Subscribe to the BrittonBritton newsletter! | Tell a friend about this page.

Image from our book "Fur" (Stockholm New Publishing 2004), photographed by Peter Farago

Speaking about fur, moral inconsequence and hatred of the classes

Claes Britton | Feb 21, 2008 | 0 comments

When touching the subject of fur, an old favorite topic, I can’t restrain mysel from marvelling once again, in the name of moral philosophical inconsequence, over how the issue of class remains a core driving force in our society, even though we in this country like to pretend that we’ve abolished the phenomenons of classes and class struggle once and for all and altogether.

Fur is indeed one of the most blatant, flamboyant symbols of class superiority, and I’m fully convinced that it’s precisely these two qualities — the class symbolism and the flamboyance — which makes fur such a perpetual object of raging controversy, while drinking milk, eating ice cream or wearing suede shoes and leather belts are acts which rarely evoke such powerful reactions.

Anti-fur activism is something that comes and goes in sprees. We remember the supermodels photographed in the nude by Herb Ritts in the early nineties under the slogan ”I’d rather go naked than wear fur”, all except one of whom have later not only worn fur but been photographed commercially and editorially in it.

After a few years of relative tranquility, aggression has once again caught flame, especially in this country. The poor furrier down the street from our office has had her shop window smashed, bombed with graffiti and gushed with blood repeatedly, and friends wearing fake fur have been attacked in the street.

We homo sapiens took the right in ancient times, without asking, to enslave, humiliate and consume our fellow animals to satisfy our every need, lust and whim. That’s the simple, brutal truth of it. As young journalist, somewhere back in the late eighties, I wrote an extensive literary feature from a Swedish slaughter house in the Sunday issue of Sweden’s leading daily Dagens Nyheter. It was after a full color image on the cover of that same paper of a baby seal being brutally butchered by an evil Norwegian hunter somewhere way up there in the Arctic had caused a nationial outrage, fueled by our dear King, and no other — himself an anxious hunter — which in its turn lead to a bitter feud between our two brother peoples, to some extent lingering to this very day. The pictures from my reportage, which were no less cruel and brutal, but stemming from a nearer and more urgent domestic everyday reality, were radically censored just before publication by editor in chief Christina Jutterström herself, after pressures from the National Farmers´ Association. All color and front page images were simply removed, along with many of the other more powerful black and whites. This drastic move was motivated by Jutterström in a memorable quote: ”If we accept that we shall have meat on our dinner tables, we can’t serve this to our readers for their Sunday breakfast.

I myself am appaled by the barbaric and sadistic ways in which we use our brother beasts, but my flesh is too weak to give up eating meat or loving fur, that utter of fashion fabrics.

In our book Fur (Stockholm New Publishing 2004), I wrote a short piece on fur, class and moral philosophical inconsequence, which I’ve added to my text archive for your benefit and the repulsion of others. Read it and brood!

Speaking about fur, moral inconsequence and hatred of the classes

Comments

Recent blog entries