Climbing Toward Consumption?

This morning my gent pointed out a newly arrived Patagonia catalog lying on his kitchen table. Patagonia decided to use old photos of rock climbers from 1970s California throughout the catalog to give it a sort of nostalgic feel. The photos are quite striking and taken from a new Patagonia book The Stone Masters: California Rock Climbers in the Seventies.

Interestingly, what I found even more striking about the catalog was that the climbers photographed do not appear to be wearing any type of special climbing clothing. Sure, they've got climbing boots on, but the shirts, tank tops and pants appear to be cotton. Maybe a cotton/poly blend for some of them. No climber, male or female, is wearing any cloth that looks like it was created by scientists. None of it would feature a descriptor of "dri fit", "nano", "technical", "wicking performance" or "appropriate for high-output activities". Instead, the 70s climbers look like they one day decided to bid suburbia adios while wearing jeans, a Hanes t-shirt and an old flannel, and hit the road carrying a knapsack containing a sandwich and an extra pair of tighty whiteys. I find it interesting that when reading the bios of the climbers, they never mention how any sort of specialized clothing made a difference in their ability to conquer new routes. What's ironic is that a lot of them speak about being broke! I doubt any of them could have bought the $75 rock climbing t-shirts and shorts that Patagonia advertises in the catalog. If anything, seeing how these climbers operated just a few decades ago made me even less interested in acquiring more specialized gear. They were focused on becoming stronger and smarter climbers. I wonder what it is that makes people think they need certain items to be good at anything? Even if you've got the best gear, at some point you've got to prove that you know what you're doing. Your $150 hoodie isn't going to be able to coach you around that crack.

In general, I find most clothing highly amusing. What people decide to wear is very telling, especially when they wear a certain brand, or have a logo or message on their clothing or accessories. Toward the back of the Patagonia catalog was a $25 baseball cap featuring the words "Live Simply" and an embroidered acoustic guitar. I found this to be hilarious! Call me a doubter, but I don't envision anyone who is committed to simple living spending over two bucks, let alone twenty, to purchase a new baseball cap that advertises their simple living philosophies. But perhaps I am putting too much stock into the hats. Maybe Patagonia thinks that just getting the message out there will inspire people. Will anyone see that message and think, "oh man, I really need to start living simply. That's it. I'm getting rid of my cars, replacing my lawn with native plants and giving up foods that came from more than 100 miles away"? I honestly don't know.

For a large company, Patagonia does some pretty cool things so I don't really want to bash it. I've got some toasty warm Patagonia long underwear that I bought three years ago and will probably have for the rest of my life. It's a company that has a strong history with rock climbing, and a solid mission of environmental protection which is put into practice through their efforts to use recycled fibers and also allow customers to recycle their products back to them. In the late 1990s they moved to use only organic cotton in their products. Their belief in Corporate Social Responsibility also sets them apart and is a good model to be used by other corporations. However, can any corporation really be considered "responsible" if they are driven by the desire to get people to consume their products? Is the true nature of business (to make a profit) compatible with respect for the environment and human kind, things that I deem necessary to show responsibility? Maybe? Is it different for companies that create food for consumption instead of non-edible goods? I need to do some more thinking!