may sit in the public domain, available for use and adoption by all. Alternatively, it may be in the domain of private ownership, and thus subject to more restricted interaction with practitioners. These amount to differences in an element’s form that contribute to its role in the configuration of elements in practice.
Shove also sees the influence the tools and materials have on launderers' practices and explains ‘moral regimes are to some extent commoditised, scripted and embedded in the tools and infrastructures on which we rely’ and therefore, ‘certain devices and appliances have re-scripted the meaning of cleaning, effectively imposing ‘their own’ classification of dirt, disorder and propriety’ (2003, p.83-84). Leaving out the ‘doing’ of laundry coincidentally (or conveniently) erases the adaptability and ingenuity of the compliant customer, which would be far less profitable for the marketers. After all, no one is profiting by people freshening their clothes outdoors with ‘free’ fresh air (see Figure 7).
61
Figure 7. Online image ‘Fresh air scented detergent’ [Screenshot]. Method. n.d. Retrieved June 10 2016 from mthodhome.com. Copyright 2016 method products, pbc.
2.6 Conclusion
There is potential to experiment with ways to reduce the frequency of machine washing, and as Dombek-Keith and Loker (2011, p.103) explain, to broaden/modify society’s definitions of clean and dirty and reduce the environmental burden of washing our clothes. Laundering requires skill and multi-sensorial engagement, but the ‘doing’ part, which highlights the performance of competencies, the ‘improvisory potential’ (Pink & Leder-Mackley, 2015) and the adaptability of people, is underrepresented in the public domain. Instead laundering is most often represented as individual objects, machines and detergents that the user then uses in accordance to the manufacturers’ instructions. This representation and instruction enforces a compliant and unthinking consumer role. The no-wash option has no presence in these communications, and nor do the impacts of laundering, including the destructive impact machine agitation can have on garments that are often not designed for resilience. The impact of the machine can therefore be to prompt further garment acquisition. Laundering needs to be repositioned and reimagined in a new light. There needs to be a move away from a focus on individual products and whitegoods to instead see a broader, all-encompassing picture. A view of laundering
62 that sees the skill of the actor performing the activities, how malleable the practice is, and a view that inspires the ‘collective imagination’ around everyday practices (Maniates, 2001, p.50). Such imaginings should: emphasise the collective and participatory roles people play in enacting conventional ‘ways of doing’; encapsulate individuals’ multi-sensorial skill-sets and utilise the ‘improvisory potential’ of people in order to shift their laundering activities from commercially prescribed action toward critical thinking and user-oriented innovation.
It is via a re-imagining of the social practices involved in laundering that social definitions of ‘clean’, as ‘whiter than white’ and machine agitated can be modified. Reimagining laundering means recasting compliant consumers as innovative doers, and it requires us to open our private laundering activities to more public discussions. The discussions are needed because people have little knowledge about the cleanliness routines going on in other homes, and therefore they have a limited sense of what is ‘normal’ or ‘extreme’ (Shove, 2003, p.108). Conversations and explorations offer a space for what Fletcher and Grose describe as a ‘deeper and broader communication and education movement’ that does not have to be delivered in traditional forms. Instead, fresh visions, artefacts and services could interrupt current ways of thinking and ‘doing’. They could build literacy amongst clothes users (2012, p.158) and facilitate and represent proactive doers. History has proven that laundering can rapidly change in form and frequency as people do whatever timely ‘performance’ is prescribed to be the act of ‘cleaning’ (depending on cultural norms, technology, etc.). Such insights signal opportunities to reframe the already evolving practice in a more resourceful and mindful way, positioning it to respond to rituals, perceived needs and outcomes. There is an opportunity to change the course of everyday activity before it spills into the future (Pink, 2012, p.5). It is an opportunity to sculpt and steer our practices onto a more mindful path, and make change look and feel more feasible and desirable.
The following chapter unpacks my methods of social research that began with auto-ethnographic research into washing less. This was followed by filmed conversations, video screening and discussion groups, participant-led think-aloud recordings made while trialling methods to reduce washing frequency, and post think-aloud interviews. The chapter discusses my approach to making media to engage others in such an ordinary subject, perceived to be dull and a chore; the
63 creation of a media space for conversational social research; and strategies to prime clothes users for changes that normalise washing less.
64
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY: CONVERSATIONAL SOCIAL RESEARCH TO EXPLORE THE CHANGE- ABILITY OF LAUNDERING
Overview
Storytelling is not enough to prompt change in an audience’s practices, and there is a need for media to explore and enable citizen-oriented action about issues that would benefit from social change. Alongside this, as discussed in Chapter 2, there is a need to wash our clothes less. Therefore, I experimented with ‘wash less’ ‘proto-practices’ that could replace a machine wash. A proto-practice could be likened to the prototype of a product, but is instead a prototype of a practice, or as Panzar and Shove explain, a proto-practice is a practice that has yet to be realised and integrated as an ‘entity’ (2005, p.58). I then set out to create a media space for exploring and learning about laundering and washing less. The explorations centred on a video prototype. The Design Dictionary describes a ‘prototype’ as a creation used to test the function and performance of a new design (Botsch, 2008, p.317). My video prototype was designed to promote learning about laundering less, to get people actively involved in innovation, and to explore and prompt action and change in how people use clothing. The prototype is not fixated on the backstory of the issue and convincing the audience about the problem. Instead it looks forward, anticipates participation and draws on the engaging values of hope to generate conversations about what change could look and feel like.
In this case, the video prototype models a participatory approach to making media and creating a space for learning. Before this, I experimented with different visual communication approaches and media platforms. The initial experiments drew on lifecycle analyses and hands-on experiments using a range of ideas and approaches to reduce washing frequency. I then took a participatory approach to practice-based research, where I could learn through my own practice by trialling no- wash techniques, or ‘proto-practices’, on my own clothes. I put my own body and perceptions of cleanliness at the centre of the experiments, and in the final video prototype. This enabled me to perform and test ideas for washing less, before inviting people on the street to participate by examining samples of my clothes
65 treated with a variety of no-wash options, while their responses were recorded on camera. The video prototype is called The Sniff Test.
This venture enabled me to make the private practice of laundering into a more public conversation and to explore ordinary and everyday mundane tasks in a more entertaining and light-hearted way. The modes of researching laundering included auto-ethnographic research into wash-less proto-practices and a participatory approach to research and media making that led to a breakthrough in conversational learning. Baker, Jensen and Kolb describe conversational learning as a process whereby ‘learners construct meaning and transform experiences into knowledge through conversations’ (Baker et al., 2002, p.2). It entailed listening, sharing, reflection and learning in order to co-explore experiences and co-create ideas. Through filmmaking and interactions with the public, I could speak about my own experiments, as a conversation starter, which facilitated a shared inquiry that continued when the recordings were edited into a video for screening and discussion groups. The enquiry then continued with participant-led think-alouds in which volunteers tried one of the proto-practices in their own home. 3.1 Timeline and research methods summary
a) February 2012 - February 2014, trial proto-practices that could replace a conventional wash that uses a washing machine: Auto-ethnographic research was used to investigate non-machine wash techniques to reduce washing frequency. This entailed becoming the research subject as I performed methods to withhold a wash on my own clothes and observed my own practices at home. In combination with theoretical research about slow fashion and laundering, I then selected proto-practices to model and discuss with clothes users. b) April 2012 - July 2014, media and communication experiments: Experiments conducted with different communication and media approaches that explore slow fashion theories and a reduction in clothes users’ laundering impacts. On reflection I can see that in creating visual arguments I was at this stage still committed to the role of communicating aspects of the ‘backstory’ as a precursor to social change. c) June - July 2014, Display samples of clothing that underwent a no- wash proto-practice, as opposed to a conventional launder, and invite impromptu conversations with people in public about washing less: A
66 participatory, performative and conversational approach to social research was implemented when filming The Sniff Test. When filming, my participatory approach put me on screen, using my own body and the proto-practices I had trialled, as the topic for impromptu conversations with people on the street. As a researcher-participant, I presented an empathetic persona to capture people’s attention, model ideas for washing less, and provide a sensorial experience about what washing less might look and feel like through my character and onscreen performance. d) August - December 2014, Video editing: Analyse and reflect on conversations, then edit the footage into a video. e) December 2014, Use video as a conversation starter about washing less in screening and discussion groups: A participatory approach was used when hosting screenings and discussion groups as I participated in the conversations, both sharing and receiving information. Although I did ask questions and steer conversations, the insights were mostly co- creations made by the participants and myself as we explored private laundry habits and washing less. f) December 2014 - January 2015, Recruit volunteers to trial a proto- practice and record their experience as a think-aloud: Practitioner-led research was conducted when volunteers picked a proto-practice, which I had modelled in the prototype video, and they then performed it in their own homes while making a voice recording called a think-aloud. g) December 2014 - January 2015, Converse with think-aloud volunteers who reflect on their experience trialling the proto- practice: A participatory approach was used when conversing with volunteers who had trialled a proto-practice, as I discussed and questioned their experience.
3.2 Practice based methods: Constructing a media space to learn about laundering
3.2.1 Media and communication experiments
Before making my final prototype video and pursuing conversational social research about laundering less, I experimented with varied slow fashion research and media strategies to communicate slow fashion practices. The key themes were to slow consumption and reduce the environmental burden carried by laundering. These experiments did have merit but did not adequately address my research question.
67 The current research and video prototype are an extension of my 2008 honours research for which I made a documentary inspired by slow fashion theory and closed loop systems thinking, called Fashion Footprint (Kaye-Smith, 2008). This documentary highlighted the ecological impacts of clothing production, use, and disposal, and revealed that the greatest environmental burden in a garment’s lifecycle is in the use-phase. I used an item of my own clothing to experiment with shower steaming, rather than washing, and also explored some slow-fashion practices like mending clothes. The 17-minute documentary was an amateur attempt but well received – it was credited with First Class Honours and made the Dean’s Merit List in 2008 (Western Sydney University, 2008; Kaye-Smith, 2009) and screened at exhibitions, such as the University of Technology Sydney’s Fashioning Now (Kaye- Smith, 2009), the Society of Responsible Design’s 2009 SDR Change 09 exhibition (Kaye-Smith, 2009) and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney’s exhibition Footprints (Kaye-Smith, 2009).
Figure 8. Scene 3 in author’s video documentary [Screenshot] Fashion Footprint, 2008. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith.
During my candidature, I experimented with a few animation ideas. I sketched a rough storyboard for a stop-motion animation idea prototype with the working title Fast Fashion, Deskilling the User and Garment Resources to experiment with representing a closed-loop fashion system and what this means for the user (see appendix 1). The animation illustrated how the speed of fashion production has
68 increased, the industrialisation of manufacturing processes, the loss of clothing maintenance skills and the problems with textile waste. It then revealed the resources required to actually make the garments and the resource intensity of using them. Through the animation, I was looking to make the audience value their clothes more and recognise the significance of the use-phase and laundering. In recognising laundering’s heavy environmental burden, I hoped the audience would think twice before chucking a garment in the washing machine and slow their consumption down.
Figure 9. Storyboard flipbook 1 excerpt, Appendix 1 [Image]. ‘De-skilling the user and garment resources’. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith. Although the animation may have exposed the viewer to information about the backstory of fashion systems and resource intensity, it fell more into the category of ‘awareness raising’ as it did not offer ideas or guidance about how viewers could wash less. Alongside this, in the animation clothes users start off as resourceful and skilful but then new technologies and processes transform them into almost lemming-like consumers desperately trying to keep up with accelerating trends. The problem here is that this does not convey modern clothes users as intelligent, skilful citizens, and nor does it empower or equip the viewer with skills, or make them feel integral to change. Therefore, this animation could make the viewer feel disempowered, guilty or reject the message entirely as their identity is threatened (Ferguson & Brandscombe, 2010 in COIN & PIRC, 2011). Further to this disempowerment, the animation emphasised the abundance of clothes users
69 participating in the fast fashion system. This can make change seem too hard and that individual efforts would be insignificant when considering the big picture.
I experimented with two other hand drawn chalkboard stop-motion animations (see appendix 1). Flipbook 2, titled ‘Fast Fashion vs. Slow Fashion’, sought to show the monetary and environmental benefits of investing in well-made garments and mending them in an effort to slow consumption. Flipbook 3, ‘Machine Dry vs. Line Dry’ (see appendix 1), again sought to show the monetary and environmental benefits of line drying as opposed to machine drying, in order to encourage the viewer to line dry their clothes.
Figure 10. Storyboard flipbook 2 excerpt, Appendix 1 [Image]. ‘Fast Fashion vs Slow Fashion’. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith.
70
Figure 11. Storyboard flipbook 3 excerpt, Appendix 1 [Image]. ‘Machine dry vs Line Dry’. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith. I wrote another animation about micro synthetic fibres entering the food chain via laundry grey water. The concept was to simply follow a fibre thread as it journeyed through the washing machine and into water pipes before entering the ocean, then into a fish’s mouth, into the fish’s blood and cells, and then the fish is caught and ends up on a dinner plate.
Rather than overtly dictating my argument to the viewer in my animations, I provided information that the viewer could consider and then form his or her own opinion. The animations encouraged viewers to slow their consumption, mend their clothes, and avoid machine drying. The last animation demonstrated that we might be consuming our own micro synthetic pollution. Although these messages did appear to resonate with audiences when I tested them at conferences, I realised the experiments were fixated on only one aspect of a broader picture of unsustainability, and were attempting to influence the audience through monetary incentives, the promise of environmental gains, or fear – therefore these approaches did not explore uplifting strategies that could appeal to the self-transcendent values and make a person feel good about enacting change. Additionally, the animations may be informative, but they do not leap off the page with enticing and playful energy, and nor do they feature a human character that represents the audience who could model and explore ways to address the issues presented.
71 The major shortcomings of these media and communication experiments were that they were still set on convincing the audience about the problem, rather than moving into ideas for changing a situation by involving people. It is from this point that my focus then shifted toward laundering and experimenting with reducing washing frequency.
While making the video prototype and conducting conversational and social research into washing less, I continued the media experiments as I developed a participatory communications approach to laundering. I was selected for the national competition for PhD candidates AMP Bright Sparks where I won the People’s Choice award for my live stage pitch and crowd source funding video (see Figures 12 & 13). I was selected as a finalist for Western Sydney University’s 3 Minute Thesis (3MT, 2015) and won Western Sydney University’s 3MT competition in 2016 (Kaye-Smith). I represented Western Sydney University at the Asia Pacific 3MT competition, held at the University of Queensland (Kaye-Smith, 2016).
Figure 12. Author on stage at ‘Pitch Night’ AMP Bright Sparks [Screenshot] September May 2015. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith.
72
Figure 13. Opening scene of author’s crowd source funding video [Screenshot]. We can’t consume our way out of climate change! December 2015. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith.
Figure 14. Asia Pacific 3MT semi-final slide [Photograph] Changing the way we ‘do’ things. September 30 2016. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith.
73 3.2.2 Trial proto-practices that could replace a conventional wash
While conducting theoretical investigations and experimenting with different communications approaches, I was simultaneously conducting auto-ethnographic research to learn about washing less by experimenting with my own domestic laundering practices. As explained by Carolyn Ellis, Tony E. Adams and Arthur P.Bochner in Autoethnography: An Overview (2011, para 9), auto-ethnography requires the researcher to use methodological tools and research to analyse experience and consider ways others may experience similar epiphanies. Ellis et al (2011, para 9) explain that the researcher uses
personal experience to illustrate facets of cultural experience, and, in so doing, make characteristics of a culture familiar for insiders and outsiders. To accomplish this might require comparing and contrasting personal experience against existing research (Ronai, 1995, 1996), interviewing cultural members (Foster, 2006; Marvasti, 2006; Tillmann-Healy, 2001), and/or examining relevant cultural artefacts (Boylorn, 2008; Denzin, 2006).
Through auto-ethnography, I closely examined my own daily wearing habits and laundering practices. I used self-examination as the starting point for investigations whereby I tested the do-ability of methods to withhold a wash, proto- practices, in my own home. The proto-practices were not established techniques in my routine, yet they were put together from existing elements. I would like to note that machine wash alternatives, such as spot cleaning a garment, have been around for a long time. However, the reason I suggest they are ‘proto’ is because such practices are overwhelmed and overlooked by frequent machine washing. Therefore, I suggest they are ‘proto’ in the sense of them needing to become more widespread and normalised. I modified ways of using already existing, common household cleaning and laundering tools in order to get underway immediately, and to make use of tools and materials that could be found in most domestic settings. Most of these were small modifications to the physical, cultural and psychological factors that shape the approach I take to cleaning at home. Drawing on what is familiar would also, I thought, help to avoid ‘shocking’ people with radical ideas for change and instead provide mere tweaks or evolutionary changes to their practice. My strategic ‘evolution’ to launder less responds to Gidden’s (in Glover, 2015, p.2) insights into
74 day-to-day activity that have a heavy reliance on the patterns of practice that preceded them. These efforts to support a smoother transition to a change in practice also adhere with Caro’s point regarding the tendency for people to ignore an issue rather than radically change the way that they live (Lauder, 2014).
However, after arguing the importance of not shocking the clothing user with calls for radical change, I did trial proto-practices that could be perceived as quite shocking because I removed an element that Glover (2015, p.268) would refer to as, a high-intensity element of the laundering practice. My proto-practices removed the washing machine, which significantly impacts laundering practices since so many other materials, competencies and meanings revolve around it. For example, the washing basket is the holding ground for pre-wash or post-wash clothes; washing detergent is put in the washing machine to enhance the cleansing of the clothes; dryers and washing lines are used post-wash; and the idea of cleansing clothes using water (and soap or detergent) has been one of the longest running elements of laundering throughout history. Putting clothes through the ‘wash’, be it boiling clothes in a pot as in the 1800s or a washing machine in the twenty first century, has been a consistent element in laundering – that is, laundering by machine agitation of clothes in water has come to mean the garment is ‘clean’.
Therefore, removing the washing machine is quite the game changer – the ‘game’ being how laundering is performed and what it ‘means’ to perform the no- wash version of the practice. After all, if the ‘wash’ is taken out of the equation, then how is the garment going to become ‘clean’? The ‘wash’ is intrinsically connected to ‘cleaning’ clothes when laundering, and this is what makes them look, feel and smell ‘fresh’. Removing a high-intensity element could be considered a challenge. However, ‘washing’ clothes is equally associated with the word ‘fresh’, which is a more subjective term than clean, because it relates to a feeling, a sensory perception and a sensation. ‘Fresh’ is often related to freshly laundered clothes and has even been commoditised and marketed, as seen in Figure 7, where a detergent claim’s to have a scent of ‘fresh air’. Here lies an opportunity to take up Dombek-Keith and Loker’s assertion that the definitions of clean and dirty might be strategically loosened or broadened (2011, p.103) which would have major and far reaching environmental benefits (Fletcher, 1999, p.35; 2008, p.91; Shove 2003). This would involve shifting the meaning of tending to clothes (through laundering or other
75 practices) between wears from ‘clean’ to ‘fresh’. I suggest this shift is not too great a leap for the clothing user – you need only look at definitions and synonyms of ‘clean’ to find it is associated with the word ‘fresh’, and it makes sense that a ‘clean’ commodity would feel ‘fresh’. However, the word ‘fresh’ (although a widely promoted by-product of cleaning), according to dictionary definitions, does not necessarily translate into the word ‘clean’ – this also makes sense because air can smell fresh, but it doesn’t go through the wash; bread can smell delicious when ‘fresh’ out of the oven; and new and innovative ideas can be described as ‘fresh’, as exemplified by Fletcher and Grose when they call for ‘fresh visions’ to interrupt current ways of ‘doing’ (2012, p.158). So, by taking out the ‘wash’ (the washing machine), I shifted the meaning of the laundering outcome from ‘clean’ to ‘fresh’.
The elements used when trialling the proto-practices:
Materials: • Hanger, clothes horse or clothes line • Sun and air • Lemon juice • Spot cleaner: ‘Exit’ spot cleaner/stain remover, soap and water • Shower
Competencies • Turn top inside out on back of chair (performances that involve • Hanger behind door skill and know-how): • Hanger in wardrobe • Hang top in sun and air • Shower steam • Straight lemon juice dabbed onto on the armpits of singlet • Spot cleaner on stain • Spot clean with hand wash soap • Styles of hand rather than machine agitation – anticipating the right rubbing pressure for the sort of stain to be removed.
Meaning: I shifted the meaning (or aspiration) of washing clothes from ‘clean’ to ‘refreshed’
Table 3. The elements used when trialling the proto-practices.
76 The shift in meaning, from clean to fresh, influenced what I called the proto- practices that could replace a conventional wash. I named the proto-practices ‘eco- refreshing methods’. I did so because ‘eco’ is widely associated with products or practices that have a lower ecological impact and ‘refreshing’ is an extension of ‘fresh’, with the benefits mentioned above. My approach in naming these ‘eco- refreshing methods’ is similar to that of John Wood’s discussions about the development of metadesign in ‘Design as a Comprehensive Act of Combination’, as well as Kate Fletcher and Matilda Tham’s (2004), and Susan Kaiser’s (2008) discussion around ‘helpful metaphors’ for environmental literacy. Wood (2013) explains how a playful re-language of people, things and actions can invite rethinking of familiar belief systems that seem ‘normal’ in an old paradigm that needs changing. Fletcher and Tham (Lifetimes, 2004) encourage researchers to sustain the use of metaphors, such as ‘speed’ in garment production, that help give insight into the system, its ecological impacts, and its future. For example, lower quality, quickly produced, consumed and disposed of fashion is often referred to as ‘fast fashion’ and higher quality, more durably produced fashion products built and used for longevity is referred to as ‘slow fashion’. Kaiser explains that metaphors are useful for expressing ideas because they provide words or images that represent abstract concepts and enable us to understand concepts that might otherwise be difficult to grasp (2008, p.140).
The experiments were conducted, for the most part, on my exercise clothes because they become sweat laden regularly and are the garments that are most frequently washed, and therefore they were the ones most readily available for the experiments. My experiment of airing clothes began in an attempt to extend the life of my gym clothes. Prior to airing my gym clothes, I would put the sweaty garments in a washing basket, clothes pile or in the washing machine (waiting to be washed) however that seemed to exacerbate the problem, as the sweat and odour would persist and cling to the fabric even after a wash. To remedy this, I began hanging them on my clotheshorse so they could air while waiting for my weekly wash (See Figure 15). Airing my own clothes required only small modifications to my traditional laundering routine. One day, upon realising I had no clean gym clothes I resorted to re-using one of my used (but aired) tops. When examining each garment,
77 I was surprised to find they were mostly neutral in scent! Consequently, I proceeded to wear a previously worn top that had been aired.
Figure 15. Clothes airing on authors clothes horse [Photograph].
This experience triggered further experimentation. Upon my return from the gym, I routinised disrobing then hanging my gym gear outside in the sun (See Figure 16). Each day, when adding clothes to the collection, I would re-position socks, tops and shirts by turning them around and inside out periodically to ensure the garments were thoroughly sunned and aired. To my astonishment, once a garment had been aired for a few days, even the socks smelled neutral. I found four days to be adequate to neutralise even the sweatiest sock, and I trialled re-wearing a top (when doing solitary exercise at the gym) and found the previous workout scents did not appear to become ‘active’ on the second wear. I even trialled wearing a garment that had been worn three times with four-day sun and airing periods between each wear. The idea of sun and air removing or eliminating odour is not new. Jack’s experiments affirmed this, as one participant testified that a few hours of direct sunlight on jeans turned inside out ‘takes care of it every time’ (‘it’ means the odour, which can be caused by bacteria). The participant enthused about sunny days in her comment on Facebook
78 ‘yuss it’s a sunny day! Jeans on the line yall [sic], kill that [sic] bacteria’ (Jack, 2012, p.62).
Figure 16. Outside view of authors gym clothes getting sun and air [Photograph].
Admittedly, when experimenting, I first found the activities time consuming due to my attentiveness to detail as I figured out how to do them. But as I became more practised, as with any activity, I fine-tuned it and it took less time. Or as Pink and Leder (2012) would describe it, my ‘improvisory potential’ enabled me to hone and routinise some proto-practices. The honing of the technique for airing clothes provides an example of discovering a shortcut, which demonstrates how clothes users can adapt and appropriate practices to suit our changing materials, environments and skills. After several months of performing the proto-practices, I found that simply putting a garment back on the hanger was effective enough to air out and freshen up most ‘socialising’ garments (the garments you wear when socialising with friends, such as going out for dinner or watching a movie) and therefore this became my most frequently used refreshing technique. However, to get to the point where I could simply re-hang a garment, my routines had evolved from
79 experiments involving airing clothes in varied settings (in the sun, on the back of a chair, on a clothes horse) to simply examining a garment after disrobing and putting it straight back on the hanger and into my wardrobe. This evolution of activity was largely dependent on performing the practice repeatedly and my escalating confidence. I moved from insecure practitioner trying something new and fearing I would smell, to feeling comfortable and confident enough to cut out some ‘freshening’ rituals – unless I decided the garment had a definite stain or scent. My sensory intuitions and rituals evolved as I became more practised and confident, and I recalibrated my standards of cleanliness through my new routine.
Through repetition and refining my practices, they also became more time efficient and established. As Pink explains (2012, p.71) laundry is always ‘creating routes through the sensory home’, as were my eco-refreshing methods that created new paths and embedded themselves in my home and domestic routines. So, although I made the jump from A (needing a ritual to feel the item could be worn again) to D (examining the garment and putting it back in the wardrobe), I cannot expect others to do so in response to my testimony alone as they too may need the ‘in between steps’ that ease the user into a new way of ‘doing’.
Therefore, when selecting proto-practices that I could show and experiment with others, the techniques that I used most frequently and considered the most do- able did not make the ‘final list’. These included putting clothes back into my wardrobe or airing out a garment on my clotheshorse that is situated opposite my washing machine. I did not include these in my video because they may be too great a ‘leap’ for the clothing user who is being introduced to a new concept (washing less). Instead, I reasoned that if the user trialled one of the non-wash techniques modelled in the video, they would adapt and modify the technique to best suit their environment and desired outcome, as I did. This could lead to cutting out a component, such putting the garment in the sun if the garment did not need it.
Therefore, the final list of eco-refreshing methods I selected to model and to initiate a conversation with clothes users were:
• Sun and air • Shower steam • Lemon juice
80 • Spot cleaner: ‘Exit’ spot cleaner and soap The eco-refreshing methods were intended to make common sense to people. Sun and air is already used in laundering to dry washed clothes; Lemon juice is promoted as a method to neutralise clothing odour on home DIY blogs such as Dengarden (Handlon, 2014) and One How To (Smith, n.d); shower steam, more widely discussed as a method to de-wrinkle clothes, is also considered a no-wash method to ‘de-stink your clothes’ by the general-interest magazine Readers Digest (Richards n.d); And spot cleaning is an established practice with a line of commercial products. The eco-refreshing methods were not trying to be as effective at stripping a garment of its human traces as using a detergent. The investigation was not a controlled science experiment to see what method could out-clean its detergent counterparts. Instead the methods sought credibility through ‘works in practice’ rather than scientific evidence.
The following images are the floor plans to my home and show that the eco- refreshing methods required only small modifications to my old laundering routes.
Figure 17. Purple line shows authors laundry route through her home [Floor plans].
The purple line indicates my laundry route. It starts in the bedroom (the bottom left room). The route moves from my bedroom, passes through my dressing room, through the hallway, into the laundry for a wash. After the wash they are either
81 machine-dried or taken outside of the house to be hung on the clothes line. After performing my laundering route, I then move into the bathroom, between my dressing room and laundry, to shower.
Figure 18. The dotted purple line shows clothes route, post launder, back to my drawers [Floor plans].
The dotted purple line shows the route to return clothes that have been washed and dried, to their holding ground - my chest of drawers. After performing my laundering route, I then move into the bathroom, between my dressing room and laundry (shown with an unbroken purple line), to shower. The dotted purple line represents the route taken through my home to return the washed and dried clothes back to my chest of drawers.
82
Figure 19. Green line shows eco-refreshing route [Floor plans].
The green line shows the routes taken through my home to perform the eco- refreshing methods which including airing on the back of my bedroom door, sun and airing on my porch, sun and airing on the washing line and spot cleaning or lemon juice on the armpits of clothes performed in the laundry basin. Some garments were shower steamed. To shower steam, the garment was put onto a hanger and hung up in the shower to catch the steam while I showered.
83
Figure 20. The green dotted line shows the eco-refreshing routes to return clothes to the drawer [Floor plans].
The green dotted line shows the eco-refreshing routes back to my clothing holding ground, a chest of drawers.
Figure 21. Compares authors conventional, higher intensity laundering route (in purple) with the eco-refreshing route (in green) [Floor plans].
84 The floor plans above compares my conventional, higher intensity, laundering routes in purple and the eco-refreshed routes in green to demonstrate how the eco- refreshing methods take similar paths, so require only small modifications to the traditional flows through the house.
I used these eco-refreshing methods on my work, exercise and party/going out clothes. I cut out the armpits of my eco-refreshed clothes and pinned them on a board. These samples became the basis for examination and conversations about washing less. Their role was to show simple alternatives to a machine wash; demonstrate laundering was a tacit and ultimately creative practice that can be done in many ways; and act as a prop, or as Bertelsen Kanstrup and Ostergaard (2014, p.4) describe it, a ‘trigger’ to initiate discussion about ‘future visions’ around washing clothes less. The flexibility of this approach is important because there is no ‘one size fits all’ method for washing less. Therefore, I positioned the practice as malleable and adaptable, and I positioned these samples as the outcome of the adjustments to this practice.
3.2.3 Initiating and mediating conversations about washing less
After observing my own laundering routines and trialling and performing refreshing techniques, I wanted to show others what washing less could look and feel like, and that the initiative did not involve radical change, but rather relatively ordinary and everyday change. This focus on doable ideas for change is an approach that contrasts with stories like ‘Fashion Victims’ in which the audience is offered little direction on how they can intervene. I concluded that the best way to address how we might wash less and prime people for change was to make my private laundering routines and experiments public, show people what I had discovered, and discuss these ideas. The conversational research could, as Crouch and Pearce describe, ‘help explain the way in which we think about practice in design and in research’ and ‘help link physical and social concepts of the world’ to create a unified sense of how our actions impact on ourselves and our surroundings. Interactions with clothes users about washing less was,
important … to understand the way in which the change envisaged by action is understood practically and ethically. Practice and praxis are
85 terms used to explain the way in which action takes place, and reflection and reflexivity are ways to begin to understand how we manage agency and actions (Crouch & Pearce 2013, p.79).
Through interactions with people, I could ‘navigate ideological issues as much as practical ones’ (Crouch & Pearce, 2013, p.82). Taking my trials to the public meant assigning more than a new concept and meaning to my proto-practice methods through language (by re-languaging), it meant assigning an ‘image’ and ‘action’ to the re-languaged concept, by modelling a slice of my own life. This step was important in order to give insight into the do-ability, adoptability, and social acceptability of my no-wash alternatives. Showing and discussing ideas to wash less responds to Talking Climate’s suggestion about setting goals for the audience and combining them with clear directions about how the audience can implement activities to reach their goals.
Research has shown that forming even strong goal intentions (without implementation intentions) leaves a large gap between intention and goal attainment (i.e. action). In particular, people can fail to get started (because there is no specified starting point and can get derailed along the way (because there are not enough markers of progress) (COIN & PIRC, 2011).
Showing and discussing washing less also responds to Caro (in Lauder, 2014) and Talking Climate’s (COIN & PIRC, 2011) suggestions about providing signs of hope so that change seems manageable and possible. The focus on hope and grassroots change is radically different to communication and storytelling approaches such as ‘Fashion Victims’ (Ferguson & Jolley, 2013) that are focused on the backstory of an issue and the big businesses responsible.
When facilitating conversations about washing less and personal cleanliness routines, I recognised the sensitive nature of the topic, and that I needed to be mindful of not offending people or making them feel uncomfortable. People could feel that they were threatened or being judged, if they were more frequent washers, and this risked triggering defensive mechanisms. To apply Boiler’s (1999, p.191 in Smith, 2014, p.226) insight into resisting documentary messages to discussions about laundering, if an individual’s identity, beliefs, values and personal moral codes or pride are challenged, they can become angry and defensive. Therefore, any
86 interactions with the public needed to be handled with care in order to foster open and constructive discussions, rather than trigger defensive reactions that could restrict explorations. To manage this, my participatory and intermediary role diverted attention to my clothing samples and myself. I took a self-disclosure approach in which I would start the conversation and interact with, and relate to, volunteers by revealing information about myself and suggesting that their problem vis-à-vis laundering was also my problem. I approached people on the streets, on a bus and at a market in Sydney with the intention of asking them to examine the samples, and consent to the interaction being filmed. By putting my own body, cleanliness and clothes under scrutiny I sought to prevent the public from feeling vulnerable for fear of judgement from others. If there was any ‘judging’, it was directed at me. I wanted my character to be an accessible and convincing presence, to model and speak for sustainable laundering. I presented as a typical clothing user who was part of the movement for change, and I wanted those who contributed to feel uplifted and empowered for sharing their experience.
87
Figure 22. Sample board of authors eco-refreshed clothing [Photograph].
Figure 23. Sample board and megaphone in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2014. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith. Using a megaphone and holding a board containing the armpits of my eco- refreshed clothes, I was able to capture the attention of passers-by. I spoke about the invisible side effects on the environment from laundering. In doing so I found a more
88 relatable way to frame the bigger facts about environmental impacts. On the ‘sniff board’ were pinned samples of the results of my proto-practices that I re-framed as eco-refreshing methods. The board was vital as a prop and image to initiate conversation and interactions about new practices. I called the samples ‘pits’ which was a conceit, an exaggeration, used to organise the samples around a theme of sniffing and body odour. I asked for help in evaluating the effectiveness of my eco- refreshing methods by requesting ‘will you sniff my pits for the planet?’ My request for participation started with a ‘hook’ that demonstrated the importance of onlookers’ contributions and positioned them as being integral to the change that needs to happen. I therefore shared with onlookers the ‘authority’, that is most often held by the ‘expert’ or storyteller who informs the ‘unknowing’ information recipient. In doing so, I instantaneously set up an expectation that they were going to contribute something valuable.
The emotive and confronting request to ‘sniff my pits’ was employed as a strategy that drew on human emotion (Caro, 2011, personal communications). So, to capture the attention of the public using a common emotion to which most could relate, I drew on the fear of embarrassment of others smelling our body odour and/or being perceived as unclean, but in a light-hearted way. Alongside this, the request was in line with Hariman’s insights about public spectacle and humour from Chapter 1. I sought to create a playful public spectacle and experience to give my issue visibility, break down barriers that could inhibit participation, and help people relax (Hariman, 2008 in Kenny, 2009, p.225). I aimed to make something rather mundane and boring (laundering), and something quite repulsive (body odour) interesting and entertaining, and I aimed to make the need to reduce washing frequency an urgent matter.
To my surprise, the scenario naturally drew many onlookers and volunteers, whom I fondly call ‘sniffers’, who rose to the challenge and sniffed and interacted with the clothing samples. My public spectacle and film crew sparked curiosity in observers. The film crew seemed to legitimise my credentials and rather provocative request, and after delivering my megaphone spiel, no further questions were asked about the validity of my subject matter.
89
Figure 24. Onlookers listening to the megaphone spiel in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2014. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith.
Figure 25. Sniffer examining sample in a Sydney market in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2014. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith.
90
Figure 26. Volunteer sniffer on bus in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot] The Sniff Test. December 2014. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith.
The conversations with volunteer sniffers were short so as not to encroach on their time for too long. In the varying locations there were factors that would contribute to the quality of response to my research. Therefore, it was important to evaluate my participants’ contributions by considering the context of that moment and their responses to my intrusive presence and tactic to involve others. For example, in order to gain attention in public spaces and communicate my message, I used a megaphone to amplify my ‘spiel’. In a Sydney marketplace, onlookers had the option to engage with me or not because they could remove themselves from my presence since it was a big space with many exits. However, this was not the case when shooting on a bus. In the confines of the bus people could not escape me until arriving at a bus stop. Although I was pleasantly surprised by the reactions of commuters, I realised I was intruding on their mid-week peak-hour commute and was frequently in the way of people getting on and off the bus. Essentially, I was the greatest ‘bother’ on the bus because I was unavoidable. Despite my bothering the commuters, I still recruited sniffers who were very candid and open about their experience – as was the case in all the locations. I did not, however, pursue potential sniffers who seemed uncomfortable with my presence.
Filming public discussions and interactions revealed the power that experience and conversation have for co-exploring ideas with clothes users – the people who could enact change. My intermediary role extended the conversation to those in
91 public in order to initiate a social dialogue about change. The experience or ‘task’ that involved recruiting sniffers to examine my refreshed clothing samples was the platform and excuse for accessing people. The filmic process as a means for accessing people aligns with Binder, Brandt and Bur’s arguments in ‘Taking Video Beyond ‘Hard Data’’ where they explain their camcorder exposed their ‘presence’ but also revealed their ‘project’ which involved searching ‘for the conversations or even confrontations that our video material can provoke’ (2000, p.24). I could then co-explore ideas and opportunities for withholding a wash, through conversations, and provide a sensorial experience from which to learn together. As Baker, Jensen and Kolb explain, conversational learning is grounded in experiential learning. It can enable a learning process whereby participants ‘construct meaning and transform experiences into knowledge through conversations’ and the experiential element refers to the ‘central role that experience plays in the learning process’ (2002, p.2). Therefore, the sensorial encounter with my clothing samples was an important part of the experiential learning, and the recordings allowed me to capture this in action. This aligns with Bur and Salu’s (2007, p.78) findings around using video in co- exploratory research:
Co-exploring is a particular view on field studies that helps us see the study not simply as questions asked and answers given, but as a participatory endeavour, banking on the combined efforts of users and designers to move towards a better future. The video camera is a convenient ‘excuse’ to set this process in motion: a tool for which and with which we might explore.
My participatory approach enabled me to talk ‘with’, rather than ‘down’, to my sniffers when co-exploring the practice of washing less, and enabled me to steer the conversations in a way that encouraged others to articulate insights that I wanted to communicate. This positioned me not as a patronising, all-knowing ‘VOG’ or authoritative ‘informant’, but as a comrade working towards a common goal. The conversations were intuitively led with no definitive direction, outcome or right or wrong answers. This mode of research includes the features of what is called ‘reflective practice’, after Donald Schön (1983). Reflective practice is recognised as an important part of design research inquiry. As Marshall and Newton explain, an essential component of reflective practice and inquiry involves ‘understanding the
92 back-talk of the situation’. In scholarly design, this means the ‘integration and the incorporation of studio work, reflection, close readings, texts, etc. (components of design inquiry in rich diversity) that is comprehensive and coherent’ (2000, p.6). Scholarly inquiry is a process of intense theoretical investigation, reflection and practical research, and it guided my ‘intuitive’ and ‘spontaneous’, yet informed, experimentations and the gathering of people’s responses. Gathering responses to my clothing samples was the process of collecting the ‘back-talk’ through my reflective and participatory inquiry – a conversation that explored insights into sensory and everyday experiences.
My approach to interacting with people could also be likened to a news journalist or documentary filmmaker’s ‘vox pop’. As explained by Ingram and The Peter Henshall Estate, the vox pop (which is the voice of the people) can be used to test public opinion and reaction, and to stimulate public debate (2008), amongst other functions. I used the vox pops to test my eco-refreshing methods, to see how the public reacted to them, and to stimulate conversation about washing frequency and the acceptability of refreshing and washing less. My objective was to observe and listen to people’s responses to the samples, and to look for obstacles, reasons and leverage points to wash clothes less and use the interactions as a genuine mode of social inquiry that is open to ideas and thoughts ‘outside the square’ that could lead to new insights. I looked to my participants to create and co-create new ideas and approaches that built upon my research.
The conversations provided insight into: the plausibility of washing less and the no-wash proto-practices; the willingness of people to engage with a discussion about laundering and even interact with body odour; and what people are already doing to withhold a wash. By involving clothes users and pursuing investigations in the spontaneity of that moment, I could quickly see which samples showed promise to others as a method for reducing washing frequency and which did not. Such an approach adheres to Foot Whyte’s description of participatory action research in which those involved bring ‘irrelevant or ill-conceived lines of inquiry to a rapid halt, correcting or refining the questions asked in ways that lead to sharper formulation and more productive research’ (Foote Whyte, 1991, p.53). As a result, the participants in my research enabled me to enact a more direct and robust formulation of ideas and possibilities about clothing care.
93
3.2.4 Continuing the conversation: Turning the video footage into a story to share
Figure 27. Image of author editing the footage into a story [Photograph].
The short conversations I had with volunteers on the street, lasting only two or three minutes, which were recorded on camera, far surpassed any research expectations I had, and sharing these responses struck me as a good way to generate further conversations and create a space for learning and sharing; the idea for a prototype video made up of the footage I collected was born.
***Please watch The Sniff Test video now***
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS74tygr2gU
The next stage of my research involved conducting screening and discussion groups, using the footage I had collected to get the audience up to speed on my
94 endeavours so far. The video prototype would be used as a conversation starter, to mine for more user insights. In constructing the video, I had footage that provided social research insights about how people engaged with the concept of washing less, the clothing samples, and me. All of this content could be cut and arranged to tell a story about this experience. Not only did I have footage of people volunteering to participate in the examination of my clothes, some participants revealed they had performed at least one eco-refreshing method before, or made up their own innovations. Alongside this, there were laughs and jokes that provided an opportunity to create a hopeful, uplifting and playful story.
Figure 28. Girls participating in a Sydney market, in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2014. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith.
95
Figure 29. Student examining samples at a Sydney University in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2010. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith.
Figure 30. Woman examining samples on bus in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2010. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith.
When editing the footage, my performative and participatory approach allowed me to construct (or reinforce) myself as a character that was a proactive doer who was having a reflective conversation with others about ways to launder less. I used the many volunteers participating to suggest a sense of collective citizen action, a
96 step that Maniates sees as integral to remaking institutional and political forces (2001, p.50). I used the interactions to build a sense of community and show that these innovations were already underway to ‘normalise’ (COIN & PIRC, 2011) washing less as a social practice but also to acknowledge these apparently undervalued practices that have little presence in the visual culture around laundering. Such constructs enabled me to portray clothes users as ‘competent individuals and suppliers of ideas and skills’ (Fletcher, 2011, p.174) to encourage participation and experimentation.
The final video edit showed me ‘wearing in’ the garments, ‘doing’ the eco- refreshing methods (thus visualising the improvisory potential of clothes users), clothing user engagement (the sniffers), no-wash innovation, the openness of people to trying new things, clothes users’ reflections, my own personal reflections, humour and fun. These scenes allowed me to visualise the human ‘performance’ or ‘doing’ component of clothing use and care in the video (e.g. Figure 31), while using the interactions with people on the street to tell a story of inquiry. It is an inquiry that looks to the clothing user to discuss ideas for washing less. By performing the eco- refreshing methods on camera, I sought to expose laundering as the potential construction of a new normal, where embodied knowledge and experiential learning are underway. This is a context in which washing less works.
Figure 31. Footage of author visualising the 'doing' of an eco-refreshing method in ‘The Sniff Test’ video [Screenshot]. The Sniff Test. December 2010. Copyright 2017 Holly Kaye-Smith.
97
When reviewing the footage, I identified the key themes I wanted to convey:
a) Make an uplifting video that highlights the inconspicuous nature of laundering’s consumption and assert that we clothe users need to wash less. b) Show the human ‘doing’ element and skill of laundering as a practice (see Figure 31), and underscore the malleability of the laundering practice, and the improvisory potential of actors performing it. c) Show what a reduction in washing frequency might look and feel like. d) Imply clothes don’t necessarily need to be put through the wash after every wear, and that it is socially acceptable and easy to wash less. e) Signal the two major barriers for reducing washing frequency (body odour and marks on clothes) that can be overcome without a washing machine.
The prototype video was titled The Sniff Test, a three-minute thirty-second video, with the following story:
Part 1. The story opened with my character establishing her cause and purpose and recruiting sniffers by means of a megaphone in a public bus and on the streets of Sydney.
Part 2. After the set-up that established the cause, there was a sequence showing playful and spontaneous back talk from onlookers. This concluded with a sequence of volunteers who examined the samples and discussed washing less. The examinations were blended with scenes of my character wearing clothing, sweating during a workout, and staining the clothes and ‘doing’ the refreshing techniques.
Part 3. The video concluded with a ‘piece to camera’, as my character reflected on the experience, in the setting of a Sydney shopping mall where the accelerating purchase of new clothes occurs via fast fashion chains. Up until this point, my character’s determination and passion were her main characteristics and the story was focused on my participants’ bravery and insights. However, in the final scene my character opened up as she candidly revealed her experiences and vulnerabilities. She revealed that, despite the bold nature of her
98 investigations, she was just like the audience, with the same fears to overcome. My character then signalled hope for change through an insight about overcoming these cultural fears and a final question, ‘how often do we really need to wash our clothes?’ that the audience could use as a starting point for the group discussions.
The selection of un-named interview participants and the locations included in the video are represented in the table below:
Filming public performance of proto practices and to recruit sniffers
Mode of social research Sex Age Occupations Location
A Gym in Sydney, 1 x male 35 Hospitality NSW, Aus.
Markets in Sydney 6 x female 18 - 35 • Student NSW, Aus. • Retail worker • Mother
A Sydney and Rozelle bus 3 x female 18 - 60 • Student route, NSW, Aus. 4 x male • Backpacker • Retiree
A Sydney university, 1 x male 22 Student Sydney, NSW Aus. (in group of 3 males)
Table 4. Filming public performance of prototype practices and to recruit sniffers from The Sniff Test video, Holly Kaye-Smith 2014.
3.3 Screening and discussion groups
When embarking on the next phase of research, The Sniff Test screening and discussion groups, I was not sure how the audience would respond to the video or what conversations would arise post-viewing. I did know, however, that I wanted to continue the wash less conversation, pry for user insights and leverage points, and see if the participants warmed to the idea that washing less was a positive initiative. Before commencing any discussion after the screening, I first asked the participants
99 to complete a survey (see Figure 32). The survey asked very general questions such as gender and age, questions about washing frequency, and whether the person would pass on to others any insights they had gained from participating in the study. The question regarding sharing insights about the study was asked because this could indicate possibilities for the conversation to extend beyond my study. The survey served two main purposes: 1) If the screening and discussion groups did not foster useful conversations, or if speaking colloquially the conversation went ‘belly-up’, then I could at least gather some insights and information about current practices and possibility for change via the survey; and 2) the survey could enable the participants to start reflecting on their own practices before commencing the discussion.
I hosted five screenings of The Sniff Test video and after each screening I ran a discussion group. The screenings and discussion groups were held within a two- month period. I reached out to friends and family whom I hoped would be able to generate an audience. I sought a relatively broad spectrum of viewers. I wanted to include males and females, working and retired people, homemakers and students. Some I had met before but nearly half were unknown to me. In regards to participants who I knew, I considered bias and whether a participant would be more open to my ideas if they knew me. However, in discussions my position was that of a participant who had trialled the eco-refreshing methods and was discussing their feasible inclusion in an everyday routine so was in a similar position to others. One thing that all participants had in common was that no one, not even my friends who helped recruit an audience, were entirely clear on what my research was about. As I am sure many humanities and communications PhD candidates can testify, explaining what a PhD is ‘on’, when asked, is often a gut wrenching challenge and difficult to communicate. Before agreeing to participate, the screening and discussion groups were invited and informed that the investigations were about the agency of documentary video and experiments with eco-refreshing methods to launder less. The potential participants were assured that their contributions would be treated with confidentiality, real names not used in the analysis of findings and that conversations that were not about laundering or cleanliness would not be documented.
Group 1, organised by a family member, comprised males and females, and working and retired people, none of whom I had met before. Group 2 were friends of mine, male and female, who gathered at a pub to watch the video and discuss it
100 afterwards. Group 3 comprised male and female participants who were also friends of mine and Group 4 was a smaller group of three of my friends, who gathered at my home Finally, Group 5, held at the University of Newcastle, comprised mostly University students whom I hadn’t met.
Video screening and discussion groups
Groups Location Name, sex Age Occupations
Group 1 Private 5 x male 37 - 70 • Retirees home, Little 1 x female • Nurse Hartley, Mitchel • Factory Worker NSW, Aus. Kasey • Accountant Brian • Storeman Frank Jill Barry
Group 2 Pub in 4 x female 35 - 38 • Information Newtown, 3 x male Technology NSW, Aus. Lisa • Management Elizabeth • Public Relations Kat • Investment and Jenny Stocks Liam Tim Dave
Group 3 Private 2 x female 31 - 37 • Primary School home in 3 x male Teacher Kingswood, Sarah • Mother NSW, Aus. Polly • Construction Ben • Retail Worker Peter • Occupational Michael Therapist
Group 4 Private 2 x male 31 - 37 • Vet home in 1 x female • Animal Scientist Kingswood, Bailey • Factory worker NSW, Aus. Jason Tina
101 Group 5 University 2 x male 20 - 35 • Students of 4 x female • University Newcastle, Glen Tutor/Lecturer NSW, Aus Noel Bianca Felicity Catherine Molly
Table 5. Participants involved in video screening and discussion groups.
102
Survey: Post viewing – immediately after screening My research searches for leverage points with the potential to reduce the environmental burden of the use-phase via clothing user practices. My ‘Sniff Test’ scene shows how stains and smells can occur, how they can be dealt with and demonstrates the initial reactions of people to the proposed refreshing methods.
Please tick the appropriate box.
1. Gender: ☐ Male ☐ Female
2. Age: ☐ 18-24 ☐ 25-34 ☐ 35-44 ☐ 45-54 ☐ 55-64 ☐ 65-74 ☐ 75 or older
3. Work/ occupation type: ☐ Homemaker ☐ Active/ physical/ laborious work ☐ Office / more stationary work
4. On average, which statement best describes your laundering habits for your, a) Jeans; ☐ I wash my jeans after every wear ☐ I wash my jeans after two or three wears ☐ I examine my jeans to determine if I believe they require washing b) Work Pants; ☐ I wash my work pants after every wear ☐ I wash my work pants after two or three wears ☐ I examine my work pants to determine if I believe they require washing c) Casual shirt; ☐ I wash my casual shirt after every wear ☐ I wash my casual shirt after two or three wears ☐ I examine my casual shirt to determine if I believe they require washing
103 d) Work shirt; ☐ I wash my work shirt after every wear ☐ I wash my work shirt after two or three wears ☐ I examine my work shirt to determine if I believe they require washing e) Jacket; ☐ I wash my jacket after every wear ☐ I wash my jacket after two or three wears ☐ I examine my jacket to determine if I believe they require washing
5. Which statement most influences your need to wash your clothes, you may pick up to 2 statements: ☐ My clothes are heavily soiled when I put them in the wash ☐ I am concerned the clothes may smell ☐ The clothes loose their shape/elasticity, therefore I don’t feel good in them. ☐ The clothes ‘feel’ dirty, not fresh.
6. Which statement describes you best: ☐ You go out of your way to behave in an eco-conscious manner and actively seek out conservationist information and strategies to reduce your ecological footprint. You quickly adopt eco-conscious practices. E.g. Avoid food waste, buy local and fair trade etc.
☐ You do not actively seek out conservationist information and strategies but modify your behaviour when new information is revealed to you. E.g. A friend tells you that pole and line caught tuna is better for the environment as the oceans are over-fished, so you switch to that product.
☐ Conservation and eco-practices are not a priority in your life, you participate in legislative conservation initiatives, such as recycling your rubbish, but do not go out of your way to ‘be green’.
☐ You rarely participate in eco-practices, such as taking your own bags grocery shopping or go out of your way to recycle, as you have little interest in conservation and feel your behaviour has little impact considering you are one of 7 billion people on this planet.
7. Which of these methods, if any, had you heard of before viewing The Sniff Test? ☐ Air and Sun to refresh clothes ☐ Shower Steam to refresh clothes ☐ Lemon Juice to refresh clothes ☐ Spot Clean to refresh clothes
104
8. Which of the above methods, if any, do you engage in and why?
9. Which of the methods, if any, would you try at home? ☐ Air and Sun to refresh clothes ☐ Shower Steam to refresh clothes ☐ Lemon Juice to refresh clothes ☐ Spot clean to refresh clothes
10. Would you pass on any of these insights to others? ☐ Yes ☐ No
11. Would you like to be a part of a fun experiment where you share your experience in trying the alternate refreshing methods with Holly? ☐ Yes: Please email Holly ([email protected]) who will organise a Skype-interview date that suits you. ☐ No
If you wish to remain anonymous, please follow the steps below to email your questionnaire to the researcher Holly Kaye-Smith: 1. Please sign in to [email protected] password SniffTest1. 2. Email your questionnaire to [email protected] questionnaire. 3. Delete your email from the outbox.
Thank you for your time!
Figure 32. Post video screening survey.
The screenings and discussion groups were held in relaxed casual environments. Depending on the venue, some participants were eating and/or drinking and informally sat in circular configurations on lounges, benches or on the floor. I wanted the participants to feel as relaxed as possible to enable them to share their thoughts without feeling overly exposed. I wanted participants to feel they were part of a group that fostered co-creation of ideas and innovations. I sat amongst the participants, reinforcing my position as a co-author who talked ‘with’ and shared the ‘authority’, and who valued others’ contributions, and I took minimal notes as we conversed as the discussions were recorded.
Before each screening I introduced myself and thanked the volunteers for participating. I then played The Sniff Test video and asked the audience to fill out the
105 survey (Figure 32). There were 31 participants in my study. It was not mandatory to answer all the survey questions, so not all questions were answered, which I consider in my analysis.
After the survey I then opened the floor up for discussion. Due to the sensitive nature of my topic, it was clear I needed to be mindful of my participants’ body language and the construction of their sentences. In every group I had at least one person with whom I had to work to gain their trust in order for them to open up. If I could see a participant looked uncomfortable by, for example, displaying cagy body language and leaning back in their chair, then I would try to ease their discomfort or steer the conversation onto a slightly different path.
The discussion groups were on average about 20 minutes in length. I did not have a set of questions nor did I assume the role of a focus group moderator. In my participatory role I was highly involved in the conversations. I rewarded participation with affirmations such as ‘that’s awesome!’ and attempted to relate to their stories to create a sense of camaraderie around the unifying theme of washing less. This became an important factor in people opening up and discussing how they withhold a wash. Without my participatory role that encouraged and rewarded participation, I am confident the conversations would not have been so rich in stories of ‘washing less’. Regarding the construction of my participants’ sentences, I drew upon sociologist David Silverman’s insights. Silverman (2014) argues that people are always concerned about how they are received. I noticed people ‘detoxified’ comments that they considered may result in them being judged by prefacing their comments with a statement such as ‘this is gross, but…’ (Glen, Group 5, Appendix 3).
When conducting the discussion groups, I made sound recordings and later transcribed them. After transcribing the conversations, I analysed them to find common themes and potential leverage points that became central to my findings.
3.4 Think-alouds
In the final part of my social research I was interested in putting my proto- practices (the eco-refreshing methods) into practice. I had already collected auto- ethnographic insights into my own experiences of experimenting with wash less
106 ideas, and insights into clothes users’ practices, their innovations and what they were willing to try. But now I wanted to see how clothes users put these proto-practices into practice and how they felt when performing them.
While writing up the screening and discussion group notes I contacted a few people who had expressed interest in trying an eco-refreshing technique and I asked them to make a sound recording while performing the activity. I selected three people who had volunteered from the screening and discussion groups and one volunteer who did not participate in a screening and discussion group, but had watched the video online and then trialled a technique. I gave very little instruction about how to do the refreshing technique in order to get a sense of the improvisory potential of the participants and how they adapted the refreshing technique to their various settings. Each volunteer was asked to dictate their actions in a sound recording while performing an eco-refreshing method and to make a voice recording when assessing the garment post-refreshing. As the term think-aloud suggests, the recording is a brief expression of, and reflection on, the volunteer’s performance of an activity. The recordings were one to two minutes in length and were emailed to me as audio files, which I listened to before conducting a post think-aloud interview/discussion with the participant.
As with the other social research methods I used, I took a co-authoring and co- constructivist position that meant that we could both contribute information that steered the conversations about the trial experience. The conversations were between 10 and 20 minutes in length. The post think-aloud interview/discussion was relaxed and casual, much like the other modes of social research used in this study. Think- aloud volunteers Kat and Jenny from Group 2 (see Appendix 3), who are friends of mine, were interviewed together in a pub at Surry Hills. Polly from Group 3 (Appendix 3) was interviewed in her living room and Tracey was interviewed over the phone. The conversations were not heavily structured and each one was conducted differently, however the interviewees all had similar questions that were posed at different times in each conversation (Appendices 7–9). The areas in which I was most interested were: why the participant chose the refreshing technique that they did, how they negotiated it in their own domestic setting, how it made them feel performing the eco-refreshing method, and if there was any change in their perceptions of cleanliness or laundering activities after trying the proto-practice.
107 3.5 Conclusion
I was surprised how readily people embraced The Sniff Test exposition and participated. The volunteers shared private laundering practices and unanticipated opportunities to lend new values to already existing practices. By conducting auto- ethnographic research into no-wash laundering techniques, developing proto- practices and then using and modelling these to engage clothes users in conversations about washing less, I discovered the power of conversational learning. Through my auto-ethnographic research, I gained insight into how it felt to wash less and I gained confidence in my skill in judging whether I could skip a wash. I also noticed how these new routines broadened my ‘meaning of clean’ to include already worn clothes that had been refreshed. Through conversations caught on camera and made into a video, in screening and discussion groups and in participant-led think-alouds, I was surprised at the willingness of people to overcome barriers of societal perceptions of cleanliness and actively participate in discussions about ideas for washing less. The conversational research sought to collaboratively explore the physical and social concepts unifying how we think about laundering as a practice (Crouch & Pearce 2013, p.79-82). Participants discussed and learned through conversation and experience in order to transform experience into knowledge (Baker, Henen & Kolb 2012, p.2) to disrupt practices. The conversations revealed, through a reflective approach to media making: the tacit competencies and skills of clothes users and their multi-sensorial engagement; the improvisory potential of clothes users, the ability and agency of the wearers, no-wash innovations that are already in practice, and potential leverage points for future interventions. Although not without its challenges, the research fostered uplifting and hopeful conversations and trials that suggest washing less may not be so offensive after all.
108 CHAPTER 4. TALKING LAUNDRY RESEARCH FINDINGS: THE POTENTIAL TO ‘WASH LESS’ AND FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT
Overview
The key claim of this chapter is that talking laundry has the potential to disrupt current practices. The deployment of my media prototype generated a reflective conversation amongst participants and actual change in their practices. As a result, a shift in collective values was observed as participants strove to wash less using the ‘eco-refreshing methods’ and to share their experiences.
Sharing practices and experiences can reveal that washing clothes less does not have to feel like a shamefully lazy and/or anti-social activity. If packaged and communicated in a way that makes the initiative feel more like a positive, uplifting and socially acceptable practice, then pre-conceived ideas about cleanliness can shift. My claims align with Jack (2012, p.96) who sees the value in promoting more sustainable cultural expectations of clean, and Fletcher and Grose who call out for a less traditional education movement to interrupt current ways of thinking and doing (2012, p.158). If people are given ideas for practical methods that they can enact in their own environments, for example the ‘eco-refreshing methods’, this can be fruitful for initiating conversations about changing current practices and about the validity of these ideas for what could be a broader shift toward washing less. The power of conversational research to co-create a space for laundry talk was fostered through my participatory approach to making and sharing The Sniff Test. The video was used to start conversations, and as a consequence of talking and learning from each other, participants were willing to experiment with their own laundry practices and routines. Talking about laundry encouraged participants to reflect on hitherto ‘tacit’ current practices and unlock realisations about the meanings, materials and skills involved in those practices in conversation with others. It also encouraged them to consider other ways of ‘doing’ and look for leverage points that could disrupt washing frequency.
In the previous chapter I outlined methods that successfully got clothes users involved in conversations and practical hands-on investigations into washing less. In this chapter I will present evidence to support the hypothesis that learning from
109 clothes users could be harnessed by media to generate conversation about laundering, disrupt current practices and reduce the frequency of clothes laundering. Also, I present insights which support theorists, such as Shove (2003) and Pink (2005), who observe everyday practices are not only patterned and malleable but evolving and therefore changeable if appropriate leverage points can be found. As well as Pink and Leder-Mackley who illuminate the improvisory potential of actors which enables pliability in the way we ‘do’ cleanliness routines (2015). The co-explorative insights are drawn from three main sources. The first source is my prototype video, The Sniff Test, in which I took to the streets and other public locations to invite discussion on the rather mundane topic of laundering and the need to wash less. The second source was the screening and discussion groups that used The Sniff Test as the starting point for conversations, and the survey of participants’ laundering practices and the share- ability of the insights learned about washing less. The final source was the participant-led think-alouds where four volunteers trialled an eco-refreshing method, which was followed by a conversation/interview with myself about their experiences.
4. Insights from conversational social research
4.1 Insights while filming
The filming process of The Sniff Test provided evidence of the ability of people to work together, to openly consider examples of alternatives to laundering, and to be involved in re-imagining ways of doing. The participants joined me on a mission to imagine and conceive social action that could enable a reduction in washing frequency. Much to my surprise, people were willing to examine my clothing samples and discuss their laundering routines, no-wash innovations, and ideas for washing less. The participants’ own innovations for withholding a wash signalled their willingness to improvise and to use already established practices that could be built upon and popularised as initiatives to wash less. One participant mentioned airing clothes in the sun. Another participant revealed he had multi-tasked by cleaning clothes in the shower when travelling as he was short of money. Cutting the sleeves off tops was mentioned by a gym-goer, Dave, as a means of reducing ‘pod- sweat’. Dave’s improvisation allowed him to get several wears out of his active wear by significantly reducing armpit contact. This gym goer’s willingness to modify his
110 clothes provided an important addition to the refreshing techniques that I had displayed on the sniffing board, because it was a user innovation for reducing washing frequency, and it indicated flexibility in going beyond the expectations of clothes users to tend to their clothes. These contributions illuminated the otherwise tacit knowledge and skills about the wearer’s clothing care. It also demonstrated the malleability of laundering, and the skill and ingenuity involved in methods of reducing laundering, through ground-up innovations, just as practical creativity is required to develop sustain-abilities in general. Due to the participation of sniffers, I was able to create a video that normalised avoiding a conventional wash by showing multiple people doing it in my video.
It must be acknowledged that the request to participate – via sniffing and examination – by a film crew on the street, on a bus, and at the markets is out of the ordinary, and would have contributed to enticement to participate. It could be argued that the video camera and media plan were a powerful tool to access people, provoke responses, and invite them to co-explore and co-author ideas for washing less (Binder et al., 2000, p.24 and Bur and Salu, 2007, p.78). Kenny’s discussion about using parody, humour and public spectacle to laugh at power and imagine alternatives (Critchley 2007; Butler 1990 in Kenny 2009, p.222) in order to play a role in how we make and remake our understanding of particular institutions (Hariman 2008: Hodgson 2005 in Kenny 2009, p.222), proved to be extremely helpful in accessing people and remaking a mundane topic into a playful, inviting scenario. As shown in the video, participants laughed at the situation, passing comments. For example, on the bus one participant agreed to participate by saying ‘this is really weird, but okay!’ and when I asked another person if I could recruit him as a sniffer he laughed and replied ‘of course you can!’
An unexpected experience that emerged from the filming was my own reaction to sniffers examining my clothes. In that moment I was both ecstatic that the sniffers responded with such integrity, but also horrified as I saw the hands, noses and sometimes lips of people make contact with the unwashed armpits of my clothes. I knew the samples had remnants of sweat and smells on them and it was confronting to have people assess and comment on them. Some people would completely blanket their breathing passages and take an almighty whiff while I stood frozen, holding the sniff board, wearing a plastered smile to mask my fear of being perceived as unclean
111 and feeling embarrassment for having bodily odours. While people were examining my clothes I felt nervous, excited and somewhat anxious. Excitedly I felt ‘this is great! Bring on the sniffers!’ On the other hand, anxiety took over when I was concerned about their proximity to the samples: ‘Oh no – don’t get that close to the fabric!’
Up until this point, all of my attention had been given to writing, pre- production, managing my crew, engaging onlookers, recruiting sniffers, obtaining the necessary footage, executing lines, and capitalising on spontaneous and opportunistic moments while filming. Not once had I considered how I would feel as the person in the centre of it all! My sight was so firmly set on what was necessary to bring to the situation that I disregarded my own sensibilities that are shaped by the same social conventions that I am challenging. This realisation reinforced my position as a research subject and participant in the learning process. I gained insights into laundering less, not only through conversations with sniffers, but also through self-reflection.
My experience making The Sniff Test suggests that if a social change researcher, activist or interventionist is looking to contact and converse with people about a topic, the location could influence participation rates. Despite the varying ages, occupations and genders of participants, I found the greatest influence on peoples’ reactions and contributions had more to do with the space they were in than their ages and backgrounds. For example, when shooting on the university grounds in Sydney the students appeared amused by my abstract request. They were also far more relaxed, possibly waiting in between classes, and were more open to participating than the people on the bus. I suspect this was because university students may be more accustomed, as part of university life, to random researchers, experiments and assignments since the university grounds foster such initiatives. On the bus, I encountered more resistance as I was interrupting people’s commute, and potential for quiet travel time. However, the proximity to others that can occur in a shared, often crowded public space of a bus, helped to highlight the significance of the sensory perception of smell and sight in interpersonal space.
When conversing with people about my proto-practices, not one person questioned the shift in expectation from ‘clean’, by being put through a washing machine, to ‘fresh’ by using an eco-refreshing technique. This was accepted by all
112 people who encountered the research, which builds upon WRAP’s (2011) study that suggested people would ‘seriously consider’ wearing clothes a second time if clothes felt ‘fresher’ for longer. In The Sniff Test video my participants moved beyond considering wearing clothes a second time into accepting the option of freshening clothes for a second wear, and discussing ideas about how to postpone a wash.
4.2 Screening and discussion unlock user insights
4.2.1 Screening and discussion group survey findings
Immediately after watching screenings of The Sniff Test the viewers filled out a survey. Thirty-one people participated in the survey and 23/31 of them stated they washed their clothes because they are concerned about the smell. This validates my video’s focus on smell as a barrier to washing less. The survey responses also indicated that my emphasis on ‘fresh’ in my re-languaged terminology was sensible because 15/31 of participants said they washed their clothes because they didn’t ‘feel fresh’. The survey showed that the no-wash innovation is already underway, with 13/31 of people practising the sun and air approach and 11/31 practising spot cleaning. Promisingly, 21/31 had heard of the sun and air approach and 18/31 had heard of spot cleaning. The survey indicated that 27/31 of participants would try sun and air, 22/31 would try spot cleaning, and 15/31 would try shower steaming or lemon juice on the armpits. These results suggest refreshing techniques like sun and air appear to make sense to people, and therefore this proto-practice may be a good technique to promote since people do not seem to need convincing that it works.
An exciting finding that showed potential for information and idea sharing, beyond the confines of my media making and doctoral research, was that 26/31 respondents said they would pass on to others the insights learned in my study. Of those surveyed, 22/31 were willing to participate in my ongoing research and try an eco-refreshing method, which is also an encouraging sign of peoples’ willingness to participate and contribute to making changes in their practice. The number of participants who actively seek out and act in an eco-conscious way was 8/31, and 18/31 reported that they do not actively seek out eco-conscious information, but they do modify their practices when new information is revealed to them. This means that 26/31, or 84% of participants, show potential to engage in ideas for change if their
113 attention is captured. This response is very promising and bodes well for the use of media to encourage modifications to everyday social practices.
After the survey, the floor would open for discussion. In all but one group, people asked questions or made statements about the filming. I commented or answered questions, and then steered the conversation onto personal laundering practices. For the group that didn’t start the conversation with comments about the filming, the Newcastle university students, I immediately went into a discussion about laundering practices, and whether they had considered the environmental impacts of laundering. The first two group discussions had slightly less conversational direction from me as I was still feeling out how the participants would respond and what kind of data would emerge from the discussions. After reflecting on the first two group discussions, themes of interest became prevalent – the themes generated through reflective conversation - so in the remaining three groups I was able to enquire, more so when possible, for responses around these themes. The group discussions and themes are visualised below.
Figure 33. Visualisation of conversation themes and which groups discussed them.
The Sniff Test video adopted the very optimistic view of the prospects for reducing washing frequency, but despite this, in all groups, there was at least one person with whom I had to work hard to build trust so that they would share their stories. Without my open and self-disclosure approach to conversational research, I
114 am confident that the conversations would have been very different and far fewer participants would have admitted to washing less. The discussions revealed the malleability of laundering, and the differences in the ways people tend to their clothes and how often they wash them. Differences such as one participant who managed to go months without laundering his clothes and others who were more frequent washers and showed less tolerance for re-wearing clothes that haven’t been washed.
4.2.2 Reflections about the habitual and inconspicuous nature of laundering
It was evident that the environmental impacts of laundering were inconspicuous, four out of five groups highlighted water wastage or grey water in the ocean (Group 1, Group 3, Group 4, Group 5: Appendixes 2, 4, 5 and 6) but that was as far as the speculation went. Realisations about the recursive, habitual and inconspicuous nature of laundering were prevalent in four out of five groups as one of the key themes of discussion. Liam’s (from Group 2; Appendix 3) continued reflections prompted comments from him, as he experienced a sequence of laundering ‘realisations’, even when the rest of the group had moved on to discuss other areas. Liam evidenced the inconspicuous nature of laundering with his outburst
I don’t even think I’ve ever washed a jacket ... [and] I don’t even know what detergent does. If there’s a bit of a stain it kind of gets it out, but is it antibacterial? … I have no idea what the chemicals are or what it does. It’s just kinda part of everyday life? I have no idea what the environmental impacts of that is.
Liam’s revelation indicated how conversation and reflection can illuminate issues that can otherwise remain unconsidered, and that this illumination leads to a greater understanding of our routines and possibilities, leading to visions of change. Later in the conversation Elizabeth, in the same group as Liam (Group 2: Appendix 3), shared the need for a certain number of bacteria on our skin and, in reference to Liam’s question above about whether detergent is antibacterial Elizabeth said ‘remove 99% of bacteria? [But] we need that!’ This showed how the simple act of conversing can question advertising myths and assumptions about cleanliness.
115 Liam (Group 2: Appendix 3) interrogated his washing practices further and recognised his routines are performed on autopilot by saying, ‘it’s an instantaneous reaction, if I’ve got a full laundry basket there’s not even a second thought about it to be honest. I just kind of … maybe it’s kind of … I was just brought up that way. You just put it in the washer, add detergent and bang it on. There’s no thought at all actually.’ Mitchel and Jill, (Group 1: Appendix 2) wondered why they had a full load even when re-wearing ‘home clothes’4 for the week. Mitchel said ‘at the end of a week I still have a full load of washing’. Jill replied ‘yes, where does it all come from?’ Bianca (Group 4: Appendix 5) highlighted how routine can impair innovations: ‘I didn’t think there were so many alternative methods, you kind of get stuck in your routine.’
The conversations showed that some people washed some clothes after every wear. Brian (Group 1: Appendix 2) stated that he sometimes wore his gym clothes twice if he hadn’t sweated in them, to which Kasey replied ‘oh no, I could never do that’. Dave (Group 2: Appendix 3) explained there were some clothes that he had to wash after every wear like ‘socks, underwear and casual shirts’. Peter (Group 3: Appendix 4) explained how he has ‘a pre-determined thing’ with his work shirts. Peter tugged at his button-up work shirt that he was wearing and said he’d worn it all day
but it doesn’t actually smell and it’s probably not that dirty but just because it’s a mindset that I wash my work clothes after one wear. That’s how I do it. Whereas if it’s a casual shirt and I haven’t marked it or it doesn’t smell I’ll wear it again.
Peter’s insight delves into the social aspects of laundering (respect for others and colleagues). This is a topic that will be discussed later, but I mention this here because it demonstrates inconspicuous or unthinking laundering routines. Peter candidly reflected and interrogated his own practices and recognised that he doesn’t think twice before putting his work shirts to wash; he does it because of his ‘pre- determined routine’.
4 ‘Home clothes’ are the worn-in, comfortable garments Mitchel and Jill are less likely to wear in public, as they may be older, too casual or a bit tatty from domestic duties etc. These clothes may be worn several times by the wearer before being put to wash.
116 4.2.3 Conversational insights into the social aspects of cleanliness and laundering
Discussions about the social standards of cleanliness and intolerance for unclean clothing were most prevalent in the focus groups comprising people I hadn’t met before. In these groups there was more evidence of discomfort about both washing regularly and ‘not washing’ regularly. Hesitance about revealing personal information was prevalent in discussions and it was evident in participants’ body language. When revealing how participants withheld a wash, they would ‘detoxify’ (Potter in Silverman, 2014) their messages by prefacing a non-wash story with statements like ‘I know this is gross but …’ (Glen, Group 4: Appendix 5). As Silverman explains, people are always tending to the implications of how they are received (2014) and this ‘tending’ was frequent in my discussion groups. It revealed sensitivity to the idea that not washing would be perceived as unacceptable. Although The Sniff Test positioned washing less as a positive, participants still ‘detoxified’ their no-wash stories, which signalled they were aware of transgressing social norms and that it was a difficult topic to broach.
Body odour, stains and clothes warping out of shape were the key reasons participants gave for washing, which recalls Shove’s (2003) observations about the presence of the body form in clothes as a motivator to wash. In one conversational tangent about rejecting the idea that body odour was offensive, Jason (Group 4: Appendix 5) told of his work in remote Aboriginal communities and how body odour is not considered offensive. In exploring Jason’s contribution further, I searched for insights that could make suburbanites more accepting of our body odours, or situations where body odour is more acceptable, such as in gyms or on the sporting field. However, that idea was quickly dismissed as Jason made a point in sharing what is at stake for him if he ‘accepted’ his body odour by asking me ‘would you talk to a stinky guy at the club?’ This example shows there are limits to the tolerance of human odour, and there is a point when it becomes unacceptable, but there is still a significant territory of tolerance to explore.
Socially, it seems we have zero tolerance for what could be considered ‘bad’ or ‘unpleasant’ body odour. As Bailey and Jackson discuss (Group 4: Appendix 5), concern about body odour is mostly about respect for other people and what they think. However, context is again important. This tolerance differs if doing solitary
117 work at home, for example. Jason’s comment also marked the limits to his flexibility in regard to cleanliness. Additionally, Jason’s input also supports Foote Whyte’s theory regarding working with ‘users’ during research. Foote Whyte explains that irrelevant or ill-conceived theories come quickly to a halt, which can lead to a sharper formulation and more productive research (1991, p. 53). Jason certainly put a halt to my ill-conceived idea of tolerating body odour, because he was correct: the idea of accepting offensive body odour is unrealistic and unfortunately I would find ‘a stinky guy at the club’ offensive, which would discourage me from interacting with him.
However, not all human smells are deemed ‘bad’ or socially unacceptable, and in some cases it can be preferable to the perfume of cleaning products. Senses, like smell, are malleable and can be trained to like or dislike. For example, Ivan Illich remarks it took 100 years for people to feel revulsion at the smell of human faeces which is linked to the rise of modern sanitation (1985). Jill and Mitchel (Group 1: Appendix 2) exemplified how talking laundry gives participants a chance to reflect on their practices and think about them critically. They expressed an active defiance of commercially imposed products and routines, which helped me understand one way in which change could be supported via social sanction. Jill (Group 1), was assertive in accepting her smells, saying she ‘doesn’t care about clean sheets and I like my own smells. I don’t like starch’. Jill was comfortable hanging her clothes behind her bedroom door and doesn’t feel she has to wash them after every wear, unless they are stained or get clingy smells on, for example from Indian food. Another participant in Group 1 (Appendix 2), Mitchel, also rejected chemically derived products and stated ‘we [his partner and himself] hate all the products, they don’t work and they stink’. The insights about accepting one’s own smells signals a direct defiance of the common chemical compounds in cleaning products and fragrances that attempt to portray ‘clean’, and demonstrates the importance of tacit, sensory, hands-on skills (of using touch, smell and airing clothes) that can diminish due to neglect when blindly following product-use instructions.
Jill’s reflection about hanging up clothes offers an opportunity to act on these perceptions and intuitive responses that would otherwise be overlooked by ‘wash after every wear’ routines. Glen (Group 4: Appendix 5) tests the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable smells. Glen admits wearing a garment from his
118 ‘floordrobe’, rather than a wardrobe, signalling that his floor is mostly used as the holding ground for his clothes. If he is worried that a garment is a bit smelly, he gets his friend to stand near him to test if its odour was detectable to those in close proximity. If his friend says it isn’t, he will re-wear the garment. Jill and Glen display valuable perspectives and skills that do not fear a garment that just smells worn, unlocking potential for bonus wears, but also drawing attention to the social perception of smell being about the space between the wearer and those around her.
Glen (Group 5: Appendix 6), who lives in a university share house, described his process for re-wearing clothes from his ‘floordrobe’. Days or weeks after the clothes have come off his body Glen assesses the garment to see if he can get an extra wear out of it. He himself assesses the garment first and then secondly recruits a flatmate to make a visual and aromatic assessment. Glen’s (Group 5: Appendix 6) assessment begins with a solitary evaluation and then it becomes a social act that depends on the tolerance of his flatmate or friend who assesses the garment. Glen also disclosed how he wore a shirt which had a stain to a social event. He explained, ‘this is really terrible [detoxifying his confession] … once I had a shirt that I really wanted to wear and it had a stain on it so I just turned it around and wore it that way.’ I was ecstatic that he had found a way to wear the shirt again and rewarded the initiative with ‘that’s awesome!’
Sarah (Group 3, Appendix: 4), suggested subcultures such as grunge and Goth, may be more likely to reject social or mainstream norms. Sarah suggested these subcultures may be more ‘like, whatever’ about washing. This ideology fits in with what Jack (2012) calls the ‘coolth’ of ‘not washing’ which could be tapped into by those who may look to rebel or reject imposed norms or social expectations. Evidence that avoiding a wash could be a political act of resistance spurred on by memories or events was present when Sarah (Group 3: Appendix 4) and I reminisced over our early teen years. We treasured our army pants that were signed by our favourite bands and were horrified if they went through the washing machine. Such emotive barriers to washing align with the stories told in Local Wisdom (Fletcher 2009). However, the standards that participants applied to themselves can change when caring for a valued person or a family member. As Polly (Group 3: Appendix 4) explained, she will wear clothes that have been purchased without washing them first, however she will not do the same for her son. Sarah agrees with Polly’s
119 sterilising activity by saying the clothes would have been made in a sweatshop and you don’t know what germs are contained in that factory.
4.2.4 Discussions and comparisons about laundering routines
As discussions grew, those who washed more frequently recognised this by comparison to others in the group and appeared, through my interpretation of their body language and manner of speaking, to be uncomfortable and mildly defensive. Kasey (Group 1: Appendix 2), responded to Brian’s contribution to the discussion group, regarding how Brian will wear gym clothes again if he didn’t sweat in them ‘too much’, by saying ‘Oh no I could never do that!’ in a sharp, rather dismissive tone. Noel (Group 5: Appendix 6) showed signs of bodily discomfort and reticence as he became aware that he was a more frequent washer than the others in the group. Noel’s body language became quite stiff, reserved and cagey as Glen (Group 5: Appendix 6) was rewarded for his ‘confessions’ about washing less. Noel appeared to become mildly defensive when asserting that you should go no longer than two weeks before washing your sheets, as did Kasey when drawing the line at re-wearing gym clothes.
The increasingly tense body language displayed by these two frequent washers signalled they were uncomfortable because they recognised they were outside of the ‘norm’ of their group, showing that in the situation I had created, washing more frequently had become less socially acceptable and that washing less was constructed as a positive. Both Kasey’s and Noel’s opinions were stated quite abruptly and the other sign of resistance I noticed was leaning back in their chairs to watch and monitor the group, rather than comment further. I could see their discomfort, and in Noel’s case (Group 5: Appendix 6), I gave him an affirmation after he shared his comment, by saying ‘I wish I was that efficient’ to relieve the self-consciousness of being a more frequent washer in the group. However, in Kasey’s situation, as he was in the first group discussion I had held, I was still learning how to conduct the discussions and was new to the unease of some people about disclosing their laundering and cleanliness routines. Therefore, I did not tend to his discomfort, as I did with Noel. Nevertheless, this tactic was employed in future group discussions. Kasey and Noel were my most resistant participants; they were not in the same group, but both were in groups of people whom I had never met, so I was a stranger
120 to them. This could have contributed to their discomfort and resistance. More work needs to be done in cases like these to find the points of tolerance, such as would the more frequent washer consider turning bed sheets over or rotating them before a wash; or would they consider trying eco-refreshing method?
Group 2 (Appendix 3) covered a lot of territory, including cleaning habits and rituals and the historical evolution of ideals of cleanliness and washing frequency. In a conversation lasting over 20 minutes, the participants reflected on their practices, questioned the materials used and evaluated social conventions and personal standards of cleanliness. Promisingly, by comparing and discussing laundering routines, Group 2 (Appendix 3) did not resist the idea of washing less. Instead, they reflected on their practices and questioned the how’s and why’s. The first words to come out of Kat’s mouth after watching The Sniff Test were, ‘I wash too much’ and during the conversation she candidly reflected on and shared her routines. When referring to detergent campaign strategies, I questioned ‘what is whiter than white anyway?’ Kat replied ‘I don’t know but I live by it’, the group laughed, ‘I bleach the f#%k out of my sheets’. Liam was quite shocked that he hadn’t questioned how and why he washes by asking ‘do you know I never wash my jeans … why is it that jeans are fine but everything else? You know what I mean? Why? ... [shakes head] I have never thought about that.’ Peter in Group 3 (Appendix: 4) reflected on his laundering frequency and explained, ‘I didn’t wash my clothes as often before being married, but now I suppose I am trying to keep up’ (Group 3: Appendix 4).
4.2.5 The feeling of clean
Group 2’s (Appendix 3) conversation quickly centred on cleaning habits and rituals and the evolution of ideals of cleanliness. The conversations interrogated the meaning and feeling of clean. Liam asked, ‘this is really quite a recent thing… like it’s only just the past 40 years that we’ve been doing so much washing, hey?’ Kat even questioned the meaning of ‘clean’: ‘do people associate being clean with aspiration? Is it aspirational?’ And Tim related it to ‘feeling’, despite being informed that jeans won’t grow any more bacteria after two weeks, he said, ‘yeah but maybe it’s also about feeling dirty, they may just feel gross so you want to wash them.’ Discussions such as these show how conversations can reflect on practice and
121 challenge thinking and ideals. Conversations about how and why we ‘do’ laundry can leverage a change in practices.
Jill (Group 1: Appendix 2) saw no need for cleaning products in the bathroom: ‘we clean the shower every day, just with a cloth and it means we don’t ever have mould or dirt and we need no chemicals … We painted our shower 13 years ago it looks like it was painted yesterday, and I like that’. Jill demonstrated a willingness to feel differently about cleaning without using chemical products for a ’whiter than white’ effect. Jill also verbalised her tacit knowledge and skills that she felt surpassed commercially imposed ways of doing, and provided ideas that can inform the way that we can maintain cleanliness.
Everyone in the study seemed comfortable with, and had practised, airing clothes, and felt that on some occasions this was adequate for freshening them up between wears. This suggested it was socially acceptable to air clothes to make them feel ‘fresh’, a valuable no-wash insight agreed on by the majority. Michael (Group 3: Appendix 4) talked about his London ‘crew’ who hung their jeans out to rid them of the smell of cigarette smoke. Prior to this they were ‘washing their clothes like crazy’, but once they realised that airing did a good enough job they were able to reduce their washing frequency. Complementing and/or coinciding with the ‘airing’ method, participants associated the sun with cleansing and killing bacteria. Ben (Group 3: Appendix 4) recalled his mother saying the sun kills bacteria and everyone agreed, while Peter shared his tip that putting a towel in the sun can give it another ten uses. Michael and Kasey, more frequent washers compared to all others who participated in my discussion groups, explained they washed their towels every three uses, when they started to smell. However, if they aired them in the summer time they could go a week without washing them. Such insights show promise for sun (or a warm climate) and airing to postpone a wash. Spot cleaning was another familiar and practised activity by all participants in Group 3 (Appendix 4), as well as one participant in Group 5. These participants admitted they were doing this for convenience rather than conservation, because they wanted to wear the garment.
122 4.3 Leverage points that emerged from key themes with the potential to disrupt laundering practices
The significance of when the wearer decides a garment should be put to wash and where the worn garment is stored proved to be two important touchpoints in the wearers’ routines. The person who decides at the point of disrobing to put the garment directly into the laundry basket frequently removes any chance of another wear. In Groups 3, 4 and 5 (Appendix 4, 5, 6) some participants decided a garment should be washed when they took it off and others made the decision days or weeks later. Michael and Sarah (Group 3; Appendix 4), and Brian and Jason (Group 4: Appendix 5) decided whether the garment should be washed when disrobing, whereas Tina (Group 4: Appendix 5), Polly (Group 3: Appendix 4) and Glen (Group 5: Appendix 6) put their clothes on the back of a chair, bed or floor and examined the garment a few days later to see if it needed to be washed. Glen’s holding ground for his clothes (between wears and washing), was his ‘floordrobe’, which didn’t fast- track his clothes to the washing machine. Therefore, Glen’s clothes had an opportunity to get some ventilation which would allow them to be worn again, which would not have been the case if he had stored his clothes in a laundry basket or washing machine where there is little ventilation and the clothes could potentially conjoin smells and dampness.
Polly (Group 3: Appendix 4) had the same method for her and her husband’s clothes. The couple used their bed and floor as a holding ground for worn clothes and days later Polly examined the clothes to decide if they needed washing. The value in this practice is that the person who decided if a garment can be worn again days after disrobing provides an opportunity for the garment to undergo some ventilation, which could allow it to be worn again, whereas the people who decided at the point of disrobing, to put the garment into the laundry basket never referred to retrieving clothes for another wear before washing, and therefore indicated the laundry basket as an end point in the wearing cycle. All groups provided evidence of the importance of the holding ground for worn clothes. If clothes are put in the basket they will almost certainly be put in the wash, however a garment put over a chair or on the ground it could potentially be worn again.
In Group 3 (Appendix 4) discussions about ironing showed how methods of laundering can vary from person to person, and the potential of the wearer to
123 improvise. Everyone in the group found ways to avoid ironing, which is promising as it shows an active defiance of one aspect of the laundering activity. Michael (Group 3: Appendix 4) described one of his friends who, before clubbing, used to smooth out wrinkles on his shirt in his car using the dashboard heater and rubbing the shirt over the window. Peter (Group 3: Appendix 4) explained he tried not to iron his work shorts; instead he hangs them up on the washing line in a way that minimises wrinkles. Such ‘making do’ could gain momentum to reduce washing and ironing frequency. Bianca (Group 5: Appendix 6) implemented the same technique as Dave, the gym goer in The Sniff Test video, and cuts the sleeves off her shirts to reduce ‘pod sweat’. I see this ingenuity and flexibility in practice as revealing the improvisory potential of clothes users. This ingenuity can act as an enticing attribute that can result in clothes users harnessing their curiosity in efforts to reduce washing frequency.
The adaptability of laundering practices was also highlighted by Ben (Group 3: Appendix 4) who described how he dealt with his reliance on a clothes dryer. Ben reflected on how, after purchasing a clothes horse, he was surprised to find that his clothes could dry inside his house (an apartment) overnight, so a machine dry was not necessary all of the time. Michael (Group 3: Appendix 4) agreed that indoor drying was possible as he used to dry his clothes all over his house when living in his previous home that didn’t have a dryer and all agreed that dryers are a ‘laziness thing’. I backed this up by recalling how my ex-boyfriend and his flatmates used a dryer, even on hot summer days, and agreed that this was due to being too lazy to hang the clothes in the sun. Peter (Group 3: Appendix 4) explained how, when he lived at his parents’ house, his mum made a decision not to replace the dryer when it broke. As a result, Peter and his siblings adapted by becoming more organised and planned their laundering requirements so that they did not wash their jeans an hour before they went out. All three of these stories demonstrate the adaptability of clothes users.
The group discussions revealed how some items of clothing, such as board shorts, swimming costumes and jeans, were granted permission to bypass the washing machine. Michael (Group 3: Appendix 4) put his board shorts straight on the line after wearing them. Jill (Group 1: Appendix 2) rinsed her swimsuit in the shower and didn’t think it had ever been washed, and Liam (Group 2: Appendix 3)
124 said he rarely washed his jeans. Elizabeth (Group 2: Appendix 3), said ‘airing is enough, you don’t need to wash things all the time’. Elizabeth explained she never dry-cleans garments, she just hangs them up to air and that does the job. Also, Elizabeth ‘always chooses fabrics that cover stains, always!’ Elizabeth’s critical thinking and slow fashion practices also demonstrate how, if considered, the use phase of a garment’s life can influence purchase selection which can significantly affect washing practices and frequency.
Laziness and timesaving presented themselves as reasons to wash less. When referring to the refreshing techniques modelled in The Sniff Test, and adopting or resisting them, Lisa (Group 2: Appendix 3) said:
I think it does come down to us being lazy. I was talking to a girl about the clothes we have to hand wash and because we are so lazy we probably won’t wear them again … they’re usually expensive stuff too, but we are so lazy we won’t wear them even though we’ve spent so much money on them. And that’s bad.
However, laziness offers an opportunity to promote more sustainable practices because avoiding a wash could be popularised in marketable terms as a time saving measure. Unfortunately, I did not share this insight with the groups as I only realised, upon reflection, that no-wash alternatives appealed to my lazy side. After reflecting on my own experience of wanting to do less, I recalled a dress that I owned and should be hand washed. As a consequence, it has never been laundered, or hand washed, despite being worn three times around cigarette smoke and in night-club environments. The dress has had sweat, smoke and drink odours on it. I procrastinated about hand washing the garment so much that it lived on the back of a chair for over six weeks, and by the time I wanted to wear it again the night-club smells had disappeared. It no longer reeked of cigarettes, alcohol and club-related smells. It had assumed the regular smell of my home and the rest of my clothes. Such insights also show the value in auto-ethnography and reflection for learning, as my participants contributed information that triggered reflections on my own practice that in turn resonated with their own reflections.
125 4.4 Think-aloud participants and recordings
If it is argued that awareness-raising about an issue does not necessarily translate to behaviour change, then how can conversational learning be demonstrated in the uptake of new practices? How can talk be turned into action? How can the uptake of new ways of doing be tested? What if the talk generated in discussion groups were to simply dissipate as short-term awareness raising and unrealised potential to change the way we do laundering?
I recruited four of the volunteers who agreed to trial an eco-refreshing method as a consequence of watching The Sniff Test. The participants recorded their experiences of the method in their own settings and the think-alouds provided insights into how the participants felt when trying a new practice. Their responses also indicated the adaptability and do-ability of the proto-practices as they negotiated them in their own domestic settings. The closing of the gap between talk and action is evidenced in their voice recordings that were made when performing the refreshing technique. The post think-aloud interviews provided more insight into their performance of the proto-practice, the adoptability of the proto-practice, and the changing perceptions and practices weeks after trying the eco-refreshing technique.
The people who volunteered to try a refreshing technique could be described as open minded and easy going. I bring this to attention because not every personality type fits into the volunteer category. For example, those who felt defensive for being more frequent washers did not volunteer. The already engaged nature of my think- aloud participants was important to their willingness to ‘have a go’, and to their ease with discussing and analysing their experiences and practices. Their trials with the eco-refreshing techniques provided further insights into barriers to reducing washing frequency, and overcoming these with work-arounds.
Jenny (Group 2: Appendix 3) trialled lemon juice on the armpits of one of her socialising tops. Kat trialled sun and air on a work top, Polly tried airing her husband’s tee-shirt, and Tracey tried sun and air by using her outdoors clothes line for her and her son’s pyjamas and towels. The think-aloud recordings provided some insight into user ingenuity and adaptability as they negotiated the eco-refreshing methods in their own domestic settings. Jenny was unsure of how to implement the lemon juice method, so, in demonstrating her potential to adapt and improvise, she
126 ‘Googled’ the technique and tried a different method on each armpit. She dabbed one side with fresh cut lemon and sprayed the other side with one teaspoon of lemon juice diluted in a cup of water. Jenny concluded that the diluted lemon spray ‘was the clear winner’ and was surprised to find it doesn’t actually smell like lemon and her ‘rank underarm smell isn’t there so that’s good … I would be comfortable using this method again’ (Appendix 7). Polly tried airing her husband’s shirt over-night, but in the morning she could still smell her husband’s body odour in the shirt, so she left it on the line to be checked again in the afternoon. When she returned that afternoon the shirt was gone, Polly’s husband had taken it from the line ‘thinking it was clean, and wore it to work’ (Polly; phone conversation before post think-aloud interview).
During interviews some participants adopted my terminology. Participants used my ‘helpful metaphor’ (Fletcher and Tham, 2014 and Kaiser, 2008, p.140) ‘refreshing techniques’ or ‘refreshing methods’ to describe the proto-practices and used my re-languaged phrase ‘the sniff test’ to describe the process of examining clothes to decide if clothes should be put to wash (Appendix 6, 8, 9). Jenny (Group 2: Appendix 3) was quick to implement insights from The Sniff Test video and discussions. In Jenny’s think-aloud recording she said ‘I very rarely wash anymore. I do wash my gym clothes though. I pretty much wear my work clothes until I have to dry-clean them’.
Upon reflection (when recording her think-aloud) Kat realised one of her barriers to skipping a wash was her make-up. Kat described how she aired her work- top that had been worn during the day at work and during her twenty-minute walk home, so she felt ‘a little bit sweaty’. Kat hung the top outside for the remaining two hours of sun before moving it to the bathroom to air overnight. She observed that after airing, the body odour had disappeared, however makeup was visible on the collar, which indicated it was likely to go through the wash. Kat did say that she maybe should have tried the spot clean method to get rid of these makeup marks. I see Kat’s experience as showing potential to influence her future purchases and wearing choices, like Elizabeth in Group 2 (Appendix 3), because if she doesn’t wear a light coloured top she may get extra wears before washing. Tracey’s trial unlocked a bonus wear out of what otherwise would have been laundered. Tracey sunned and aired her and her son’s bath towels and pyjamas for five hours. Post airing, Tracey concluded the pyjamas and towels could be used again, which she did.
127 4.4.1 Kat and Jenny
7 Feb 2015 (Appendix 7):
Kat and Jenny were interviewed together in a Sydney pub. The think-aloud experience and the discussion/interview that followed revealed that the two engaged in self-reflection, critical thinking about perceptions of cleanliness and built a tolerance for clothes that smelt worn yet smelt inoffensive. I asked Kat and Jenny about their washing frequency since we last spoke, and Kat said she had started airing her dresses after work and only washes them when she notices a stain, ‘cause its winter and you don’t smell [Jenny agreed] … more difficult in summer’. Kat admitted she washes tops more because she sweats in them more and she has ‘this fear of stinking’. But Kat explained she now smells the top before putting it to wash and if it’s not bad she’ll pop it back in the wardrobe. Jenny commented how she always warps dresses by washing them, whereas ‘it’s just so easy not to.’ Kat agreed and says ‘washing is a pain in the ass’.
I commented on the statement Kat made after watching The Sniff Test when she said ‘I wash too much’ and by recalling her response, I probed for further reflection. Kat responded with a story about her bed sheets.
Ant, [Kat’s husband], and I … every time he and I went out and didn’t shower before bed, I would have to cleanse the area after. I don’t know if that’s a weird Catholic thing but it was like a ceremony [for a] new day [and] we are not drunk. Now I hold off, I still wash once a week, but before I would wash a few times a week and it wasn’t smell, it was the ritual of it. Usually it’s the air that smells, not the bed[ding], so now I open the windows and leave them open all day, whereas in winter it’s harder.
When Kat reflected on why she washed her sheets so often, she attributed it to her childhood where washing the sheets was her weekly chore. Kat then interrogated her own practices and what it meant to feel clean:
I wash a gym top after every wear, but not a sports bra. What’s with that? Must be necessity ‘cause I only have two. And I wear my PJs for a week without washing, and you sweat just as much in those, so it’s complete double standards. It’s about when you feel like you’re clean
128 and what you’re doing is clean. I equate being outside in the world as accumulating dirt.
Jenny finishes Kat’s sentence by adding ‘and smells’, referring to the accumulation of smells to be addressed when cleaning.
Kat agreed and continued,
I walked home from work the other day and felt a little stinky but I wasn’t, but I felt stinky. My clothes smelt like me, it smelt like they had been worn but it wasn’t bad BO. It smelt like it had been worn but it wasn’t offensive. That’s the difference and that’s a big difference.
Kat and Jenny also make a valuable point for consideration and that is the feeling that the world, outside of home, is ‘dirty’ and therefore the garments need cleaning to rid them of the outside worlds’ traces. Kat’s reflection about wearing pyjamas for a week but not clothes reinforces the role of the social perception of clean. Kat could wear her pyjamas for a week because she doesn’t socialise in them, and therefore is not concerned about whether others perceive her pyjamas as unclean, whereas she does socialise in her day wear. The insights unlocked by Kat are quite advanced for the participants involved in my research. The video exposure to ideas about reducing washing frequency made her question the frequency of her washing, and the post-viewing discussion group brought her insights into why she washes and why she compares her practices with others. Recording the think-aloud contextualised her ability to implement alternative ways of doing laundry, like airing. The simplicity of the refreshing technique she trialled at home helped her to question the need for laundry products and their ingredients. In Kat’s case, this interrogation flowed over into other areas of her life, ‘I did start to think about the s!*#t they put in our products and how are the different costs justified? Facewash $50, detergent $10, shampoo $5’.
Jenny, like Kat, reduced her washing frequency as a result of participating in my study. Jenny was very enthused about being granted permission not to wash and to feel good about it. Jenny progressed in leaps and bounds, stating ‘I don’t leave things on my floor now, I just hang them straight up’. Feeling comfortable and confident enough to hang clothes straight back in the wardrobe is ideal, as it is quick and easy, which makes it reproducible. When I asked Jenny if she used her washing
129 basket, she said ‘not any more since I worked out it’s okay not to wash my clothes every time … [laughing]’. As highlighted in the screening and discussion groups, bypassing the laundry basket is a worthy activity for getting extra wears out of a garment because the laundry basket diminishes the chances of an extra wear since few clothes are recovered from the washing basket. It also demonstrated that her perception of ‘not washing’ is now seen as a positive. Jenny also said she would implement the practice of putting lemon juice on the armpits of clothes that warp out of shape and implied it was an easier option than washing: ‘lemon spray, on a hanger, put it on the back of the door’. It was apparent that the easiness and convenience of the eco-refreshing methods appealed to Jenny, which signals skipping a wash can be an easy and adoptable practice.
4.4.2 Polly
Polly 14 January 2015 (Appendix 8):
Polly, like Jenny, was already airing clothes between wears if they passed ‘the sniff test’, as she put it. Polly frequently airs her clothes, ‘not Michael’s [her husband’s] ‘cause they smell of BO’, but she likes airing hers because it’s easy. Polly referred to her examination of worn clothes as ‘the sniff test’, and I asked her if she had used that phrase before and she replied ‘no, because I never talk about my washing processes, but after watching your film and needing to describe that process I used that term’. Polly’s comment confirmed that laundering practices (domestic implementation of laundering, not commercial) are rarely spoken about in public. Polly also adopted the phrase, ‘the sniff test’ from my video and applied it to her own laundering routines. This suggests that shared representation, shared language and discussion about laundering could be helpful in mediating excessive washing, and that re-languaging or helpful metaphors can assign meaning and value to activities and cultural moods.
One very promising discussion point in the interview was Polly’s defiance of social standards of cleanliness and her willingness to disrupt norms. Polly mildly detoxified her comment about ‘not washing’ by first saying ‘I’m a bit slack’, then followed with,
130 If my jeans have a mark on them I just wear them. The amount of times I wear my black jeans with marks on them from my son [laughs] ‘cause I think, I’ve got a kid so they are going to know they are marked. If anyone notices they’ll just think it happened [just] then. They won’t know it’s been there for a week.
Along with Polly’s acceptance of marked jeans, she showed signs that she had reflected on current perceptions of cleanliness. She said, ‘today’s society makes people care about stuff like that [referring to subtle marks on clothes] but I don’t care. I still enjoy fashion and clothes but I think people take it too far, who cares if there’s a mark on your jeans?’ Polly was empowered by challenging the standards of what is acceptable and finding work-arounds.
4.4.3 Tracey
Tracey 20 January 2015 (Appendix 9):
Tracey, a more frequent clothes washer, highlighted the convenience of slow laundering, and evidenced a change in her washing frequency. Tracey tried the sun and air refreshing method because ‘it was the easiest … and I had no lemons [laughs] and you can’t put lemon juice all over the nightie … it’s not practical’. When Tracey was asked about postponing a wash, she evidenced a modest change in her routine,
Holly: Before watching The Sniff Test had you tried any eco-refreshing methods or ways to delay a conventional wash?
Tracey: No.
Holly: Have you tried any since or integrated them into your routine?
Tracey: Nope … oh wait yes, sort of. The other day I only wore something for a few hours and instead of chucking it in the wash, which I would normally do, I put it back on the rack.
Holly: Was that a one off?
Tracey: It was the first time I’ve done it.
Holly: Do you think you would do it again?
Tracey: Yeah, probably.
131 Tracey provided evidence that re-wearing unwashed clothes may be plausible, even for a frequent washer. When putting on her nightie, which had been put in the sun and aired, Tracey said ‘it didn’t really feel weird or anything. I guess it felt a bit weird putting something dry on the line, but I didn’t feel weird about putting it on’. Tracey was confident in assessing her clothes and didn’t fear others would smell BO because she has a ‘pretty good sense of smell. Sometimes I smell something on myself that others can’t’. Tracey’s confidence and skill could be valuable in reducing washing frequency because with an assertive attitude, a person could feel confident enough to examine and re-wear an unwashed garment.
4.5 Outcomes
4.5.1 Conversations and practice to shift perceptions of cleanliness
The findings demonstrate how valuable discussion can be in bringing about a re-evaluation of existing practices. In discussion Group 2, the conversations reflected on individual laundering practices and routines and questioned standards of cleanliness and aspirations. These discussions were significant because of the ways in which everyday practice was interrogated and understandings and perceptions were explored. The participants built upon each individual contribution, realised new insights, and discussed and interrogated each person's question, as we worked together to advance understanding of laundering practices (Foot Whyte1991, p.54). This indicates new opportunities for constructing conversations about a usually tacit dimension of everyday life.
Although fear of ‘unpleasant’ body odour is not likely to disappear, it is possible, as Dombek-Keith and Loker suggest, to loosen or broaden meanings of clean and dirty (2011, p.103), through careful consideration and experimentation with proto-practices (Pantzar and Shove, 2005, p.58) to foster a tolerance for worn clothes that are refreshed. Before discussing my proto-practices and washing less with others, I first experimented with them on myself. My auto-ethnographic research into washing less suggests practice can inform opinion. Practising methods to withhold a wash enabled me to develop the skills and confidence in my assessment of garments to determine if they needed a wash, and this was mirrored by some of the participants in my study. Trying a proto-practice shows the value in
132 attempting something new because performing the practice can refine it and expose the ‘wearer’ to new perceptions and experiences.
My phrase ‘the sniff test’ was adopted by some of my participants when describing how they examined their garments, showing the effect of re-languaging for reinforcing a proto-practice as a widespread way of doing. Some participants displayed signs of intentionally using the phrase for the first time, by nodding their head and gesturing my way as if to credit me with the phrase. Listening to participants’ descriptions and stories led to the discovery of innovative ideas and language such as Catherine’s family using the phrase ‘cheering up’ a garment rather than washing it. ‘Cheering up’ a garment could be achieved by performing a refreshing technique. Catherine’s term demonstrates how ideas contributed by clothes users could provide further traction into making new ways of ‘doing’ seem positive and easy. Catherine provided a simple metaphorical term that could promote eco-refreshing and assign a positive image to it. For example, it could be used in promotional phrases such as ‘no time to wash? Cheer up your blouse with sun and air’ or ‘Wash? No need. Cheer up your blouse with sun and air, nature’s eco- refreshing gift’.
My participatory approach enabled me to model ideas for change and to give sensorial insight into that change through my own body, experiments and experiences. Through shared representation, whereby my participants and myself shared common prompts to initiate discussion (the sniff board), common goals and tacit skills, we co-explored laundering practices and ideas for washing less. Through language and discussion, participants reflected on and questioned cleanliness ideals and conventions including their own and other peoples’ routinised practices. The subjective interpretations of how clean ‘feels’ and how perceptions vary from person to person provided an opportunity to re-code how ‘clean’ does ‘feel’ in order to broaden our definition of clean and dirty and enable the wearer to wash less. My participants did not question the shift in focus from clean to fresh, and nor did they question or interrogate my removal of a high intensity element of laundering – the washing machine – which suggests the proposals were not too ‘shocking’ and involved related activities, meanings and feelings within a changing laundering practice.
133 In broadening definitions of clean and dirty, the wearer must consider what smells are acceptable by asking themselves if they are offensive or not. Body odour is not necessarily always ‘bad’, the garment may simply smell or feel worn without being offensive (Kat Appendix 7, and Jill Appendix 2). Even if a garment does have an undesirable smell, the wearer can test whether the scent is socially tolerable by, for example, seeing if a friend can detect it when in close proximity (Glen group 4 Appendix 5). By merely questioning the necessity of a wash the wearer unlocks the opportunity for bonus wears. This interrupts the inconspicuous nature of routinised and unthinking laundering practices. By simply asking the question ‘can I wear this garment again?’ The wearer interrupts the unthinking laundry flow and can therefore help reduce unnecessary washing. Several participants demonstrated this during and after my study. For example, Tracey (Appendix 9) wore a top for a few hours and then returned it to her wardrobe rather than chucking it in the wash, which had been her normal routine. Resistance to some aspects of social and commercially defined cleaning practices and products (Polly, Appendix 8, post-think aloud interview; Jill group 1, Appendix 2; and Mitchel, Group1, Appendix 2) could support the evolution of alternative cleaning practices by providing an already established ideological foundation to build upon.
The shift in cleanliness perceptions can take place if avoiding a wash is made appealing and socially acceptable, so that the wearer feels they are granted permission not to wash and feel good about it. This is where the value of public spectacle and media making can aid in making the topic visible and interesting. By involving clothes users, researchers can enable them to contribute ideas. Their participation can also help normalise washing less, as it does in The Sniff Test. I see the real challenge as being, not in shifting perceptions, but rather in actually reaching the masses of clothes users in terms of modest changes to everyday practices that make sense. This is where initiatives such as no-wash options on clothing labels, videos like The Sniff Test and other media initiatives could be useful.
I see many ways to explore and encourage the acceptance of worn but inoffensive garments, such as embracing inoffensive human scent as a form of identity by reminding clothes users of positive associations, memory and comforts that can be drawn from scent. Local Wisdom (Fletcher, 2009) does this well; it contains stories about treasured items of clothing that have never been washed and
134 how memories are immortalised in garments, by, for example, smell. One Local Wisdom story tells of an inherited jumper that’s worn to bed and on holidays, the owner says ‘I’ve never washed it … I’m afraid it would shrink. I’ve shrunk a lot of things over the years. It would also lose its fantastic smell – a mix of fresh air and wood smoke’ (Fletcher, 2009). Most people can relate to such stories. I have my deceased father’s work jumper that I still wear and will never wash because I smell him. Also, I have enjoyed wearing to bed my partner’s shirt that may have his cologne or human smell on it. The jeans brand Nudie has done a commendable job of branding not washing as ‘cool’, promoting their no/low wash ethic with ‘culturally powerful figures, like musicians and skaters’ (Jack, 2012, p.24).
I see stories that reposition remnants of wear as a positive and see great potential in these stories as entertaining media works (as discussed by Sarah, Appendix 4, and I, Group 3, and Fletcher, 2009). For example, a video comprising vox pops, where people tell stories about garments they resist washing, could provide an opportunity for reconsidering and re-languaging not washing in humorous and meaningful ways. Playful stories could joke about ‘admitting’ to not washing a jumper for reasons like someone famous bumped into them. Another approach could be getting people to smell and touch clothing samples that haven’t been washed for months or years because of the memories attached to them. The participant could decide whether they considered it acceptable to interact with each item and guess why they haven’t been washed. Some samples could appear more acceptable to touch than others, such as a jacket. Others may seem less acceptable to touch, such as a handkerchief. A person’s reaction may be to resist touching the handkerchief until they find out it was used to clean Sir David Attenborough’s glasses, for example. A video exploration such as this could bring value to remnants of wear, thereby suggesting clothes users needn’t feel the need to eradicate all human and environmental traces all of the time. It also provides an opportunity to show reasons not to wash and reasons to accept marks or smells on clothes. For example, a participant may share a story about refusing to wash a jacket for memorabilia’s sake despite it having marks and stains on it.
Since washing less was portrayed as a positive in my study, some participants embraced the opportunity to wash less. Jenny (Group 2: Appendix 3) and Glen (Group 4: Appendix 5) were somewhat relieved and liberated by considering not
135 washing as a positive. After the discussion groups, some of the participants followed up informally and I received unprompted and updated feedback. Tim (Group 2: Appendix 3) text messaged me saying ‘sunny day ... guess the jeans can go on the porch hand rail rather than the wash. Damn hippies [jokingly referring to myself as a conservationist influencing his laundering practices]’. Kat and Jenny, both volunteer think-aloud participants from Group 2 (Appendix 3), approached me excitedly at a social event. Jenny announced she had worn her dress six times without washing it and had been using lemon spray to neutralise sweat smells on her clothes. Kat, previously a more frequent washer, pointed to her top and told me it was the second wear she had gotten out of it. At a different event, Liam, also from Group 2 (Appendix 3), told me he gets even more mileage from his jeans now that he just ‘bangs them in the sun when it’s out’. My interpretation of their expressions was that they felt proud of washing less and being liberated as the laundering chore was reduced in size. I also had an inquiry from Sarah (Group 4: Appendix 5), asking about the lemon method to reduce washing frequency for her friend who was going travelling and would not have access to laundry facilities. Travelling could help accustom people to using alternatives to conventional washes and washing less. The ongoing talk with my participants after the study, about ‘washing less’, suggested they wanted to continue the conversation. I was pleased to see participants committed to and continuing the eco-refreshing methods and discussion.
Promisingly, by igniting critical and reflective thinking about (the otherwise inconspicuous) laundering, the knowledge gained can transfer to other personal care areas like beauty products and shampoos (Kat Appendix 7), provoking questions around their ingredients, prices and necessity. Another promising insight is an active defiance of marks on clothes and commercial products (Polly think-aloud, Jill and Mitchel Group 1; Appendix 2), which suggests people are already taking the initiative and challenging societal norms rather than mindlessly responding and following the commercially imposed practices and products. The value here is that they are already established practices so they can be used as foundations to build upon to encourage people to wash less.
Laundering considerations could inform clothes users’ purchasing decisions. For example, they may buy fabrics that conceal stains and clothes with necklines that do not easily show foundation and makeup on them (Kat, Appendix 7 and Elizabeth
136 Appendix 3). Here, there is also an opportunity to support the selection of clothing with information about refreshing techniques and non-machine wash alternatives. The reluctance to hand wash items (Sarah, Peter and Michael, Group 4: Appendix 5, and Lisa, Group 2: Appendix 3), provides an opportunity for the clothing user to take a lazier/less intensive eco-refreshing method, like airing clothes out to avoid a hand wash. Hand wash items could be a good opportunity to trial washing less and this may enable clothes users to build their confidence in their no-wash skills and their assessments, which could then transfer to other garments.
4.5.2 Patterns of practice and opportunities for design interventions
Evidence of patterns of practice were found throughout the study, and some of this evidence presents opportunities to support these patterns with media communications and conversations about washing less. In this section I will summarise the key patterns of practice and discussions that may be useful for future researchers in designing strategically positioned interventions to alter patterns of practice.
The moment when the wearer disrobes proved to be important because it is at this point the garment will be placed in a holding ground that will determine its washing or wearing fate. If the wearer decides the garment should be washed at the point of disrobing and puts the garment in a laundry basket or washing machine, the garment has little chance of being recovered for a bonus wear. On the other hand, the wearer can create or designate an intermediary holding ground for the clothes that may provide adequate ventilation to neutralise the garment and/or make it feel okay to wear again days or weeks in the future. Examples of intermediary places in my study were the floor, the bed, the back of a chair, a wardrobe and a clothes horse. These holding grounds support modest changes to clothing care and to the development of holding grounds or devices, to be inserted as workarounds, to generate new laundry workflows. As visualised by my floor plans in Chapter 3, these mere tweaks in practice do not completely change the already established paths and flows of the home. This heightens their sustain-ability because it doesn’t involve radical change or much extra effort. These workflows could be adapted by re- purposing already available artefacts – such as airing racks and clothes hangers – and equipment from around the home. It involves no new products or infrastructure,
137 therefore can be implemented immediately, and can potentially reduce laundering by half or more. This initiative exemplifies and draws on the malleability of laundering and its workflows through the home in order to generate sustain-abilities. In doing so the wearer demonstrates the ability for everyday activity to be harnessed as a form of activism.
By unlocking the possibility for a bonus wear, the clothes user builds a tolerance to worn clothes and inoffensive traces of wear. This was evidenced from participants who embraced the diagnostic spirit of ‘the sniff test’ and rehearsed a tolerance for worn clothes. It draws on the tacit competencies of the wearer who use their multi-sensory skills to assess their garments to see if they can get a bonus wear. This tolerance requires only a small shift or evolution in the wearer’s perceptions of cleanliness and with practice and repetition, as demonstrated in my auto- ethnographic research into no-wash alternatives, the clothes user can build their confidence and skill in assessing a garment’s re-wearability. By asking themselves, are there any traces of wear on the garment and are they offensive? The wearer relaxes their focus on ‘black or white’ signs of ‘clean’ or ‘dirty’ and learns to appreciate other positive aspects of worn-in clothes like softened fabric, comfortable fit, and worn smells. The wearer can become more accepting of states in-between clean and dirty, ‘shades of grey’, and traces of wear. This disposition makes the inconspicuous nature of laundering more conspicuous because the wearer employs critical thinking and uses multi-sensorial skills to evaluate if a garment requires a wash. If the wearer can challenge the aspiration to rid a garment of all traces of wear, it unlocks the potential to reduce their washing frequency and grants permission to feel good in clothes that are worn again.
Washing less could be promoted as a timesaving measure that appeals to the wearer’s laziness or desire to be time efficient. To refresh clothes between wears, the clothing user needn’t spend time buying new products, as they can simply use items they already have at home. Delicate hand wash items would be a good starting point to try washing less as a timesaving and quality preservation act, much like my party dress that I aired out for a few weeks (while I procrastinated around hand washing it) which was a sufficient treatment to lift the ‘club smells’ from it. Exposure to sun and air seems a favourable refreshing technique because people felt comfortable or familiar with the idea of ultraviolet radiation (UV) from sunlight to kill bacteria. It is
138 proven that UV rays cause ‘cellular or genetic damage for microorganisms’ (Kowalski 2008), however I am not suggesting that washing less advocates should promote the idea that all bacteria need to be eradicated for a cleanse to be considered acceptable and hygienic. The value of clothes users recognising the cleansing ability of sunlight is that it steps away from reliance on commercial, chemically-based cleaning products and routines into a more relaxed ‘make do’ attitude that could generate more relaxed cleanliness routines.
4.5.3 Mediating detrimental laundering practices
This thesis has produced evidence that shows how valuable practice-oriented information and storytelling media can be when priming audiences to change unsustainable practices. I see potential in investing time in communications about changing practices, exploring doable measures that the audience can implement in their daily lives, asserting peoples’ agency and making them feel good about implementing change, getting people involved and conversing about change, and normalising the change by showing or implying that people are already doing it.
My media prototype, The Sniff Test, activated participation in alternative laundering practices and disturbed unsustainable and inconspicuous consumption in clothes laundering through conversations with clothes users. Evidence of a reduction in washing frequency was revealed when volunteers tried an eco-refreshing method and recorded their experiences in think-alouds. I see great value in framing ideas for change in participatory forms that call for engagement and depend on personal stories. A participatory approach to media making was helpful in recruiting and safeguarding sniffers who could have felt exposed or insecure about discussing private laundering routines. This participatory approach enabled me to steer conversations onto productive paths and it also enabled me to promote and look for reasons a person should change their laundering practices. I attempted to make the activity more appealing by illuminating the skill and improvisations of clothes users. Emphasising the skill and potential of clothes users can support and validate a person’s existing ‘no-wash’ practices, or work arounds, and encourage them to be creative and experiment. This emphasis can validate individual styles or methods of withholding a wash as a form of problem solving.
139 I see great potential in breaking the instruction-abiding and commercially- compliant ‘consumer’ and think this could be done by highlighting the adaptability of the wearer and the malleability of our activities. Interrupting habitual compliance could trigger critical thinking and scepticism about the necessity of commercial products, whitegoods and washing frequently. The creative activities of my participants, such as ironing shirts on a dashboard, could be a playful and enticing attribute that can encourage curiosity, and potential trials, from clothes users. Along with this, a relaxed ‘whatever you can manage’ attitude was helpful in making washing less seem malleable and easy, and it rewarded any initiative to reduce washing. A relaxed attitude to change can entice people to have a go and initiate change by starting small.
‘Normalising’ washing less by showing videos and having conversations with people can prime people into talking about their own practices, thereby encouraging further constructive conversations. My media prototype used hope and public spectacle, and was driven by my ‘performance’ as a participant and co-learner, aiming to make the audience feel comfortable with, or ideally, good about, ‘talking laundry’ and enacting change. Storytelling media, or other design interventions, could be used to address barriers to change and present change in a way that implies flexibility, in order to make that change feel doable. For example, my ‘ask’ was to think about whether the participant washed too much and to consider relatively easy and small modifications to slow down their daily routines.
The ongoing feedback from participants and data collected during the study suggest that the idea of washing less was framed or adopted as a positive initiative of everyday practice and sustain-ability. Smith (in COIN and PIRC 2011) and Jack (2012, p.96) suggest this reframing could make sustainable activities more appealing for people to try, and I have evidence to support this. I believe that positioning washing less as a contribution to sustainability and the greater good appeals to the ‘self-transcendent values’ of people. It is a relatively easy activity to feel good about doing, and this could entice more people into trying it. In the video, public spectacle and humour served as good strategies to recruit participants, along with a ‘hook’ that made laundering relevant to onlookers and connected the big picture (global impacts of laundering on the environment) to small, daily and recursive practices (laundering in our day-to-day lives). The light hearted/humorous performance of The Sniff Test
140 video was also helpful as it acted as an icebreaker for conversation to relax participants during my screening and discussion groups, and it set the tone of the discussions.
The research indicates some practice-orientated recommendations that could be helpful to those social change activists/communicators/or media makers looking to continue communications about washing less. Speaking colloquially, these ‘tips’ are as follows;
• Social change activists and communicators should be mindful about the locations they choose to access and engage people, because this contributes to their willingness to participate and the depth of their contribution. For instance, the public conversations invited people to speak openly and laugh about laundry, but those conversations were much shorter than those in the screening and discussion groups and think-aloud interviews. The discussion groups and think aloud interviews provided richer details, through shared conversation, because ‘we all do laundry’ and, given the chance, can contribute detailed ideas.
• Handle conversations with care if requesting personal information, such as cleanliness routines, because speaking about personal practices can be daunting and confronting for the participant as it can make them feel vulnerable and open to criticism.
• A participatory approach to social research and media making can help ease the discomfort of participants partaking and disclosing personal information. This is because a participatory approach allows the researcher to build a sense of comradery with participants, share the spotlight, and co-create ideas for change.
• Identify points of leverage in routines where users decide a garment’s wash fate.
141 • Don’t underestimate the participation of the audience and their capacity to draw on skills, act creatively and build new competencies.
4.5.4 Summary of key findings
I developed a hypothesis that a participatory and conversational research approach to investigating practices could be augmented by media to activate participation in alternate laundering practices. My findings suggest that a reduction in clothes washing frequency is possible and that no wash innovations already underway, can be further encouraged using media. My video prototype acted as an instrument to activate participation during both the recording of the video and in screening and discussion groups. The video recording provided an opportunity for me to recruit random volunteers to examine my eco-refreshed clothing samples and discuss ideas about washing less. The video enabled me to spotlight the inconspicuous and unsustainable nature of clothes laundering practices through public spectacle and discussions with clothing users. The video also provided an opportunity for me to visualise the human element of laundering, the ‘doing’ part, which can be harnessed to intervene in, and reduce, washing frequency by utilising the tacit skills of clothes users. The video made from the film shoots provided further opportunity to activate participation in alternate laundering practices by continuing the conversation about washing less in video screening and discussion groups. The video provided a platform for me to convey the laundering ‘problem’ as a human scale and relatively easy issue to overcome, convey that washing less is a positive and feel good activity, and convey it as a socially acceptable activity. The findings suggest my positive and doable representation of washing less influenced my participants’ perceptions of the initiative and their own washing practices and frequency.
The think-alouds also acted as an instrument to activate participation in alternate laundering practices and as an intervention in the inconspicuous and unsustainable nature of laundering. By performing an eco-refreshing method on participants own clothes and in their own home, to make the think-aloud, the performance pushed conversation into practice-oriented, investigations and learning
142 whereby volunteers negotiated and innovated wash less proto-practices in their own domestic setting. The key findings can be surmised as follows:
• A participatory approach to social practice research enhances insight into materials, meanings and skills. A participatory approach was important in; feeling out the human scale ‘do-ability’ and ‘adoptability’ of alternate laundering practices; in finding precise points of leverage, tolerance and sensory retraining – such as clothes being irretrievable from a dirty laundry basket. Or that a garment that merely smells of the wearer does not mean the garment smells ‘bad’ or ‘offensive’.
• Re-languaging can efficiently assign and establish an image and meaning to an action/initiative. The terminology used in my study was comprehendible and went unquestioned; it generated positive connotations to washing less – such as ‘refreshing’ clothes without a washing machine, ‘cheering up’ a blouse, and achieving a no wash ‘bonus’ wear out of a garment; the terminology was catchy enough to be adopted by some participants.
• Feeling good about not washing can be more effective than scare tactics. Feeling good about washing less grants permission to reduce washing frequency with uplifting rewards; helping people value what they already do (to cheat a wash) provides an opportunity to spotlight the initiative, recognize it as a positive, and build upon it.
• The video prototype was an effective prompt for conversation and primed audiences for participation. It provided a sensorial insight into what change might look and feel like that normalised washing less.
• Conversation is an indispensable mechanism to support social change. My research enabled reflection on, and disruption of, current inconspicuous practices; built trust and facilitated the sharing of knowledge as well as social sanction to try something new.
143
• Laundering patterns can be leveraged. Inconspicuous routines such as laundering are adaptable and malleable; inconspicuous routines such as laundering demonstrate the ‘improvisory potential’ of clothes users.
144
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION: PARTICIPATORY SOCIAL RESEARCH AND MEDIA MAKING THAT EXPLORES WASHING CLOTHES LESS
The broader significance of this research is in the practical creativity employed which involves rethinking current ways of ‘doing’ and trying them. Practical creativity is needed to create sustain-abilities in general and could be used to support the sustainability of other social practices related to bathing, eating, travelling, gardening, renovating, repairing and so on. Social practice theory can be used as a starting point to break down and rethink practices that need modifying. In doing so, the innovator can look pragmatically at a given activity to determine the wealth of factors that can be adjusted to create change. Once possibilities for change have been deciphered the innovator can then take a participatory approach to investigations and try the ideas for change - in the process teasing out any problems. For example, my mother employed practical creativity to eliminate her use of plastic bags in her rubbish bin. My mother lives on a farm with no garbage truck services. Although she creates very little waste, she still used the bags to hold rubbish and recyclables in her kitchen bin, and used the bags to carry the rubbish to her utility truck and transport them to the tip. She considered the tools, entity and performance in the activities and concluded she could modify her tools, by eliminating the plastic bag, using a bin that has a bucket handle, and incorporate a hessian sack. She modified her previous performance by putting rubbish into her unlined (but handled) bin, then by carrying her rubbish in the bin to the utility van and emptying the contents into a hessian sack. She then transports the rubbish to the tip in the hessian sack which is emptied and returned back to her farm. Her new way of ‘doing’ has now been routinised and is an established practice in her home.
The broader significance of the media and communications strategy is in the researcher or media maker participating in the experiments, getting other people involved, and in making the experience a ‘feel good’ and uplifting one. Such an approach nurtures the collective citizen action required to create the impactful change needed for many social practices and larger systemic problems. This approach fosters a momentum of innovative citizens that can problem solve and feel
145 uplifted for doing simple improved routine activities, as well as audiences that tune into social change issues to feel uplifted and happy. This approach compliments initiatives like the sharing economy and The Story of Change’s call out for people to flex their citizen muscles and create ground-up change. Both the practical creativity and the communications approach could be used for many issues where current ways of thinking and doing need to be disrupted to create change such as; animal welfare/pet care; reducing personal consumption by extending the life of current goods; eliminating disposable goods by planning what is needed for activities; and so forth.
To reflect on my research into laundering, a participatory approach to media making and social research enabled me to investigate current laundering practices and no wash alternatives with clothing users. My intermediary role allowed me to use my own experiments as a basis to talk with others about their practices. Each stage of the research process impacted on the next as people opened up to share their experiences, and respond positively to my approach as a participant and researcher. Such investigations would never have worked with a detached media presenter expounding about the resource intensity of laundering, with no evidence of laundering in sight; this is why my own experiences were valuable because we could candidly discuss our practices and ideas for washing less. I was able to trial proto- practices (the eco-refreshing techniques) on myself, to feel out their do-ability before modelling them and recruiting people to discuss and try them. I was able to lead by example and present ideas for washing less in a playful, inclusive and encouraging way – by asking people to ‘sniff my pits for the planet’ – that utilised public spectacle. My request was met with an overwhelmingly positive response as people joined in on the fun and action. I see my participatory role as being critical in these on-camera conversations as I had the theoretical knowledge, empathetic and playful persona that could entice sniffers and facilitate conversations about washing less. Later in the research, during screening and discussion groups, my participatory role was critical in facilitating and nurturing conversations that pried for reasons for washing less, and for leverage points to use to encourage people to wash less, rather than initiate conversations that implied people were abnormally clean or dirty.
I was pleasantly surprised to see people stepping up to the challenges throughout my research by sniffing the armpits of my unwashed clothes,
146 participating in discussions and trialling the eco-refreshing techniques. The laundering ‘problem’ is undeniably fraught with a complex web of interrelated considerations. However, when the issue is simplified and brought back to a practical, common sense and human-centred perspective, my personal research experience suggests it may not be such an unwieldy topic after all.
I see value and agency in creative design, communications and media to recalibrate the meaning of laundering through the experiences of practice. Creative interventions can be used to research, support, disseminate and popularise proto- practices. They can explore media and communications approaches in a way that makes the content interesting and socially and culturally relevant. Web campaigning, for example, could plant visual seeds that nurture a reduced washing frequency and low-impact techniques for refreshing clothes rather than washing them. For example, campaigns could use an online poster-like intervention that says, ‘Wash? No need. Cheer up your blouse with sun and air, nature’s eco-refreshing gift’. Or they could use quirky and sharable videos, perhaps a prequel to The Sniff Test that explores positive associations with no-wash stories, like those on the Local Wisdom website. The video could normalise and advocate for clothes that feel and smell worn but fit into the ‘no need to wash’ category. There are many ways this idea could be executed to inject life into the subject. For example, video diaries could be created of clothes – pictured like string puppets – that feel and relive the trauma of being put through the wash as they compose ‘dear diary’ entries. The hierarchy amongst the clothes could be dependent on their washing frequency. Jeans and jackets could be personified as charismatic characters that rule the roost because they endure few washes and reveal entertaining stories about attaining certain smells and marks on them. However, underwear could be cast as shaky, pale, fragile and socially awkward. The video diaries could show underwear quivering due to the fear of excessive washing, never completing a full diary entry as they are reefed off screen and put through the wash.
Another video approach could be to vox-pop people on the street telling stories about how long they have managed to postpone a wash. Such conversations could amplify the malleability of laundering practices and present the improvisory potential of clothes users as a desirable and creative trait. Those interviewed could compete for a prize such as an obscure trophy titled ‘washing sucks’ or ‘live more, wash less’
147 along with a no-wash top. Personally, I have gone eight months without washing my favourite pair of jeans because I wouldn’t fit back into them if they snapped back to their original size due to washing. I sunned and aired them to avoid shrinkage. Stories such as this can be told humorously and used to personably broaden perceptions of cleanliness and/or question the necessity to wash. The interviews could be constructed in a way that normalises washing less by showing many people participating in it and making it seem like an innovative, enticing and creative venture to skip a wash through unique and uplifting stories.
Ultimately, to make machine laundering conspicuous I have promoted ‘the sniff test’ as a necessary activity that looks for reasons not to wash and commended modest wash less techniques as sustain-abilities. I see promise in generating conversations and creative initiatives, such as The Sniff Test video, to model the implementation of change and feel good about doing it; for nurturing such everyday activism by looking forward to ‘what could be’ through practical adjustments to ‘what is’. People are adaptable innovators, and laundering is a malleable activity that is constantly changing to adapt to varied settings and expectations. I have talked to the wearer for inspiration about not washing and what is achievable, as they are a goldmine of practical insight. As Kat and Jenny (Appendix 7) so finely articulate in their think-aloud interview, ‘washing is a pain in the ass’ and ‘it’s just so easy not to’.
148
References
Aktas, H., & Zengin, M. (2010). The DAGMAR Model: A visual analysis of laundry detergent advertisement samples. Selcuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24, 31-43.
Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Conversational Learning an Experiential approach to Knowledge Creation. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books.
Bentley, M., Fien, J., & Neil, C. (2004). Sustainable consumption: young Australians as agents of change: Matthew Bentley, John Fien and Cameron Neil. Canberra: Australian Government Dept. of Family and Community Services on behalf of NYARS.
Bertelsen, P., Kanstrup, A. M., & Ostergaard Madsen, J. (2014). Design with the feet: Walking methods and participatory design. Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers. Retrieved from dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2661441
Biachi, C., & Birtwistle, G. (2012). Consumer clothing disposal behaviour: a comparative study. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(3), 335-341.
Binder, T., Brandt, E., & Buur, J. (2000). Taking video beyond ‘hard data’ in user centred design. Paper presented at the Participatory Design Conference. Retrieved from http://ojs.ruc.dk/index.php/pdc/article/viewFile/189/181
Braungart, M., & McDonough, W. (2003). The cradle-to-cradle alternative. Worldwatch Institute State of the World 2004. McDonough.com. Retrieved from http://www.mcdonough.com/writings/cradle_to_cradle-alt.htm
149 Braungart, M., & McDonough, W. (2010). Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. Environmental Practice, 12.1(March), 192-194.
Botsch, M. (2008). Design dictionary. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Botsman, R. (2015, 27 May). Defining The Sharing Economy: What Is Collaborative Consumption - And What Isn't? Fast Coexist. Retrieved from http://www.fastcoexist.com/3046119/defining-the-sharing-economy- what-is-collaborative-consumption-and-what-isnt
Bur, J., & Salu, Y. (2007). Designing with video: Focusing the user-centred design process. Tlirisku, Salu: Springer Press.
Caulfield. (2009). Sources of textile waste in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.ttna.com.au/TEXTILE%20WASTE%20PAPER%20March %202009.pdf
Channel 4 BRITDOC Foundation (2011). The End of the Line Evaluation Report. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/britdoc/docs/the_end_of_the_line_evaluation_report
Choice. (1959). Choice. Retrieved from https://www.choice.com.au/
Climate Outreach and Information Network, & Public Interest Research Centre. (2011). Talking Climate. Retrieved from http://talkingclimate.org/
Crouch, C., & Pearce, J. (2013). Doing research in design. London, New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Dombek-Keith, K., & Loker, S. (2011). Sustainable clothing care by design. In A. Gwilt & T. Rissanen (Eds.), Shaping sustainable fashion changing the way we make and use clothes (pp. 101-116). London, Washington D.C: Earthscan.
150 Dr Graham Phillips (Writer). (2014). Gut Reaction. In I, Arnott (Producer). Catalyst. Australia: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Ellis, Carolyn., Adams, Tony E., Bochner, Arthur P. (2011). Autoethnography: An Overview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative- research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095
Farrier, D., & Reeve, D. (Writers). (2016). Tickled [Motion Picture] New Zealand. Magnolia Pictures (US).
Ferguson, S., & Jolley, M. A. (Writers). (2013). ‘Fashion Victims’, [television series episode] In Four Corners: Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Fletcher, K. (1999). Clean and green? EcoDesign, 7 (3), 34-45.
Fletcher, K. (2009). Local wisdom. Retrieved from http://www.localwisdom.info/
Fletcher, K. (2008). Sustainable fashion & textiles design journeys. London: Earthscan.
Fletcher, K. (2011). Post-Growth Fashion and the Craft of Users. In A. Gwilt & T. Rissanen (Eds.), Shaping Sustainable Fashion changing the way we make and use clothes (pp. 165-175). London, Washington D.C: Earthscan.
Fletcher, K., & Grose, L. (2012). Fashion & sustainability: Design for change. London: Laurance King Publishing.
Fletcher, K., Dewberry, E., & Goggin, P. (2001). Sustainable consumption by design. In M. J. Cohen & J. Murphy (Eds.), Exploring sustainable consumption: conceptual issues and policy perspectives (pp. 213-224). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Fletcher, K., & Earley, B. (2003). 5 Ways. Retrieved from http://www.5ways.info/docs/intro/intro.htm
151 Fletcher, K., & Tham, M. (2004). Lifetimes. Retrieved from http://lifetimes.info/index.html
Foote Whyte, W. (1991). Participatory Action Research: Through Practice to Science in Social Research Participatory Action Research. Retrieved from DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412985383.n2
Frank, J. (2013). The claims of documentary: expanding the educational significance of documentary film. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(10), 1018-1027.
Fry, T. (1999). A new design philosophy: an introduction to defuturing. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Fry, T. (2009). Design futuring: sustainability, ethics and new practice. New York: Berg.
Gameau, D. (Writer). (2014). Madman Production (Producer), Gameau, D (Writer & Director). (2014). That Sugar Film [Motion Picture]. Australia; Madman Entertainment.
Gill, A., Lopes, A., & Kaye-Smith, H. (2016). Practicing sustainability: illuminating 'use' in wearing clothes. Cultural Studies Review, 22(1), 32-58.
Glover, A. (2015). Characterizing Elements of Practice: The Contours of Altruistic Material Divestment. Journal of Design Research, 13(3), 265-277.
Handlon, Denise. (Dec 8, 2014). How to Make Dirty Clothes Smell Good
without Washing. Dengarden. Retrieved from https://dengarden.com/cleaning/How-to-Make-Dirty-Clothes-Smell- Good-Without-Washing
Heiskanen, E., & Pantzar, M. (1997). Toward Sustainable Consumption: Two New Perspectives. Journal of Consumer Policy, 20(4), 409-442.
152
Honoré, C. (2005,2004). In praise of slow: how a worldwide movement is challenging the cult of speed. London: Orion.
Ingram, D., & The Peter Henshall Estate. (2008). The News Manual. Retrieved from http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%201/volume1_2 2.htm
International Labour Organisation. (2013). Accord on fire and building safety in Bangladesh. Retrieved from http://bangladeshaccord.org
Illich, I. (1985). H2O and the waters of forgetfulness. Dallas: Institute of Humanities and Culture.
Jack, T. (Writer), Soderlind, L. (Producer). (2011, 25 July 2012) Visions: the great unwashed [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhyevSNVFeg
Jack, T. (2012). Nobody was dirty (Masters Thesis, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia). Retrieved from https://minerva- access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/37518/285883_JACK% 20masters%20minus%20appendices.pdf?sequence=2
Jack, T. (13 May 2013). The dirt on clothes: why washing less is more sustainable. The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/the-dirt-on-clothes-why-washing-less-is- more-sustainable-11531
Jay C [screen name]. (14 July 2008). Sherman's March Review [Web blog comment]. Retrieved from http://thedocumentaryblog.com/2008/07/14/shermans-march-review/
Kaiser, S. (2008). Mixing metaphors in the fiber, textile, and apparel complex: moving toward a more sustainable fashion system. In J. Hethorn & C.
153 Ulasewicz (Eds.), Sustainable fashion why now? A conversation about issues, practices, and possibilities. San Francisco: Fairchild Books.
Kaye-Smith, H. (2008). Fashion footprint. Honours exegesis and documentary video. Western Sydney University. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/9838639
Kenny, K. (2009). ‘The performative surprise’: parody, documentary and critique. Culture and Organization, 15(2), 221-235.
Laitala, K., & Boks, C. (2012). Sustainable clothing design: use matters. Design Research, 10, 121-139.
Lauder, S. (Writer). (2014). Fad not facts: call for new approach to climate change, The World Today. Radio: Australian Broadcast Corporation.
Lewis, C. & Duffield, G. (Producers). Murray, R (Director). (2009). The End of the Line. [Motion picture]. United Kingdom: Dogwoof
Lopes, A., & Andrews, T. (2010). Preliminary literature review for 'Earth Hour, Every Hour': An analysis of the sustained effect of Earth Hour 2010 in Sydney. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238742690_Earth_Hour_201 0_Preliminary_Literature_Review_for_'Earth_Hour_Every_Hour'_An_ analysis_of_the_sustained_effect_of_Earth_Hour_2010_in_Sydney
Lopes, A., & Fam, D. (2015). Toilet practices and system change: lessons from a transdisciplinary research project. Journal of Design Research, 13.3, 307-322.
Luckins, K. (2014). The Clothing Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.events.clothingexchange.com.au
Maniates, M. F. (2001). Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World? Global Environmental Politics, 1(3), 31-52.
Manzini, E. (2003). Scenarios of sustainable well-being. Design Philosophy Papers, 1(1), 5-21.
154
Marshall, T., & Newton, S. (2000). Scholarly design as a paradigm for practice-based research. Working Papers in Art and Design, 1, 1-7.
Muller, D. (Producer). (2012 June 25). Derek Muller: The key to effective educational science videos. TEDTalentSearch. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcX3IW00nuk
Murray, R. (Writer). (2009). The End of the Line [Motion Picture]. In C. Lewis & G. Duffield (Producer). UK. n.a (2013, March 9). The rise of the sharing economy. The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573104- internet-everything-hire-rise-sharing-economy
Nichols, B. (2010). Introduction to documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Pantzar, M., & Shove, E. (2005). Consumers, Producers and Practices: Understanding the invention and reinvention of Nordic walking. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(1), 43-64.
Pantzar, M., Shove, E., & Watson, M. (2012). The Dynamics of Social Practice: Sage Publications Ltd.
Payne, A. (2011). Think lifecycle. Retrieved from http://www.thinklifecycle.com
Pettersen, I. N., Boks, C., & Tukker, A. (2013). Framing the role of design transformation of consumption practices: beyond the designer-product- user triad. International Journal of Technology Management, 63(1), 70.
Pink, S. (2005). Dirty laundry. Everyday practice, sensory engagement and the constitution of identity. Social Anthropology, 13(3), 275-290.
Pink, S. (2012) Situating Everyday Life: Practices and Places. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
155 Pink, S., & Leder Mackley, K. (2015). Social science, design and everyday life: refiguring showering through anthropological ethnography. Journal of Design Research, 13 (3), 278-292.
Richards, Laura. (n.d). 13 Things That Can De-Stink Your Clothes – No
Washing Required. Readers Digest. Retrieved from https://www.rd.com/home/cleaning-organizing/make-clothes-smell- better/
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Seyfang, G. (2004). Shopping to save the planet?: a critical analysis of sustainable consumption policy and practice. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Uppsala, Sweden.
Shanahan. (2007). Talking about a revolution: climate change and the media An IIED Briefing. International Institute for Environment and Development. Retrieved from http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/17029IIED.pdf
Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, cleanliness and convenience the social organization of normality. Oxford: Berg.
Shove, E., & Ward, A. (2002). Inconspicuous consumption: The sociology of consumption, lifestyles, and the environment. In R. Dunlap, F. Buttel, P. Dickens, & Gijswijt (Eds.), Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights (pp. 230- 250). London: Rowman and Littlefield.
Silverman, D. (2014). supervision workshop. University of Western Sydney Parramatta Campus.
Smith, H. J. (2014). Emotional responses to documentary viewing and the potential for transformative teaching. Teaching Education, 25(2), 217- 238.
Smith, Mary. (n.d). How to remove the sweat smell in clothing. One How To.
156 Retrieved from https://home.onehowto.com/article/how-to-remove-the- sweat-smell-in-clothing-1194.html
Spurlock, M., Roadside Attractions (Firm), Samuel Goldwyn Films (Firm), Showtime Independent Films., Con (Firm), & Hart Sharp Video (Firm). (2004). Super Size Me. New York, N.Y: Hart Sharp Video.
Dr Graham Phillips (Writer). (2014). Gut Reaction. In Arnott, I. (Producer). Catalyst. Australia: Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Taylor, A (Writer). (2015). Fit in six minutes a week. In Collins, A. McKenna, G. & Lawrence, R (Producers). Catalyst. Australia: Australian Broadcasting Corporation
The Story of Stuff Project. (2013). The Story of Solutions. Retrieved from http://act.storyofstuff.org/page/s/growing-solutions
The Yes Lab (N.D). The Yes Men. Retrieved from theyesmen.org
Thielman, S. (2016). No laughing matter: documentary on endurance tickling runs into legal issue. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/may/21/no-laughing-matter- documentary-on-endurance-tickling-runs-into-legal-issues
Theroux, L. (Writer). Cooper, E. & Theroux, L. (Directors) (2007). Under the knife. [TV documentary] London BBC. http://edutv.informit.com.au.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/watch- screen.php?videoID=668281
Walsh, B. (2015). Alan Kurdi's Story: Behind The Most Heartbreaking Photo of 2015. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4162306/alan-kurdi-syria-drowned-boy-refugee-crisis/
Wood, J. (2013). Re-languaging the creative: Design as a comprehensive act of combination. Journal of Writing in Creative Practice, 6(1), 59-70.
157 WRAP. (2011). Valuing our clothes: The true cost of how we design, use and dispose of clothing in the UK. Retrieved from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/VoC%20FINAL%20online%2 02012%2007%2011.pdf
158
APPENDICES COVER PAGE
159 Appendix 1: Flip books
View animated flip books via https://youtu.be/d_GEa56ekow . Please pause movie to read text.
Appendix 2: Survey outcomes
The following results indicate participant details, laundering practices and ongoing communications about laundering less.
1. Gender
Gender Number Total Numbers
Male 15 31 Female 16
2. Age
Age Female Male Total
18 – 24 2 3 5
25 – 34 8 5 13
35 – 44 2 2 4
45 – 54 1 1 2
55 – 64 3 1 4
65 – 74 0 3 3
3. Work occupation (NB not all participants responded)
Work/Occupation Female Male Total
160 Homemaker 1 2 3
Active/physical work 8 5 13
Office/sedentary 7 7 14
4. On average, which statement best describes your laundering habits for your:
a) Jeans
Female Male Total
I wash my jeans after every wear 0 0 0
I wash my jeans after two or 3 2 5 three wears
I examine my jeans to determine if I 13 13 26 believe they require washing
b) Work pants (NB not all responded)
Female Male Total
I wash my work pants after every wear 1 2 3
I wash my work pants after two or 5 3 8 three wears
I examine my work pants to determine 9 9 18 if I believe they require washing
c) Casual shirt
Female Male Total
I wash my casual shirt after every wear 2 3 5
161 I wash my casual shirt after two or 5 8 13 three wears
I examine my casual shirt to determine 9 4 13 if I believe they require washing
d) Work shirt
Female Male Total
I wash my work shirt after every wear 5 7 12
I wash my work shirt after two or 5 4 9 three wears
I examine my work shirt to determine if 6 4 10 I believe they require washing
e) Jacket
Female Male Total
I wash my jacket after every wear 0 0 0
I wash my jacket after two or 0 1 1 three wears
I examine my jacket to determine if I 16 14 30 believe they require washing
5. Which statement most influences your need to wash your clothes, you may pick up to 2 statements.
Female Male Total
My clothes are heavily soiled when I 6 7 13 put them in the wash
I am concerned the clothes may smell 13 10 23
162 The clothes lose their shape/elasticity; 3 1 4 therefore, I don’t feel good in them
The clothes ‘feel’ dirty, not fresh 8 7 15
6. Which statement describes you best?
Female Male Total
You go out of your way to behave in 6 2 8 an eco-conscious manner and actively seek out conservationist information and strategies to reduce your ecological footprint. You quickly adopt eco-conscious practices e.g. avoid food waste, buy local & fair trade etc.
You do not actively seek out 9 9 18 conservationist information and strategies but modify your behaviour when new information is revealed to you. E.g. A friend tells you that line and pole caught is better for the environment as the oceans are over – fished, so you switch to that product.
Conservation and eco-practices are 1 4 5 not a priority in your life, you participate in legislative conservation initiatives, such as recycling your rubbish, but do not go out of your way to be ‘green’.
You rarely participate in eco-practices, 0 0 0 such as taking your own bags grocery shopping or go out of your way to recycle, as you have little interest in conservation and feel your behaviour has little impact considering you are one of 7 billion people on this planet
163
7. Which of these methods, if any, had you heard of before viewing ‘The Sniff Test’
Female Male Total
Air and sun to refresh clothes 13 9 22
Shower steam to refresh clothes 4 2 6
Lemon juice to refresh clothes 2 1 3
Spot clean to refresh clothes 11 7 18
8. Which of the above methods, if any, do you engage in and why?
Female Male Total
Air & sun to refresh clothes 10 3 13
Shower and steam to refresh clothes 2 1 3
Lemon juice to refresh clothes 0 0 0
Spot clean to refresh clothes 7 4 11
Responses ‘Air and sun because I don’t frequently wash my clothes as they normally have a graphic printed on them and to treat the art well, minimal wash is best to preserve print quality.’
‘The 3 I ticked (air and sun, shower steam, spot clean) but more to avoid washing than having the environment in mind.’
‘Air and spot, because if you can’t see or smell it, why bother washing it?’
‘Air and sun to avoid having to wash my clothes so often. Spot cleaning – if it is just a small stain, I don’t want to wear my clothes out by unnecessarily
164 washing it.’
‘Both (air and sun, spot clean) when clothes not otherwise soiled.’
‘Air and sun, spot clean.’
‘I spot clean heavier clothing such as jackets and jeans rather than wash unless heavily soiled.’
‘Shower steam, spot clean.’
‘Air and sun, spot clean.’
‘Air and sun.’
‘Air clothes after wearing once to refresh.’
‘I don’t air my clothes, but I don’t wash them that much.’
‘Air, spot clean. To reduce washing and maintain clothing quality so last longer.’
‘I don’t smell and I find it unnecessary to wash clothes regularly.’
‘Air and sun. I think that it is the natural way (the old way).’
‘None.’
‘Air and sun.’
‘Wash with laundry detergent.’
‘Air and sun, spot clean. To save on unnecessary washing.’
‘Shower steam for cleaning suits.’
‘None. Convenience, routine, known results of washing. Already aim to reduce impact by: energy efficient and water efficient washing, ‘ecofriendly’
165 detergent, re-wearing clothes.’
‘Spot clean. If the clothes are clean but they have a tiny mark, it’s easier to spot clean.’
‘Spot clean, if clothes are newly washed but marked.’
‘Spot clean. Running out the door last minute. Need something to wear.’
9. Which of these methods, if any, would you try at home?
Female Male Total
Air & sun to refresh clothes 15 12 27
Shower and steam to refresh clothes 12 3 15
Lemon juice to refresh clothes 11 4 15
Spot clean to refresh clothes 12 10 22
10. Would you pass on any of these insights to others?
Female Male Total
Yes 16 10 26
No 0 4 4
11. Would you like to be part of a fun experiment where you share your experience in trying the alternate refreshing methods with Holly?
Female Male Total
Yes 13 9 22
No 3 6 9
166
167
Appendix 3: Screening and discussion groups
Group 1
Jill: I don’t see the point in washing sheets regularly. I only wash them when having guests, but it’s not ‘cause they’re dirty.
Mitchel: I wash my sheets every week because I love the feeling of sliding into clean sheets.
Jill: Don’t care about clean sheets and I like my own smells. I don’t like starch.
Mitchel: I like them ironed etc.
Jill: I just hang my clothes behind my bedroom door and don’t feel I have to wash them every time I wear them. Only if I stain them, or I go somewhere like an Indian restaurant where the food has a strong smell.
Mitchel: I make things dirty easily. However, I wear my farm/work clothes a few times.
Jill: I have to wash my work clothes regularly if I’ve got blood on them from a difficult delivery or something. But I hate it ‘cause it’s such a waste of water.
Brian: I sometimes wear my gym clothes twice if I haven’t sweated in them too much.
Kasey: Oh no, I couldn’t do that. I’d have to wash them.
Jill: I swim every day and wash my cozzie in the shower. I don’t think it’s ever been washed.
Note to Holly: Mitchel and Kasey wash their towels every three uses, when they start to smell. However, with airing in the summer time, they say you can go a week without washing towels.
Note to Holly: Mitchel uses a new dishwasher tablet that he loves. It has less chemicals etc. but does such a great job! (It is evident that the shiny clean results of these tablets make him very happy) The glasses and everything come out squeaky clean.
Kasey: We don’t know what’s in them, but they work!
Note to Holly: Kasey uses a different teaspoon for each cup of tea and Mitchel uses the same one. (Some people seem to think that once something is used it is redundant or contaminated).
168 Jill: My mum used to buy good things and look after them.
Holly: How do you navigate through a post-industrial revolution throw-away culture?
Mitchel: I hate throwing anything out.
Jill: I hate it too. I hate the TVs, computer, they all break after 3 or 4 years.
Mitchel: The thing that kills me is the ink cartridges.
Jill: We make a real effort not to print off stuff, ‘cause it’s all online.
Mitchel: We only print off things we need for tax.
Jill: With cleaning, we clean the shower every day, just with a cloth and it means we don’t ever have mould or dirt and we need no chemicals.
Jill and Mitchel: We hate all the products, they don’t work and they stink.
Jill: We painted our shower 13 years ago and it looks like it was painted yesterday. And I like that.
Holly: What defines a ‘farm clothes wash’ and ‘film/work clothes wash’?
Mitchel: I washed my film-work stuff more regularly because I was the boss and had to look more presentable, but with the farm stuff I wash when I start to leave a stain/mark where I sat.
Holly: So the biggest determiner there is people, isn’t it?
Mitchel: Yes. But at the end of week [even though he now works on the farm full time] I still have a full load of washing?
Jill: Yes, where does it all come from?
Frank: My own bed sheets every two weeks, but I’ll wash the sheets every time a visitor comes.
Jill: I don’t, I’ll check the sheets for stains or pubic hairs and things but I only wash if they need it. It’s waste of water … I mean I like washing and hanging up the washing, not so much ironing.
Note to Holly: They all agree in their water consciousness because they all use tank water.
169 Group 2
Tim: I had thought about the amount of water that was used to wash clothes.
Holly: Had you guys heard or thought of laundering and its effect on the environment?
Lisa: I hadn’t heard of any of those methods before, which is pretty bad on my part, ‘cause I wear things once then wash them. And in the UK, you wear it once, do a hot wash, then chuck it in the dryer ‘cause it takes so long to dry. So yeah, it’s pretty bad. It made me think about it.
Note to Holly: Someone says something about washing to Lisa and she says ‘yeah, probably too much’ – referring to her own practices. I then make her feel better by saying ‘It’s okay you haven’t heard info about the enviro impacts’.
Liam: It’s an instantaneous reaction, if I’ve got a full laundry basket there’s no even second thought about it to be honest. I just kind of … Maybe it’s kind of? ... I was just bought up that way … You just put it in the washer, add detergent and bang it on. There’s no sort of secondary thought at all actually.
Holly: Yes absolutely! It’s a lot of sort of habitual laundering that we do.
Note to Holly: They all agree (‘yes absolutely’) and it’s cultural (they nod and Liam verbally agrees). I do my spiel about how cleanliness practices often have little to do with hygiene. They agree ‘yes, yes…’ more to do with religious piety etc. They agree, someone says ‘cleanliness is next to godliness’ – they seem to make the connections.
Liam: I don’t even know what detergent does? If there’s a bit of a stain it kind of gets it out, but is it antibacterial? … have no idea what the chemicals are or what it does. It’s just kinda’ a part of everyday life. I have no idea what the environmental impacts of that is.
Elizabeth: [Note to Holly: Whose mum cleans with vinegar] It’s more about what you’re using and looking at the ingredients to see what’s in groundwater and waterways.
Liam: Nah I don’t do that, I go that’s 4 bucks, that’s 2 bucks, I’ll take the cheap one, that’s all I do.
Dave: Yep, that ones on special I’ll take it.
170 Dave: I’ve done the steam stuff before, I’ve heard of that but more for high end clothes like silk, or sheets in the bathroom while I shower, to get the creases out and ‘cause it cleans them as well. So you don’t have to dry clean.
Note to Holly: Great to hear from Dean as he is a regular washer.
Liam: I don’t even think about it, I just send my suits straight to the steam cleaner.
Dave: Well that’s effectively what they do isn’t it?
Liam: I have no idea. I don’t even know what they do. It’s just a service. It’s a convenience.
Dave: Yeah a convenience, just let someone else do it.
Elizabeth: Airing is enough, you don’t need to wash things all the time.
Liam: And this is really quite a recent thing ... like it’s only just the past 40 years that we’ve been doing so much washing, hey?
Note to Holly: We see a photo of Dave in a ‘onesey’, which he wore all weekend and only washed it because it stank of fire.
Lisa: But with them other alternative ways to wash, I think it does come down to us being so lazy. I was talking to a girl about the clothes we have to hand wash and because were so lazy we probably won’t wear them again … they’re usually expensive stuff too, but we’re so lazy we won’t wear them even though we spent so much money on them and that’s so bad.
Liam: Do you know I never wash my jeans. Why is it that jeans are fine but everything else? You know what I mean? Why? … [shakes head] I have never thought about that.
Holly: (Tells of Tullia Jack’s research) I explain your jeans won’t grow any additional bacteria after being worn for two weeks.
Tim: Yeah but maybe it’s also about feeling dirty, they may just feel gross.
Kat: Or they don’t fit.
Note to Holly: I say a few simple guidelines to living sustainably with clothing – mend clothes, buy things too last, reduce washing.
Dave: There’s some things I wash every wear and others not.
Holly: Like underwear?
171 Dean: Yeah, socks, underwear, casual shirts. But, like, I’ve washed these pants once and the one time I washed them the button came off and I was devastated. So I had to go and get a new button and now they never go in the wash.
Liam: [Still bemused] I don’t even think I’ve washed a jacket.
Elizabeth: No. I never wash jackets.
Kat: I dry clean jackets.
Liam: Maybe a suit jacket.
Dave: Only if there’s something on it.
Luke, Tim and Elizabeth: Yeah.
Elizabeth: Yeah, sauce, red wine.
Elizabeth: If I have something that needs dry cleaning I’ll just hang it up and air it and it’s fine ... I have never washed my dry-clean garments, and I always choose fabrics that cover stains, always!
Dave says he has a $4 t-shirt that has warped out of shape.
Holly: And fast fashion chains make more than Louis Vuitton, they have 12-24 seasons a week.
Note to Holly: The group is amazed.
Liam: What? That’s two a week!
Note to Holly: Back to cleaning after jokes.
Kat: Do people associate being clean with aspiration? Is it aspirational?
Note to Holly: I go on a tangent about detergent marketers infiltrating the lives of low income earners and Latino and African American consumers who earn an average of $2 per day, and the unachievable laundering goals. I conclude with ‘what the fuck is whiter than white anyway?’
Kat: I don’t know but I do live by it. [The group laughs]. I bleach the fuck out of my sheets.
Elizabeth: But there’s supposed to be a certain amount of bacteria on your skin and these wash products remove 99% of bacteria? We need that! Same with air fresheners.
172 Note to Holly: I speak about crotch-sweat ads and how marketers create a problem that preys on insecurities and ties it into an ‘imposed need’. We all discuss human-smell masking agents.
173 Group 3
Note to Holly: Peter says that since being married he washes his clothes a lot more than he used to.
Michael: It will be interesting to see what school kids think about this cause they’re mums might do their washing. Also, in London they used to hang out their jeans inside to rid them of ciggi-smoke, prior to this they were washing their clothes like crazy trying to rid them of ciggi smoke.
Note to Holly: Then one of his friends told them about airing. This practice enabled them to rarely wash their clothes.
Peter: I didn’t wash my clothes as often before being married but now I suppose I’m trying to keep up … We both wash each other’s, whatever is in the basket.
Holly: I think I wash more now that Ben lives with me because it feels like there’s almost always nearly a full basket (all agree).
Michael: ‘If I haven’t done anything strenuous I’ll wear the same top again, I don’t have many clothes so I’m happy to wear again’.
Holly asks Michael how he determines if a garment can be worn again.
Michael: I don’t really smell it, I just think … It’s been a few days now I should probably wash this shirt.
Note to Holly: Polly says she sniffs Michael’s clothes and decides if they need a wash or if they can go back on a hanger.
Note to Holly: Sarah and Pete (her husband) have a laundry basket in the bathroom. If an item of clothing is dirty and needs washing it goes in the basket; if it can have another wear it goes over the back of a chair. Sarah has to wear a laundered uniform at work for hygiene reasons because she works in a hospital. However, she will have one outfit ‘or uniform’ that she puts on when she gets home that she will wear each day until soiled. And then she has her going-out clothes which she can wear out but can generally put them back in the wardrobe and get two or three maybe even four more wears out of the item.
Holly (to the entire group): When do you decide a garment needs to be put to wash – as it is taken off the body or a day/days later?’
Polly: Clothes usually go off our body, onto the bed, then onto the floor, then the next day I pick them up and smell them and decide.
174 Michael: If it’s been a hot day, ‘cause I pit out pretty hard on those days, I decide then and there ‘ooh that needs a wash’ but in winter it just goes over a chair or bed.
Sarah decides as it comes off the body:
Sarah: If I have done an activity where my body needs a wash and my clothes are dirty then it goes straight in the basket. It depends on what kind of activity it is and what type of clothing it is. Home clothes/uniform will get washed if I’ve worn it, then I’ll decide it’s time it needs a wash. My home uniform usually gets 4 days.
Peter: I have a predetermined thing with my work shirts, you see this [tugs at shirt sleeve] I’ve worn this all day [Michael says ‘everyone will have seen you wear it all day too’] but it doesn’t actually smell and it’s probably not that dirty but just because it’s a mindset that I wash my work clothes after one wear that’s how I do it. Whereas if it’s a casual shirt and I haven’t marked it or it doesn’t smell I’ll wear it again.
Note to Holly: Peter tries not to iron his work shirts; he tries to hang them so they don’t need an iron (everyone agrees), but there are shirts that always need ironing.
Note to Holly: Discussion opens on floor about techniques for hanging up wet clothes without ironing. It seems everyone is comfortable with adopting a more relaxed attitude to ironing. Special occasion shirts are the main garment to iron for weddings or work.
Holly: Can you guys define dirty/used and in need of washing? Why does it need to be washed?’
Polly: BO or dirt.
Peter: If I’ve sweated or stained it. Even if it doesn’t smell.
Note to Holly: Spot cleaning - All related to spot cleaning a garment, not for environmental reasons, but because they wanted to wear it that day or the next day, not for environmental gains.
Note to Holly: The whole group doesn’t abide by hand-wash labels, they don’t check or practise hand-washing.
Note to Holly: Polly puts hand washing or delicate items in a bra-bag … She says she does this when she thinks an item looks delicate.
175 Note to Holly: Sarah, Peter and Michael say they don’t buy hand wash items. Peter says if it is hand-wash then it would have been put through the wash because he doesn’t check it …
Peter (questioning Polly regarding delicate items): How do you know the item needs to be hand washed? I never check the label.
Holly: Have you thought about the use phase and the environmental consequences?
Michael: I’m conscious of water and stuff like that. I’ve thought about washing and water wastage and chemicals but not in terms of a garment’s whole life.
Sarah brings up washing clothes after purchase.
Polly says she washes her son’s clothes before wearing.
Polly: They say you should.
Note to Holly: Polly says you shouldn’t wear socks twice … she can’t remember where she heard if from, probably her mum.
Note to Holly: Sarah is concerned about where the clothes came from, like a sweatshop floor in India. She always washes bedsheets after purchase but not shirts … she would definitely wash her kid’s clothes before putting them on their bodies.
Note to Holly: Peter thinks that healthcare professionals do recommend not to wear socks twice because it may cause tinea. Same with underwear and swimsuits, although [in women’s wear] they have a plastic sanitary strip in the crotch …. Everyone agrees they want to rid their purchases of the remnants of other humans (especially swimmers, underwear, children’s clothes). I ask for ideas how to avoid a wash:
Michael: I hang them [board shorts] up on the line straight away, if I don’t they have to be washed ... Same with towels [all agree– they can’t think of any other ways].
Note to Holly: Polly and Michael know a woman that runs two washing machines full time all day. Her son can’t wear his pyjamas twice. Everyone comments and agrees this behaviour is overboard and OCD.
Note to Holly: Michael won’t wash his towel, Polly always does it.
176 Note to Holly: I comment on how effective sun and air is at refreshing towels – everyone agrees sun and air is great for towels and killing bacteria. Peter says hanging a towel in the sun can give it another 10 wears. Ben says his mum said sun kills bacteria – everyone is comfortable with this idea.
Note to Holly: The group agrees dryers are a laziness ‘thing’. I tell a story about my friend using the dryer even when it is sunny out. Peter says his mum didn’t buy a new dryer when theirs broke and the dryer perpetuated laziness by allowing things to be done at the last minute. When the family no longer had a dryer they stopped washing their jeans an hour before going out; instead they had to be more organized, plan and do it the night before.
Note to Holly: Sarah highlights culture and infrastructure problems. She says Kim (her American sister-in-law) out of habit put things in the dryer at Sarah’s house when she visited.
Holly: In some places in America they make it so you can’t hang things out.
Polly: We got in trouble in Cronulla for hanging stuff out when we were living in apartments.
Note to Holly: The group discusses new appliances. Sarah says that The Block (TV series) started to incorporate drying racks that use electricity into laundries. She said they are reinventing dryers and perpetuating the problem and marketing it as a luxury item. Brian comments on the ridiculousness of it as he used to use a dryer but he got a clothes horse and was surprised to find everything could dry on its own in the house overnight. Michael agrees as he used to dry things all over his house in Cronulla before they had a dryer.
Note to Holly: Sarah says washing and drying is a generational thing, because when you’re young you just pick things up off the floor and wear them. Ben comments on how you learn that that’s not acceptable.
Sarah: If it wasn’t a hygiene thing you would just pick things off the floor and wear them because they are there. But once you become a professional you have to make sure you have clean, well smelling clothes … But, this relaxed attitude to wearing used clothes was not a part of our parent’s upbringing, they were far more regimented, monitored and well presented. Whereas now you have Grunge and Goth.
Holly: So it can depend on the subculture?
177 Note to Holly: Sarah agrees and says these subcultures are more like ‘whatever’. I agree and we reminisce over our army pants, from when we were teenagers, and how horrified we were when they were washed regardless of how dirty they were.
Note to Holly: Michaels’s friend used to heat a shirt from the back of his car on the heater on the dash board then rub it over the window – that’s how he ironed his shirt before clubbing.
178 Group 4
Holly: At work does it matter if you go in with hair on your pants?
Tina (a veterinarian): Not really ‘cause the first patient will leave hair on pants anyway.
Tina sprays her work clothes with antiseptic between clients.
Holly: Why is it okay to not wash a jacket, but not other clothes? When is it time to wash a jacket?
Note to Holly: Jason says it’s all about contact with armpits. Dirt is not such a big deal but armpits and sweat are. Exercise clothes can be worn again, if exercising alone.
Bailey: Its more about other people and what they think.
Jason says it’s about respect for others.
Bailey: At work some people stink of BO from not washing and washing clothes properly and it’s disgusting … Seems like a hygiene problem.
Jason: In history UK and France had snuff-boxes (cleanliness and class) around their necks to hide odour from poor people.
Holly: It’s also a class thing!
Note to Holly: This ties into class and prestige which has many forms. In India and China, they don’t want to be brown because it looks like they are fieldworkers.
Note to Holly: Jason says he’s worked in Aboriginal communities who have no interest in deodorant and sterilising their scent.
Note to Holly: I talk about human scent and learning what is good and bad. Human scent is interesting because it’s often a learned perception of what’s good and bad. We even had to learn that sewage was bad; babies will play in their own faecal matter and need to be taught not to. In many cases scent is a cause–effect thing. You could smell the traces of what activities you had been doing.
Holly: I assume these Aboriginal communities don’t have negative associations with their smells. They would think ‘I’ve been near the fire, so I smell like fire’.
Note to Holly: Jason says that because he was aware of grey water ending up in the ocean in the ‘80s used to redirect washing machine water onto lawn so it didn’t go to ocean.
179 Jason: In the ‘80s we used to reuse things.
Jason says he is aware of planned obsolescence.
Note to Holly: Tina says she hangs clothes over chair, then does a sniff test and questions how many times she has worn it. Then re-wears the item.
Note to Holly: Bailey and Tina agree clothes/jeans warping out of shape are a reason for washing.
Note to Holly: Tina avoids washing her clothes as it degrades the quality.
Note to Holly: Tina decides she will wash her clothes a few days after hanging them over a chair, she analyses the garment and smells it.
Bailey: As a man in summer you have to wash more often ‘cause you sweat.
Note to Holly: Jason and Bailey make the decision to wash their clothes as the item comes off the body. They definitively ‘know’ whether it needs a wash or not.
Note to Holly: Bailey thinks that ‘guys would be more open to giving their clothes another go’, than women.
Holly: But you both just said you decide you need to wash your clothes when you take it off your body.
Note to Holly: Tina is open to the idea that she may get one more wear out of the garment and decides days later. If you had been open to the idea you may have got one more wear out of your top. Bailey acknowledges this is a possibility.
Note to Holly: I tell my gold cardigan airing story – air refreshing worked and it didn’t get stinky when I re-wore it.
Note to Holly: Jason challenges my ‘give another wear a go’ idea by saying, would I talk to a stinky guy at the club?
Holly: I would find that to be a turn-off.
Note to Holly: We accept (some people’s) dreadlocks smell, so can we embrace body odour more?
Note to Holly: I speak of my horror as I watched people smell the armpits of my clothes (nose and sometimes lips pressed against the clothes). So I am not exempt from these feelings of self-consciousness regarding body odour.
180 Jason: What is the average number of washes per week per person?
Holly: After a spot clean, do you wash the garment?
Note to Holly: Tina and Jason say it depends on how good the spot clean was. If the stain is not visible/or ‘smellable’ then it doesn’t need a wash.
Note to Holly: I say spot cleaning is one of the most lo-fi washing technique ... red wine comes off surprisingly easy, despite what we are led to believe by detergent ads! Jason relates this to vacuum cleaner ads where the viewer is ‘impressed’ by the suction of vacuums that have the same ability as all the other vacuum cleaners.
181
Group 5
Holly: Have you ever thought about laundering’s effect on the environment?
Answers: 2 – yes; 1 – no; 3 – no answer
William: No, it makes sense that it’s bad but I’ve just not thought about it.
Note to Holly: Bianca says yes she has thought about it, but not excessively, due to the special laundering needs of her organic/natural fibred clothes. I say great point, not many connect washing with the degradation of clothes.
Beth: I had thought about water wastage because at home we have a water saving washing machine but in my uni accommodation I have an old one.
Holly: What do you think about your own laundering behaviours?
Noel: My washing process is determined by convenience and how much I need an item of clothing.
Glen: Yes [to Noel] This is going to sound really gross, but I’ve gone three months without washing.
Holly: That’s amazing.
Glen: No it’s not…
Holly: Do you have a lot of clothes?
Glen: Yes, I’ve been collecting thrift clothes for years.
Note to Holly: The outfit that he is wearing hasn’t been washed in two months.
Bianca (to Glen): Yeah but you douse it [the worn clothes] in perfume all the time.
Holly (to Glen): What do you do to your clothes between wears?
Glen: I have a floordrobe, my clothes go on the floor … mostly in a mess.
Holly: How do you decide if you can wear the clothes again?
Glen: The sniff test and then have a look at it … Actually this is really terrible... once I had a shirt that I really wanted to wear and it had a stain on it so I just turned it around and wore it that way.
Holly: Awesome!
182 Glen: Now I don’t feel so bad about being a lazy pig.
Note to Holly: Noel says he washes sheets every fortnight. He washes his running shirt after every wear, but will re-wear shorts. Noel explains how washing can be determined by your laundering cycle, e.g. you may have six running shirts and three running shorts that you use throughout the week. That’s enough shirts and shorts for one week’s worth of exercise.
Holly (to the whole group): What do you consider ‘dirty’ or when a garment needs to be washed?
Note to Holly: All agree smell, marks/stains or deodorant marks. Bianca resolves deodorant stains by creating muscle tops by cutting the sleeves off.
Holly (to all): Do you spot clean?
Note to Holly: Everyone spot cleans, or at least gives it a go. Catherine says she did it with coke and a tissue on her grey skirt.
Holly: Do you wash your spot cleaned item after removing the mark or wear it?
Note to Holly: All agree they would wear it after the spot clean. Noel (who washes sheets every fortnight) elaborates further saying a spot cleaned tops wearability depends on where the item is in its laundry cycle or where he is at in his laundry cycle. e.g., if it was recently washed he will wear it again; if not it will be put to wash. Or if he is about to wash he will put it in.
Holly (to all): Would you air clothes rather than put them to wash if there is a scent?
Bianca: depends if it smells of deodorant or body odour.
Beth: depends on the type of clothing.
Glen: depends how strong the body odour is…’this is really gross but, sometimes if it smells of body odour ill stand near a house mate and see if they can smell me. If not, I can wear it.
Holly: Is scent a concern for yourself or other people?
Bianca: Other people, I couldn’t care less if I can smell it.
Glen: I mean I would probably sit in my own filth if I was left too… It’s interesting because it’s a lot to do with being presentable for the rest of society, people feel really
183 worried about that… like my mum was a once a day washer, sometimes several loads. Sometimes it’s not even about the clothes is about how the people feel themselves.
Note to Holly: I agree and explain washing has more to do with religious piety and a billion dollar detergent industry, etc. than hygiene. The group nodded in realisation and agreement with ‘cleanliness is next to godliness’
Note to Holly: Catherine says washing can be a ‘playing a good housewife’ as in keeping busy with multiple loads of washing. e.g. ‘growing up, our towels were used only once, then washed. My mum has only un-learned that recently’. Catherine expands on the ludicrous nature of it and how we have to unlearn habitual practices.
Note to Holly: William tells of hotels that offer monetary rewards for not washing sheets and towels.
Holly (to group): What tricks do you use to avoid a conventional wash?
Catherine: We ‘cheer up’ clothes in our house by putting them in the sun or dryer if it’s a bit past its prime.
Beth: I’ve washed the armpits so I can wear it that night.
Molly: It holds its shape better then too.
Catherine: Your standards change when you travel.
Glen: In my old job they would advocate spot cleaning, then put jeans in a freezer bag and into the freezer.
Noel: Underwear determines a wash.
Molly: Underwear is excluded from ‘cheating washes’
Molly: Did this make you think differently about your washing practices?
Bianca: I didn’t think there were so many alternate methods… You kind of get stuck in your routing’
Catherine: Made me think about what I’m wearing right now and if it’s been worn before.
Bianca: You don’t have to wash jeans often, I mainly hear about people washing jeans to pull them back into shape.
Beth: Ironically you wash jeans to get them back into shape but your degrading the jean quality and elasticity by washing them.
184 Appendix 4: Think-aloud interviews
Kat and Jenny
Summary
Kat tried sun and air on her work shirt. It freshened up the smell of her shirt but she still had make up stains on the neckline.
Jenny tried lemon juice on the armpits of one of her socialising tops. Jenny did an internet search to refine her method and concluded that diluted lemon juice in a spray bottle is the most effective method.
I was excited to see Kat and Jenny because last time I bumped into them in the city, they ran up to me and Jenny said ‘I haven’t washed this dress for six wears, I tried the lemon juice on the armpits’ and Charlie had worn her top twice.
Kat (in refreshing think-aloud recording): I am going to try the eco-refreshing method of sun and air on my shirt that I wore to work all day. I also walked home, that took about twenty minutes so I’m feeling a little bit sweaty. I’m going to try hanging it out for what’s left of the day, it’s now about six o’clock so I’ve got two and a half hours of sunshine and then I’ll bring it in, hang it in the bathroom and see how refreshed it is in the morning. I’m a little bit worried there is not going to be enough sun, but I’ll let you know how I go.
Kat (post refreshing and examining think-aloud): I smelt my top this morning and it smelt fresh. I couldn’t smell any BO on it whatsoever. But what I did notice was icky makeup stains all around the collar so I think I might need to try a water refreshment method or something like that if I am to do something like that ‘cause makeup is really hard to get out.
Jenny (refreshing think-aloud): Hi my name is Jenny, I am doing one of the refreshing tests for Holly. I have done the aeration one, that’s the only one I’ve done. I rarely wash my clothes now although I do wash my gym clothes though. My work clothes I wear until I pretty much need to dry clean them. Anyway what I’m testing tonight is the lemon juice to get rid of pit smell, so I looked it up on the net cause I wasn’t sure if you apply lemon juice directly, so I’m going to try 2 different ways, one way is the lemon juice and water mix and which I saw online to put in a spray bottle, it is 1 teaspoon of lemon juice in 1 cup of water diluted and then put in a spray bottle so I’ll give that one a go, so I’ve just put it in a spray bottle that I use to spray my plants. I’ll use it on one of my favourite tee shirts that is a light colour anyway so if it does discolour when I’ve done the test it’s probably not going to be able to be seen. So I’ve got it inside out just on the armpits ‘cause it really stinks, I’ve worn it about 6 million times and it’s got to the point where I
185 just can’t wear it any more. So, immediately seems to stop the smell of my underarms so I’m going to do one underarm with the diluted lemon and on the other I’m just going to use lemon from a cut lemon straight on the under arm. So I’ve sprayed the diluted lemon on one underarm and it seems to have removed all smell immediately, and that seems to happen when you have wet clothes, anyway, now I’m trying the other arm pit with just straight lemon, I’m not sure whether or not you are supposed to apply straight lemon juice, I may be ruining my tee-shirt right now, but I’ll try it, oh and it’s much stronger.
Jenny (post refreshing and examining think-aloud): Hi I’m Jenny and I’m doing the follow up think-aloud. Anyway, so I left it overnight ‘cause I left it too late yesterday, the lemon side dried but the spray side – I went a little bit crazy with the spray, so I wasn’t able to do the full follow up test last night, so this has been 10 hours between. So I’m now going to smell each arm pit, one was the spray and one was the direct lemon, so firstly I’ll smell the diluted lemon side, it smells pretty good, it does smell a bit like lemon which is a bit weird but it doesn’t smell like my rank underarm smell which is good. And then I’m going the direct lemon side, that’s not as clean smelling as the other side but that could be I was really liberal with the diluted lemon and not so much with the half lemon cause I thought it might discolour the shirt which it didn’t do to either side so I wouldn’t mind using either again, but at this stage the clear winner looks like the lemon diluted, which Steve, my partner didn’t realise was lemon dilatant and picked it up from the table and sprayed my face with it, so wasn’t that fun. So if I was to go ahead and use this again, which I’m likely to, I’d get a special bottle that I mark lemon spray. So I’m pretty happy with the spray as it’s masked the BO, I can still smell me but it doesn’t smell like BO, so I can still smell my odour if that makes sense. So the diluted spray at this point in time is the winner.
Interview
Holly: What happened after the film, how is your experience and relationship with your clothes?
Kat: Ant [Kat’s husband] was more affected than me. I started airing my dresses after work ‘cause its winter, you don’t smell [Jenny agrees] … It’s more difficult in summer.
Jenny: I realised there were other ways to wash my clothes, I kind of did the airing one, but I always wash and warp the dress or they are ridiculously difficult to wash. It’s just so easy not too.
Kat: Washing is a pain in the arse, it [not washing] saves time.
Jenny: I don’t leave things on my floor anymore I just hang them straight up.
Holly: Do you put things in the washing basket?
186
Jenny: Not any more, I used to, since I worked out its ok for me not to wash my clothes every time [laughing].
Holly: What about fit? Do you wash to make them fit.
Jenny: No the bigger they are the smaller I look.
Holly: Experience with lemon, could you integrate that into your routine.
Jenny: Definitely, my fav top, warped out of shape first wash. I refuse to wash it ‘cause it pulled it out of shape … I’ll use it on things that will warp out of shape with a wash, delicates. So yeah, lemon spray. Put it on a hanger then on the back of a door … Although I don’t know if lemon juice would be the answer to white stuff.
Kat: But then you’d use the spot stick.
Holly: Would a spot clean feel like more work?
Kat: Yeah more work.
Holly (to Kat): How have these findings influenced you?
Kat: I don’t know about the chemicals in the spray to get rid of make-up stains ... ‘cause that’s what you need to remove makeup. Especially with dresses and things like that, I air my clothes after work now, instead of washing. It’s only when I notice a stain that I wash them. I tend to wash tops a lot more, I sweat a lot more in those when I walk home and I have this fear of stinking … but if I smell it and it’s not bad I’ll pop it back in [the wardrobe].
Holly: Mum’s friend is confident in her ability to smell BO. I can relate to the fear of smelling, I did trials on my gym clothes of all things! I might as well have done it on my undies. [All laugh] But my confidence in my skills grew, and after a while I became more efficient in my assessment abilities.
Kat: I wash a gym shirt, but I won’t wash a sports bra? What is that about? … I think that’s about necessity ‘cause I only have two. Think – has it been washed, do I have time and if I don’t have time to wash it I think ‘fuck it’.
Jenny: My biggest fear is not the top, I don’t mind that smelling a bit skanky I don’t care. I am actually ok with my gym tops I don’t care if they smell a bit, it’s the bottoms for me. The crutch smell, I’ve got the biggest fear of people smelling that ... if the pants smell I’ll wash. I’ll still get 3 wears out of it.
Holly: It’s availability, like sports bra.
187 Kat: I wear pyjamas every night and you sweat just as much and I’ll wear them for a week … It’s complete double standards … I’ll wear for a week and not wash…. It’s about when you feel like you’re clean and what you’re doing is clean and when it’s not… I equate outside in the world as accumulating dirt [and smells says Jenny] … I sit all day in an air conditioned office … I walked home yesterday and felt a little bit stinky but I wasn’t really? But I felt stinky, my clothes then smelt like me but it wasn’t bad BO, it smelt like me, it smelt like it had been worn but it wasn’t offensive that’s the difference and that’s the big difference.
Holly: Jenny, you were proactive when doing your refreshing technique and Googled it to find the diluted lemon spray.
Jenny: It’s good ‘cause it spreads more.
Kat: Maybe because you wet a bigger area so it felt cleaner.
Holly: Sometimes we need the ritual.
Jenny: The thing with the lemon is you can just keep the spray bottle and it’ll keep well, whereas cutting a lemon every time and you would throw it out – ‘cause you couldn’t keep it for food ‘cause you just rubbed it on your armpit.
Kat: I had a makeup incident and I washed it with soap near my chest, then I was about to go out, and it wasn’t that hard.
Holly: Kat, you said ‘I need to wash less’ after The Sniff Test, have you washed less?
Kat: Ant and I … every time Ant and I went out and didn’t shower before bed I would have to cleanse the area after. I don’t know if that’s a weird Catholic thing but it was like a ceremony … new day we are not drunk. Now I hold off, I still wash once a week. But before I would wash a few times a week and it wasn’t smell it was the ritual of it. Usually it’s the air that smells not the bed so now I open the windows and leave them open all day, whereas in winter it’s harder.
Jenny: We don’t do sheets very often. Once every month or 6 weeks.
Kat: I think that’s where my ritual came from, learned from chores when I was a child, that was my job. Once a week.
Holly: Standards change all the time.
Kat: In Singapore ‘cause it was $5 to wash undies we would just rinse them in the bath or shower and wear them the next day. But I would never do that here and I don’t know why.
188 Kat: … since I watched your video, I did start to think about the shit they put in our products and how are the different costs justified? Face wash $50, detergent $10, shampoo $5 … It’s ‘womarketing’! [this is reference to marketing to women].
189
Polly
Summary
Polly hung her husband’s BO smelling shirt (that had no visible stains that needed removing) inside out on the washing line overnight (inside out so the armpits were exposed to air). She collected item off the ground, did the sniff test and decided it needed refreshing.
The next morning Polly checked the garment and it smelled fresher than the day before but there was ‘still some remnants of BO’ so she left it and planned to examine the garment in the afternoon.
In the afternoon Polly went back to the shirt, however her ‘husband had taken it off the line, thinking it was clean, and wore it to work’ (Polly phone convo).
Polly (refreshing think-aloud recording): Okay, so I’ve decided to clean our room and do the dirty washing, doing the usual thing and picking stuff up and doing the sniff test to see if they smell. OK this is Michael’s shirt, it has a bit of a smell of BO so I might give it an air out before I decide to wash it, OK I’m just walking outside, I’m just going to hang it out for a day, actually overnight ‘cause apart from the smell it has nothing wrong with it, it’s not dirty or anything. I’ll just hang this up now, just putting it inside out so the armpits are outside. So that’s done now and I’ll leave it overnight, come back tomorrow and see if it actually needs to go in the washing machine.
Polly (post refreshing and examining think-aloud): Okay, so I’ve come back to see if the shirt I hung out last night and after a little smell, it definitely smells better than what it did but it still has a little bit of the BO smell, so I’m just going to leave it till late this afternoon and just see what the results are then.
Polly (post refreshing and examining think-aloud): So I went to get the shirt but Michael had already taken it and re-worn it as he thought it had already been washed so that’s a good result.
Interview
Holly: Why did you pick that refreshing method?
190 Polly: I air my stuff, not Michael’s [husband] ‘cause his clothes smell like BO so I chuck ‘em straight in the wash, but after participating in this project I thought I’d give that one a go and it worked.
Holly: Did that one feel more familiar so you did it?
Polly: Yeah it was kind of like what I do already – only taking it outside. And it’s easy.
Holly: You referred to picking up Michael’s top from the ground and doing the sniff test. Have you used that term before?
Polly: No, because I never talk about my washing process. But after watching your film and then needing to describe the process I used that term.
Holly: Since watching The Sniff Test have you tried any eco-refreshing methods before this experiment?
Polly: No, I do the sniff test thing but only with my clothes and Michael’s shirts ‘cause I thought if they stink I give them a wash. But shorts I smell and use again ... and jeans, I never wear jeans [laugh].
Holly: Do you think you wash your clothes less?
Polly: Yeah probably ‘cause you made me think about it a lot more.
Holly: But as you say you were kind of doing it anyway?
Polly: Yeah I was kinda’ doing it but I probably think about it a bit more now.
Holly: Other than airing your own clothes to prolong a conventional wash, is there anything else you do to cheat a wash?
Polly: Um, no that’s about all I do. I’m a bit slack, if my jeans have got a mark I just wear them … the amount of times I wear my black jeans with marks from my son ‘cause I think, I’ve got a kid so they are going to know why they’re marked. If anyone notices they’ll just think it happened then, they won’t know it’s been there for a week.
Today society makes people care about stuff like that – but I don’t care. I still enjoy fashion and enjoy clothes but I think people take it too far, who cares if there’s a mark on your jeans.
Note to Holly: I share a story about my top that has had chewing gum on it for years but I still wear it.
191
Tracey
Summary
Tracey hung her pyjama pants (worn for three days), her son’s pyjama pants (worn for one night) and her bath towel which smelt a bit musty from being wet. She would have washed them all but tried airing them in the sun.
Five hours later Tracey got the garments off the line, the pyjamas smelt fine and will be worn again and the towel also smells fine, however Tracey said it was a little stiff but she will still use it tonight and see how it goes.
Tracey’s (refreshing think-aloud recording): Okay, I’ve hung out 3 items this morning, Phillip’s pyjama pants which I would have normally washed, they don’t smell too bad, my pyjamas which I’ve worn for 3 nights and would normally chuck in the wash, they don’t smell too bad and a towel, I would have normally thrown these towels in the wash today but they smell just a little bit musty and damp from being used, we’ll see how it goes.
Tracey (post refreshing and examining think-aloud) - Five hours after hanging out the garments, the pyjama shorts smell fine, the pyjamas smell fine, the towel is a bit stiff and scratchy but that’s fine, we’ll use it tonight and see how it goes.
Interview
Holly: How did you go wearing your pj’s and using the towel the next day?
Tracey: It worked but the towel didn’t last the next 3 days (which it would’ve if I had washed it), it got a bit stinky but I wore my pjs for another 2 nights. Phil changed his pj’s the following day, but he does that regardless.
Holly: Why did you pick the sun & air refreshing method?
Tracey: ‘Cause it was the easiest – I had no lemons [laughs]. And you can’t put lemon juice all over the nightie – it’s not practical.
Holly: Before watching The Sniff Test had you tried any eco-refreshing methods or ways to delay a conventional wash?
Tracey: No.
Holly: Have you tried any since or integrated them into your routine?
192 Tracey: Nope … Oh wait yes sort of. The other day I only wore something for a few hours and instead of chucking it in the wash (which I would normally do) I put it back on the rack.
Holly: Was that a one off?
Tracey: It was the first time I’ve done it.
Holly: Do you think you would do it again?
Tracey: Yeah, probably.
Holly: Is there anything else you have done to cheat a wash?
Tracey: Yeah, I’ve chucked an item in the dryer if I didn’t have time to wash it.
Holly: And what do you like about it when it comes out of the dryer?
Tracey: It smells fresh I suppose. And wrinkle free! That’s how I do my ironing. LOL.
Holly: How did it feel putting something on the line rather than wash and then washing?
Tracey: It didn’t really feel weird or anything. I guess it felt a bit weird putting something dry on the line, but I didn’t feel weird about putting it on.
Holly: Are you confident in your assessment of clothes to decipher if you can get another wear out of them? In other words, do you worry that you think the item smells ok but others will smell BO or something?
Tracey: Nope I’ve got a pretty good sense of smell. Sometimes I smell something on myself that others can’t.
193