Musings on the homogeneity of Pride, the imagery of Black Panther, and the unreasonableness of wearing freaking suits near the Equator
When I was living abroad, I remember being around for Pride. I was struck both by how beautiful it was to see all that rainbow, but also by a bittersweet question:
what would the imagery of pride have looked like if it had evolved locally, instead of folks around the world all adopting the same aesthetic that had started in San Francisco?
I was reminded of all this again while watching Black Panther and getting to see what clothing and architecture and technology could all look like if they emerged locally and organically.
I loved seeing the kinds of shapes in cities that were created away from the overwhelming influence of rectangular, shiny glass skyscrapers.
It also made me start to wonder all over again why professionals in hot climates need to conform to wearing suits and ties and those polyester socks that smell SO BAD when you take them out of your patent leather shoes at the end of the day?
This isn’t just a question of like sticking it to the colonizers and mourning futures that never happened; this desire to conform to a single aesthetic can have real financial and environmental costs too.
For instance, let’s think about photos of cities with their cookie cutter skyscrapers in all kinds of climates around the world. I love natural sunlight as much as the next person, but it’s not always the best energy-wise. According to an article by the BBC, “Glass lets out and lets in a lot of heat. A vast amount of energy is required for an office full of people to remain cool in the UAE and to stay warm in the snowstorms of Toronto.”
How much energy could we save by using building techniques customized for the local climate instead of defaulting to glass towers that are uninhabitable without artificial temperature control?
(Obviously there may be unbearably hot days—which may become more frequent with climate change—but it just doesn’t seem wise to rely completely on air conditioning instead of incorporating passive cooling options into a design.)
(And maybe if people weren’t forced to wear suit jackets in 100º weather to look “professional” they wouldn’t even need super strong air conditioning in the first place.)
And this isn’t just an issue in countries other than the US. For instance, how much water could we save if we weren’t hell bent on having grassy lawns in desert states (like helllooo California with your droughts and all)?
So why is there one accepted way to appear “modern”? And what does it take to shift those standards to ones that are more reflective of local aesthetics and more sustainable, both financially and environmentally?
I don’t have all the answers, obviously, but here’s one tiny little mind shift I’ve found useful:
How about redefining our mental image of “modern” or “developed”? One thing I noticed in my own thinking is that when I would drive from a city outward into the country, I’d think about it as driving backwards in time.
But that’s really not right.
All different ways of living, even if they involve less electricity or no windows or more sandals, all exist today. It’s all “modern” even if it’s unfamiliar to my “Western” eyes. And maybe by starting there we can start to leave the space open for different ways of existing instead of feeling the pressure to conform to ways of being that could ultimately be harmful to us all.
So, would a world where nations based their “modernization” on local cultures and environmental conditions be cheaper and more sustainable? I think so, but let me know your thoughts @mossmintteal