{"id":3492,"date":"2013-02-12T10:36:53","date_gmt":"2013-02-12T08:36:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.military-history.us\/?p=3492"},"modified":"2013-02-12T18:09:26","modified_gmt":"2013-02-12T16:09:26","slug":"book-review-ethical-chic-by-fran-hawthorne","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.military-history.us\/2013\/02\/book-review-ethical-chic-by-fran-hawthorne\/","title":{"rendered":"Book Review: Ethical Chic by Fran Hawthorne"},"content":{"rendered":"

I picked up\u00c2\u00a0Ethical Chic: The Inside Story of the Companies We Think We Love<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0by Fran Hawthorne at my local library because I figured the book would be good for a laugh. \u00c2\u00a0I was not wrong.<\/strong> \u00c2\u00a0I was also treated to a view inside modern liberalism that I did not expect. \u00c2\u00a0The whole\u00c2\u00a0premise\u00c2\u00a0of the book is an investigation to determine if\u00c2\u00a0some\u00c2\u00a0of the companies most beloved of the American left really live up to the chic, progressive image they project to the world. \u00c2\u00a0The companies profiled are Starbucks<\/a>, American Apparel<\/a>, Tom’s of Maine<\/a>, Trader Joe’s<\/a>, Timberland<\/a>, and Apple<\/a>. \u00c2\u00a0I will also be upfront and admit that I have never bought products from four of these companies, two of which I had never heard of. \u00c2\u00a0I have bought\u00c2\u00a0Timberland\u00c2\u00a0boots and Starbucks coffee before although I am not a regular of either. \u00c2\u00a0I actually buy a different brand of boots nowadays and have decided that I am too\u00c2\u00a0cheap\u00c2\u00a0to pay $6\u00c2\u00a0for\u00c2\u00a0a cup of coffee.<\/p>\n

The book is quite short at 168 pages and is separated into 7 chapters with a notes section but no index. \u00a0 I find the lack of an index disturbing but that is probably the latent academic in me. \u00a0 I found the acknowledgment of author bias in the introduction refreshing as you don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t often see that in books such as this.<\/p>\n

The companies are evaluated based on three criteria with various sub-criteria. \u00a0 They are:<\/p>\n

I. \u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Environmental\/Humane<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Reduce energy use<\/li>\n
  2. Alternative energy<\/li>\n
  3. Reduce waste\/recycle<\/li>\n
  4. No animal cruelty<\/li>\n
  5. Natural\/organics\/no PVC\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s etc<\/li>\n
  6. Local sourcing<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    II. \u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Working conditions<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Unions<\/li>\n
    2. Pay & benefits<\/li>\n
    3. “Best Companies\u00e2\u20ac\u009d lists<\/li>\n
    4. Overseas sweatshops<\/li>\n
    5. Sexual harassment<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      III. \u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Public service<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Product price<\/li>\n
      2. Community and public service<\/li>\n
      3. Customer service<\/li>\n
      4. Public information<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        From the evaluation criteria alone I got a good laugh especially the environmental piece. \u00a0 The most often quoted organization in the book is PETA. \u00a0 I will be honest and admit that to me PETA is a joke, they could be a relevant organization but instead they have decided to go down the route of caricature to the point that I almost deliberately buy products PETA recommends against out of sheer spite. \u00a0 I grew up on a farm, a beef ranch in particular, and thus have no problem with eating meat, using leather, or wearing fur. \u00a0 PETA is the antithesis of all that. \u00a0 The next criteria I got a laugh out of was the constant harping by the author about unions. \u00a0 She presents it as axiomatic that unions are a GOOD thing and we should all be sad that non-union shops exist. \u00a0 Never mind the fact that none of the companies she profiles are union shops or that as she says sadly again and again throughout the book that only 7% of US private-sector workers are unionized.<\/p>\n

        For me the book was a source of nonstop laughs as I read her assertions that such and such company did not recycle\/use solar\/unionize\/give paid volunteer hours\/ ad nauseaum. \u00a0 The author has picked every hobby horse of the American Left and beats these companies up if they don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122yt meet the ideal. \u00a0 She does throw the caveat out there that they have to make money and tends to run down consumers who buy products based on what they afford rather than how subjectively ethical a company is.<\/p>\n

        While I can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t recommend this book as being anything serious I am sure liberals love it. \u00a0 It sticks it to the man and holds these companies feet to the fire of liberal responsibility. \u00a0 However hilarious that is. \u00a0 As readers of my blog probably know, I am not a liberal, far from it. \u00a0 I also highly doubt too many of my readers are liberals either. \u00a0 I just cannot imagine that many liberals would bother to read a site dedicated to military history since war is so anathema to the modern progressive\/liberal set. \u00a0 The analysis did not pretend to be anything but subjective. \u00a0 Therefore I could not take any of them seriously though I can imagine some earnest young, no doubt female, college student in a liberal arts program would find the analysis compelling.<\/p>\n

        I cannot recommend this book as anything but light reading, it was worth a couple of good laughs though. \u00a0 I found the constant harping about unions to be especially hilarious. \u00a0 It sounded like someone complaining about all these newfangled cars on the road because when they were kids a horse-drawn buggy was good enough.<\/p>\n