ethical shopping -- part two: shoes of tomorrow

{read the first installment of ethical shopping about exotic anthropologie advertising here}

My thoughts about TOMS shoes have gone back and forth A LOT since I first learned about them.

www.toms.com

In a nutshell, for every pairs of TOMS shoes you buy, the company provides a pair to a child in need. They wrap it up neatly in this little summary:

"One for one" being, in my mind, the operative statement. You get to give, and get, all in one. It would seem like an easy system to support, especially from me, someone who both loves shoes and is actively trying to think about ethical consumption on our tiny planet.

And yet, something about it feels like it requires a little more investigation.

I used to think TOMS were ugly, I think. But I don't anymore -- I actually think they are super cute! (Does this happen to anyone else with trends? After you see jumpsuits, ankle boots, over-sized reading glasses, etc. enough times, you start to think they look good, despite how ridiculous a first impression they may have made? Anyway, trends are an ethical issue for another day.)

Nordstrom

In the meantime, about TOMS, I wonder what does it mean to buy products that do your giving for you?

On the one hand, if you are going to buy shoes anyway, why not buy from a company that tries to be at least somewhat socially conscious? On the other hand, though, some evidence shows that we are less likely to give to charity if we have purchased products like this, that give a small percentage to a charity.

I'm not anti-TOMS. Some critics of the company are upset about religion, and some are upset about the efficiency of TOMS' strategy, arguing that it would make more sense to employ people in need long-term than to have shoes cheaply made in China and distributed to children who may outgrow them soon. I get these criticisms, and the latter one I think has a lot of merit, but this isn't exactly what I find unsettling.

I think it's more about me than about TOMS.
How eager am I to try to buy my way out of worrying about the poor? 

However, if supporting TOMS is just one way that a person engages, and the company itself is raising awareness about poverty (and shoelessness) even through trendiness, that doesn't really seem so bad. Of course, some people would argue that it is capitalism itself that generates poverty (even requires it) so a company designed to make a profit will always be part of the problem, not the solution. Are there some differences, though, between companies like Kate Spade or Shabby Apple, who develop partnerships with specific organizations/causes that function independently to support women in need, and companies like the Gap (with its project red campaign) and TOMS? Or is it all the same -- marketing. ;-)

Basically, I think I come down on an anything-helps, I-think-they're-cute-now, pro-TOMS side, but would hope that all of us who buy things like this (and I do!) recognize that we are participating in another kind of social economy where the status symbols we are seeking come from a certain imagining of "doing good." And purchasing that kind of reassurance has to be a beginning, not an ending, for our social engagement. But that's just my reading of it (with the knowledge that I am particularly susceptible to this kind of consumption-as-service) and I would love to know what other people think. 

{Here is a collection of other resources for critical thinking about TOMS, if you are interested.}

In the end, I still suspect that a small closet of clothes you can wear every which way and shoes that last a long time may be the best way to free up resources to share, but you know, simplicity is a process...every once in awhile you find yourself buying a sequin mini-skirt...but more on that tomorrow! ;-)