By: Sia N. Paulsen 

Department of History, University of Texas at San Antonio 

The naked truth: flaxseed and cotton have tried to hide all our ugly scars. Behind sheets of woven bliss, organic materials have been exchanged for faster, plastic materials. Now, factory systems are under a new name, a new social game, and a push for economic gain. The expansion of easily accessible crops has always created slave labor. Though in a different name and time, the rise of “fast fashion” has created economic and adverse environmental disasters in the factory system. The early connotation of slavery ended the cotton trade, yet connotations with synthetic materials and slave wages are not investigated. Synthetic materials such as nylon and polyester have taken shape in the fashion industry under the guise of recycled material, yet billions of tons of clothing are dispersed into landfills. Workers’ rights in East Asia with the decline of cotton and flax materials in clothing, companies have opted for cheaper, synthetic materials, causing pollution and the violation of women workers’ rights in East Asian countries. The rise and fall of cotton and flax have directly led to environmental degradation synthetic materials and created increased slave labor jobs for Asian women in the fast fashion industry. 

Flax is one of the oldest natural worn materials, pulling the threads of early material. Flax is the sheep of the plant world: flax seeds are edible, and the stalks are weaved to create textiles. Originating in Georgia in the Fertile Cresent, flax was woven into linens. It thrived in the temperate climate and continued to produce. The need for baskets, linens, seeds, and oil production sustained flax’s existence Trade into Egypt, then Flanders spread flax into further fields. Flax was cultivated in the Middle East and North Africa and even in the Pacific. New Zealand has a variety of flax used for clothing and basket weaving. Flax takes around 90-110 days to bloom fully. The three months that flax allowed for an abundance of materials. Since flax was primarily utilized in early history, basic clothing was weaved and stitched together. Even though it was a hot commodity, cheap cotton replaced flax for large-scale production. 

Cotton also originated near the fertile crescent. Cotton’s history has led it to find itself on the back burner of resources used. Though at its peak during the 19th century, the dark connotation associated with it made it less desirable. Without slave labor to continue its need, there was a turn to other fabrics. Tying cotton to slavery, England looked at American cotton in disgust, since it was connected to blood money. England imported cotton and flax products from the Middle East and Asia, as their practices were less demonic. Even though cotton is environmentally friendly, especially when imported from a closer nation, the cotton trade became even more volatile, and even shocked the global economy with significant price drops. 

Cotton is one of the most natural substances. Being made up of 99% cellulose, cotton is an easy material to break down.¹ Cotton also has five layers to protect itself, making the cellulose structure makes it durable and soft. Flax, too, is a natural cellulose structure, yet hardier. Not only can flax stems be made into linen, but it is also used for weaving baskets. Growing it and then manufacturing the cotton into fabric is the most environmentally challenging it gets. Cotton takes roughly 160 days to produce its fibers. Though it was sought after more, there were challenges with pests and its history.  

European industrialization facilitated innovations with its accessibility and transferability of items. The Industrial Revolution, as a spatial process, spread by diffusion from England eastward. This inspired the Scientific Revolution, which contributed to urbanization, steel mills, imported technology, and skilled workers. Because the demand for more tertiary items was high, the only skilled laborers were men, as they had the education to back up their experience. Experience and education pushed them forward in the job market, allowing them to increase pay and mobilizing them up the corporate ladder. Though this was for more heavy material and machinery, the bias for more skilled workers left a dip in the production system. Men left lower-skilled factory jobs to attain the skills needed for more industrial jobs. With smaller hands, women and children came to fill the empty positions in the textile factories. 

The European Industrial Revolution simplified production, mass-producing goods, pollution, and starvation wages. Coal-powered factories loomed with excitement for corporate stakeholders. More production meant more revenue, which was not shared with the most vulnerable of populations: women and children. Women who had to work the factory systems automatically meant they were poor. Men were the breadwinners of society. They enjoyed higher wages and more socio-economic advances. Women were to say at home as there were fewer opportunities to make a life for themselves. Women were vulnerable to wage work and still had a home to take care for. Working over 10 hours a day, women would walk out with little to their name. Employing their children to help, families could pay to survive on living costs but could not enjoy a proper livelihood. Women and children were used and overworked in poor conditions in such factories as they were viewed as lesser, unskilled laborers.  

In 1833, England proposed the Factory act that barred children younger than nine from being unemployed by the factories and set a limit on how many hours 9-13-year-olds would work.² Like most laws of the time, various loopholes were taken in place. Loopholes further exploited the worker solely for the benefit of the industry. Since the Industrial Revolution in England became the spotlight for other factory systems, the increase in the exportation of goods made it imperative for factory managers to keep employing cheap laborers. The Factory Act of 1833 was one of the first labor laws aimed at cutting loopholes out, yet had to be amended and expanded upon. 

As the Industrial Revolution became the new norm, another Factory Act in 1878 prohibited children under 10 years old from working in factories or in any trade. The act also made education mandatory until the age of 10, then 12 years of age, making sure the children knew the fundamentals of reading and writing. In the late 19th century, this change projected Britain forward, bringing up its literacy rates, creating a more humane factory system, and protecting children’s futures. Poverty rates continued to rise as there were fewer hands to help feed the families; however, children going to school learned more tertiary skills to find better jobs, letting them escape cyclical, generational poverty. Weaving their futures in the past, the fabric of society was sturdy yet would start to tether at its ends. 

England’s industrial revolution sparked contemporary economic globalization going into the 20th century. The increasing interconnectedness of economic, environmental, and cultural change standardized the production of goods. The homogenization of consumer markets has influenced labor mobility, contributing to immigration and the appearance of transnational corporations. Though flexible production of niche products, such as textiles, has allowed for disorganized capitalism, meaning there are fewer restrictions on environmental limitations and labor laws. 

Textiles and fabric are slowly moving into more industrial materials. Synthetic materials such as polyester were created to be more durable in the 1970s. The chemical bonding of both acid (benzene-1, 4-dicarboxylic acid) and alcohol (ethane-1, 2-diol) creates an almost indestructible double bond.³ Since this is not a naturally occurring substance, double bonds take more energy to break and break down. Environmentally speaking, this leads to the long-term breakdown of synthetic materials if it ever does. To make polyester, tons of water and fossil fuels are manufactured. Durable material is material that can last long in any condition. Synthetic materials are durable, however, are not adequate for decomposing. Landfills now contain 6% textile material that is not biodegradable.⁴ 

When comparing the molecular structures of polyester, cotton, and flax, it is evident that more natural fibers should be used; however, it is more expensive to have natural resources in everyday items. Why was there such a significant shift from natural fibers to synthetic ones? Synthetic materials can be mass-produced on demand. Factory systems have made it easier to create and distribute goods. Virtually indestructible, polymer-based products are effective, reusable products. Due to their nature, plastic products are cheap to produce and are less volatile in their production (when compared to cotton and flax and their susceptibility to droughts and or pests). Plastics are made on demand, serving a multitude of purposes. Flexibility in connotation, design, and polymer-based materials are a treat for factory systems. Factory systems have an option, more so than natural materials, to hire cheaper labor. With polymer-based materials, only need a few steps to make it, coupled with an expansive workforce.  

There are similar patterns from Europe’s Industrial Revolution to today’s globalization. Linguistic use of “durable material” and “synthetic material” have been used interchangeably, which they should not. Durable materials like cotton and flax can sustain the wear and tear of everyday life. Used for thousands of years, these materials have been through it all. Now, plastics will be through it all, outliving us by those thousands of years after us. Humans have always viewed the living as something to dominate, while nonliving objects are respected, multiplied, and used in more ways than intended.⁵ 

Every year, 32 billion pounds of fabric end up in our landfills. 95% of this can be recycled into other clothes, given to Goodwill, or even up-cycled. An astounding 88% of the material in clothing is now plastic, making it less breathable and less likely to break down in landfills.⁶ These landfills are rapidly expanding, creating havoc in the oceans. Though companies have promised to create more environmentally friendly conditions in their factories, their products say otherwise. Less than 10% of the fabric is made from recycled material; these companies are creating synthetic materials for cheaper products. Fast fashion is “inexpensive clothing produced rapidly by mass-market retailers in response to the latest trends”. This fashion style was trending even more during the COVID-19 Pandemic, as these outlets were advertised on social media like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and Facebook. Predominantly on TikTok and Instagram, “reels” (miniature videos) were created to show clothing hauls, where people would order over ten articles of clothing and show their followers what they were purchasing. When unboxing the haul, each article of clothing is caked in “SHEIN” plastic.  

Society has influenced the environment through its consumer spending.  Zara and Shein are two of the most marketed companies on the internet. Zara’s market strategy is to promote fast fashion by creating a finite product availability. Because of this, consumers are flocking to their stores and fast fashion. Like all trends, they become old and outdated. When the trends are over, people throw them away if they do not donate them. Consumer spending strategies target younger audiences with more disposable income. The clothes from Zara and Shein are cheap and competitive. Fast fashion has made clothing more affordable, increasing wardrobe size, and representing the fast-paced lifestyle of today. Options for clothing and the ease of online shipping have made clothing a globalized commodity. 

Recycling plastic is too much for these companies such as H&M, Shein, Zara, and Uniqlo, yet the environmental cost is even greater. Fabrics that are breaking down are leaving microplastic in the oceans. At this rate, there are more microplastics in the ocean than stars in the galaxy. A sad truth that is far beyond repair. Because synthetic materials are treated the same as regular fabrics, the same mentality applies to them when sewn into clothes. Plastics have been used in hooded sweaters and shoes, both of which are centered around the places where sweat persists the most. Not only does this polymer-based plastic trap in sweat, but they are also part of a broader consumer range. Since plastic is readily made and easily accessible, it is cheaper to mass-produce or even “recycle” it into something new. The guise of fast fashion is that it is economically sound. Cheaper products for consumers mean the companies provide the bare minimum to their workers and product output. 12% of any modern garment now is cotton or flax-based.⁷ The wear and tear of pure cotton clothing should be an attractive option for companies since consumers would have to replace their garments frequently. However, companies are looking for faster outputs, and waiting three months or five months for the natural fibers to grow is too unstable. Natural material has too many negatives attached to it. Drought, disease, and pests are the big deterrents large companies such as Shein see. Volatility with natural materials slows production, or even makes the fashion industry vulnerable. Cotton and flax are not vulnerabilities, though. Women are the only ones who are vulnerable in the fast fashion industry. 

The aforementioned fast fashion brands are in East Asia. Not only is there fast fashion but a faster output of products. Another website, Ali Baba, allows consumers to buy in bulk and resell on Amazon Turk, marking up over 1,000% of the original value. But how are sellers able to buy these products for so little? Ali Baba employs their workers under inhumane conditions in the same line as fast fashion. China is fourth in the world for flaxseed production, and Russia is the second, only to Kazakhstan. With the amount of flaxseed produced in the Eurasian/ Asian region of the world, there is plenty to choose from. However, China takes most of the percentage of pollution. Since synthetic materials are the easiest to produce, the product is more accessible and cheaper for export to other countries. Using the typical factory model, keeping prices low means creating an abundance of products and lowering all workers’ wages. With that, the people (mostly women and children) working in these factories are suffering in the same capacity as those in Industrial Revolution England and with worse conditions. Since there have been numerous international laws preventing such strenuous working conditions, the ethical breakdown of keeping modern-day slavery makes the conditions worse than before.  

Women working in the Asian factory systems are subject to working 60 to 70 hours a week. This is almost double what other countries work for their factory workers. Even when searching “women in factories in India”, the first searches are of women in hard hats, safety gear, and a smile, not those who are forced to work all day to make a living. The average wage these women make is two to six cents a garment. Garments consist of obtaining the fabric, cutting the desired lengths, following a template, adding buttons, rethreading, and cleaning as you go. This alone can be a lengthy process, but these slave wages are engineered to make the women work faster and harder to create these garments. On average, these factory workers earn $15,600 USD a year.⁸ Countries such as Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Thailand⁹, are prime candidates for outsourcing cheap labor. Economically speaking, these countries are not as industrialized as the rest of the world. The socio-economic conditions associated with these countries make women dependent on hostile working conditions. Corporations are looking for cheaper output, and placing East Asian and Asia Minor women makes it more palatable to pressure them into unsafe, inhumane working conditions. Contrastingly, in the United States, there is a push to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and lessen plastic usage. Yet consumer purchasing actions do not mimic what is preached.  Inequality of income is the immediate impact of outsourcing labor. Working conditions inside the transnational corporations violate basic human rights; no healthcare, living on less than $3 a day, and 12+ hours of work. Benjamin Barber effectively argues, “Eat fast and serve the business world’s god of efficiency. “¹⁰ In his monograph Jihad Vs. McWorld shows how the globalization of American/ Western companies has driven the immediacy of food, goods, media, life. The corporate structure is more focused on money than it is on the well-being of its employees. From this corporate structure, we see the influence of international advertising. Companies are brainwashing customers for a consumptive splurge, an instantaneous reaction to a new instantaneous society. Fast fashion exemplifies how globalization encroaches on more than social media; it desecrates every place it touches. 

Competition in the industry is healthy to promote innovation that excites, yet it breeds the prioritization of products over people. Jeremy Zallen recounts in his 2019 monograph American Lucifers: The Dark History of Artificial Light that some people working in the American garment system in 1858 made 4 to 12 cents a garment.¹¹ Zallen continues to say that “these were starvation wages, but their families desperately needed the money.”¹² Looking at Zallen’s analysis that 4-12 cents a garment were “starvation wages”, women making 2-6 cents a garment are barely surviving. England’s bill, which passed in 1868, ten years after the garment system was fully implemented in America, explains more on how garment workers were exploited.  

The 2006 Labor Acts in Bangladesh limited the number of hours women could work during the day. The working hours are only from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., everything after that is the woman’s choice.¹³ Daily working hours should be 8 hours, but workers can work, on average, for 56 hours a week. This labor code, under section 108 seems reasonable. Everything is under the “woman worker’s consent”, making this seem as this is the woman’s choice to work longer hours. However, this law is a loophole to globalization. Though this law does not investigate female wages, it dismisses the reason that women are working long hours: there is no money in their domain. The though behind working outside the home as a woman, single or married, is to provide for herself and or her family. Typically, if the woman is working outside of the home, there is a huge financial burden she is supplementing. East Asian news sources do not have any of these groundbreaking stories, it is almost all located in the European news. Concealing the truth about outsourcing markets to Asian and Eastern European countries allow for stricter conditions, increasing output and decreasing wages. Of course, East Asian countries would shun their inadequacies in the workplace. Seeing that Bangladesh has started to implement labor laws within the past 16 years, shows not just the pervasiveness of western industrialization, but the lack of support for women.  

Though companies are the ones in charge, there are steps taken by everyday people. Parallels between 19th-century work and modern, 21st-century work are astounding. Women who were sewing had “a fair chance of being defrauded”¹⁴. This 1857 New York Times article shows the factory progression that England was thinking of in their factory laws, yet they are still not an international standard. Because only national laws exist for these factory workers, it creates a loophole that more giant corporations are perpetually exploiting. Even if it were a British or American brand, they could still produce items for slave wages. This appalling practice is not illegal in China, Bangladesh, or even Taiwan, yet this still begs how moral the practice of fast fashion or even the forgoing of cotton/ flax is. There are questions about environmental sustainability, seeing that the second largest contributor to landfill waste is clothing. 

Continuing the parallel, there is still a vulnerability women have in the workforce. Even today, the Eastern Hemisphere looks down on its women. Even though there have been great strides in the global women’s suffrage movements, bodily autonomy, and extensive labor laws for equal pay, this does not create a global standard. This standard, instead, is still hosted in Western ideology. To forcibly impose these practices onto another country would not be legal but would be moral. Legislature has since evolved for a more unified standard of practice in the factory systems for environmental sustainability as “it is a global world” however, should these women not have a higher priority than plastic? Through these practices, lawmakers are treating corporations with economic incentives. Eastern ideology shows that women are still vulnerable. Like in England, East Asian women go outside of the home to support their families. They are put in a position where they must work. Again, employers know this vulnerability and will do their best to retain a worker and as much profit as possible. 

Now, the environment has bounced back to influence society. There are movements now that are pushing for more cotton and flax products. This is to bring back softer, more sensitive materials. There was a stark jump from 2000 to 2010 in cotton production, as the call for more sustainable products was the initial cause of this. Instead of producing five million bales of cotton, a whopping 40 million bales of cotton were produced annually after 10 years. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, farming practices have been shut down to ensure worker safety. Now in 2022, there a gentle rise back to producing 35 million bales of cotton.¹⁵ Shifting from the 1970s approach for polyester outfits to more clean, simple materials, cotton is on center stage again. Flax production has been rampant in Russia and China, as they have the land and means for production. But these environmental changes are more than just a comfortable look. People are willing to spend money on more environmentally friendly labels. All in the marketing,  

So far, England and the European Union are cracking down on fast fashion. “The Commission seeks to put a halt on fast fashion by introducing rules on textiles to be used in the European market,” says Ioana Popescu of the Environmental Coalition on Standards.¹⁶ Popescu is taking an environmental approach to fast fashion’s impact on global landfills. Globalization is more of a one-sided effort, taking advantage of other countries’ resources of monetary and political gain. Transnational corporations, through globalization, have forced a monoculture on society through their corporate structure, advertising, homogenous mindset, and forced migration. Globalization is not the perfect idea for increasing interconnectivity and integration. This “interconnectivity” is a trend of the core, not the peripheral. Core countries such as China, the United States, and England political, social, and economic unification. Peripheral countries, such as those found at the bottom of the “flying geese” model of Aisa, bear the brunt of the forced unification. Smaller parts of the world are exploited in other countries to benefit the core. Implementing more cotton and flax into the ecosystem promotes more economically sound clothing in cost and environmental breakdown. With England voicing concerns about the environmental degradation caused by fast fashion, having its positive correlation with humanitarian rights is a win for all involved in this immoral industry. 

This environmental approach to fast fashion from simple crops such as flax and cotton has deep roots in history. No matter the industrialization period, there is a cyclical approach to environmental destruction and inequality shown in the factories. Throughout this history, there is a shift between the environment affecting how people’s actions (cultivation of cash crops), how people have affected the environment (pollution), and back to the environment affecting the morality of a person’s choice. The rise and fall of cotton and flax have played with the global economy. It is now not out of fashion to wear a hand-me-down, nor is it out of fashion to be cautious of a silent boycott. Putting our money where our mouth is, and purchasing items with a more sustainable fabric creates a new, sustainable life. Advocacy pages on social media are combatting the fast fashion epidemic. Sustainable websites are taking force now to inform the public of the negative effects of fast fashion on the environment. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Bibliography 

Barber, Benjamin R., 1939-2017. 1996. Jihad Vs. McWorld. New York: Ballantine Books. 

Briggs, Helen. “Fast Fashion: European Union Reveals Fast Fashion Crackdown.” BBC News. BBC, March 30, 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60913226.  

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopedia. “flax.” Encyclopedia Britannica, March 12, 2021. https://www.britannica.com/plant/flax. 

Chowdhury, Anika Mardiah. “Employee’s Rights at Workplace in Bangladesh.” September 2, 2021. https://www.irglobal.com/article/employees-rights-at-workplace-in-bangladesh-2/#:~:text=The%20daily%20working%20hours%20shall,without%20the%20woman%20worker’s%20consent. 

Center for EcoTechnology, CET. “The Monster in Our Closet: Fast Fashion & Textile Waste on the Rise.” Center for EcoTechnology, July 19, 2021. https://www.centerforecotechnology.org/fast-fashion-textile-waste/.  

Curley, Robert. “Linen.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 2022. https://www.britannica.com/technology/linen.  

Demuth, Bathsheba. 2019. Floating coast: an environmental history of the Bering Strait. 

Department of Chemistry, University of York. Polyesters, 2016. https://www.essentialchemicalindustry.org/polymers/polyesters.html.  

Gonzalez, Daisy. “Get Informed.” The Garment Worker Center, 2010. https://garmentworkercenter.org/get-informed/#:~:text=Approximately%2085%25%20of%20garment%20workers,dirty%2C%20and%20poorly%20ventilated%20factories.  

Griffin, Emma. “Child Labour.” British Library, May 15, 2014. https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/child-labour#:~:text=Legislation,nine%20and%2013%20could%20work.  

Kojima,  Kiyoshi. “The “flying geese” model of Asian economic development: origin, theoretical extensions, and regional policy implications”, Journal of Asian Economics, Volume 11, Issue 4,2000, Pages 375-401. 

McCosker, Jaclyn. “The Impact of Fast Fashion on Garment Workers.” Good On You, April 19, 2021. https://goodonyou.eco/impact-fast-fashion-garment-workers/.  

Ray, Mrinmoy. “Figure 2: Cotton Production (million bales)” October 2021. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Time-series-plot-of-cotton-production_fig2_355498811 

Royal Society for Arts. “Fast Fashion’s Plastic Problem – the RSA.” FAST FASHION’S PLASTIC PROBLEM, June 11, 2021. https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/reports/2021/fast-fashions-plastic-problem.pdf.  

“Sewing Women,” NYT, March 27, 1857. 

Virtue, Robert. “World Cotton History.” Cotton Australia, 2022. https://cottonaustralia.com.au/world-cotton-history.  

Yousef, Samy, Maksym Tatariants, Martynas Tichonovas, Zahid Sarwar, Ilona Jonuškienė, and Linas Kliucininkas. “A New Strategy for Using Textile Waste as a Sustainable Source of Recovered Cotton.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Elsevier, March 19, 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344919300941.  

Zallen, Jeremy. American Lucifers: The Dark History of Artificial Light, 1750-1865. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2019. 

 Matar, Rania. (2016). L’Enfant Femme. Damiani Editore. 

Matar, Rania. (2009). Ordinary Lives. Quantuck Lane Press. 

Shafiei, Mehrnoush. (2013). Book Review: A Girl and Her Room. al-raida, 141-142, 79-80 

Toman, Cheryl. (2009). Women, Activism, and the Arts. al-raida, 124, 2-4Williamson, Jenni T. (2006). Rania Matar: A Forgotten Population. Art New England, 27-2, 28