The Perfect Fit

Creative Work in the Global Shoe Industry

Claudio E. Benzecry

• Verlag: University of Chicago Press
• Jahr: 2022
• ISBN:
  9780226815893
• Thema: Social Sciences
• Thema: Sociology

The Perfect Fit shows us how globalization works through the many people and places involved in making women's shoes. We know a lot about how clothing and shoes are made cheaply, but very little about the process when they are made beautifully. In The Perfect Fit, Claudio E. Benzecry looks at the craft that goes into designing shoes for women in the US market, revealing that this creative process takes place on a global scale. Based on unprecedented behind-the-scenes access, The Perfect Fit offers an ethnographic window into the day-to-day life of designers, fit models, and technicians as they put together samples and prototypes, showing how expert work is a complement to and a necessary condition for factory exploitation.Benzecry looks at the decisions and constraints behind how shoes are designed and developed, from initial inspiration to the mundane work of making sure a size seven stays constant. In doing so, he also fosters an original understanding of how globalization works from the ground up. Drawing on five years of research in New York, China, and Brazil, The Perfect Fit reveals how creative decisions are made, the kinds of expertise involved, and the almost impossible task of keeping the global supply chain humming.

Chapter 1

From Head to Toe

Globalization, Period

“My friend Herb McGinnis was talking.”

This is how Raymond Carver opens his renowned short story “What We Talk about When We Talk about Love.” Carver started many of his critically acclaimed short stories this way: we arrive at a stage that is already set, we must guess who these characters are, what their story is, what is actually going on. This suggestive rhetorical device drops us in the middle of the action, immediately forcing us to ask: what was there before? Is that imagined past the same for everyone?

So I wish to start this book by writing: globalization, period.

This is not a book about the beginning of globalization—when would that be, anyway? In the Mediterranean World of AD 1200? At the dawn of the Mongol Empire in the thirteenth century, or during the Islamic expansion into the Iberian Peninsula? At the European basin in the sixteenth century? During the imperial expansion of the nineteenth century? By the migration explosion before the First World War? Or after the recent transformation of the world of production and communication that has led to many books like this one? Who can possibly say? What we do know is that the stage has been set, the story has already started, and in no way have the players involved been invented anew for the occasion.

The players constitute a large ensemble, one in which there are multiple agents, both human and nonhuman, collaborating to generate the global as a scale, not only by producing it but also working on maintaining it—and even repairing it when necessary.

And though this globalization story is not a linear narrative but one made out of multiple intersecting storylines and characters, it can be told through one particular cultural object, one that has historically served as a signifier for gender and class. This one object embodies a world of mobility, with materials and people circulating in multiple ways; it tells a story of labor markets and how it affects their movements; and it shows what it means to produce “original” objects in a fast-moving industry that relies heavily on copying and altering preexisting objects and ideas. It’s also about the secondary actors behind this object: the infrastructural workers who support the creators’ “heroic” work. This book shows how the creation of a cultural object intertwines capital and its movement, personal careers, the processes of coordination that come from producing a craft at a distance, and complementary and competing types of knowledge. In other words, this is a book on shoes.

This book can also be read as an anatomy of a scale, which reveals all the agents, processes, and forms of labor that craft the global from the bottom up. In that sense, it is most certainly about how a global craft (shoemaking) is developed, but it is also about how the global itself is crafted. Differently put, it is not just about a global craft, but about the craft of the global, its idiosyncrasies and the details of scale-making. What kinds of material and social processes put globalities together? What kinds of cultural and personal commitments?

Our characters here are designers in Manhattan preoccupied by trends, what young women wear on the streets of Brooklyn, the quality of sketches, or by how to best imitate a shoe from an expensive brand; a Brazilian technician in South China pissed off at the designer who doesn’t know the difference between an Italian shoe size 37 and an American size 6; a Taiwanese developer trying to reproduce in cheaper materials the work he has just done for an American brand for their own designs; a Chinese pattern-maker who has to reproduce the measurements given to him for the upper part of a shoe and make it into a paper pattern by hand; or a Chinese fit model who has been trained by an expat technician to best understand how her foot can be used to standardize production for all women’s shoes, anywhere they are sold. What all these people share is a viewpoint in which they know themselves to be complementary to other agents whom they need to coordinate with. And yet, each in his or her corner of the world, they all imagine themselves as “the” key player in developing a shoe, from beginning to end.

Like many scholars before me, I followed one of the dicta of global ethnographies over the last quarter century: to follow the object (Marcus 1995; Clifford 1997). Of course, if we take an infrastructural understanding of what an object is, we need to go beyond the object qua thing, and think also of the knowledges, discourses, forms, templates, tools, and people attached to and stored in them. My threefold strategy was (1) to follow how shoe development for the US market moved from Novo Hamburgo in Brazil to Dongguan in South China; (2) to trace the detailed and widespread knowledge contained in making a shoe; and (3) to follow the careers of the agents who aim to produce an ecology of taste.

Why Shoes?

Studies of globalization have divided themselves rather neatly. For instance, there are a lot of studies about labor regimes. Thanks to them we know a lot about the gendered character of factory production in the third world, the role of managers in surveillance and control, the search for cheap and docile bodies to occupy places in the factory line, the role that gender and racial stereotypes play in the production of those bodies to begin with, the daily work rhythms and routines in such factories, the exploitative character and low pay that explain the cheap cost of clothing in the US, and the variation of the organization of work depending on whether the commodities involved are state-produced or private.1 There are also plenty of studies about the role of screens, forms, templates, and some face-to face-interaction in coordinating the generation of knowledge at a distance, whether studying high-end finance, the production of cars, the creation of video games, the work of engineers, or the support networks of scholars in the physical and social sciences.2

There is, on the one hand, a robust scholarship on commodities with added value, one that mobilizes ideas and concepts from the sociology of knowledge and from social studies of science and technologies. On the other hand, though, there are very few studies that have explored how knowledge is generated in commodities with relatively low value added to them, such as shoes. This conception of shoes as products without much elaboration is not only a scholarly misconception; world agencies such as the United Nations also classify shoes as a low commodity chain, with light manufacture and low wages, considered only above animal products and byproducts. Studying shoe development and design for the export market for mid-tier women’s shoes beyond—or before—the factory is a unique opportunity to show how these two scholarships can be combined to scrutinize knowledge generation in low-value-added commodities. Leather shoes are a particularly fruitful case in which to observe this, as they combine the search for cheap labor throughout the globe with the need for a particular kind of expert knowledge: embodied, tacit, informal, localized.

Speed and Geography

Shoes are not only the result of cheap labor; rather, they result from the encounter of relatively unskilled work with clusters of expert knowledge. And the geography of that encounter is disjunctured. The two kinds of work coincide in the same place usually for a few years, requiring different strategies to match the work of design and sample rooms and the work of factories, and the coordination, control, and supervision of the former over the latter. Thus, to the coexistence of these two kinds of work—one highly qualified, the other with very little expertise—we need to add a second dimension that contributes to the disjuncture and to the issues of coordination and knowledge transfer I explore in this book: the speed with which factories move, and the changing geographies of control and supervision that result from this.

To wit: much of the shoe production for the US moved from South Brazil to South China in the mid-1990s after a currency readjustment in Brazil made the cheaper part of the labor too expensive. Chinese shoe labor reached its apex in 2004—when almost 80 percent of leather shoes for the women’s market were produced in Dongguan, in comparison to the 30 percent still being made there when I finished fieldwork in early 2017. Shoe production has receded to other parts of China and into Southeast Asia. This abrupt movement resulted in all kinds of problems of delegation and control at a distance, and it provides us with a unique case that looks at expertise networks and coordination issues within the production of a low-added-value commodity.

The Perfect Fit studies the design and development of leather shoes for the US women’s market, focusing on the multiple coordination issues that result when shoes are designed and developed in between New York and Dongguan (China); on the intimacies that develop between workers with very different backgrounds and skills (US designers, Brazilian and Taiwanese technicians, Chinese and Taiwanese managers, and Chinese and Brazilian fit models); and on the diverse paths that materials and careers follow until they meet on the sample-room floor. Instead of another study of global exploitation—be it on the labor regimes of the workers or on the transnational elite networks of owners and managers—I look at another type of work: people in charge of design and development. These people are of course exploited and contribute to the creation of value as well, but a focus on them allows us to explore dimensions of the global production process that are usually occluded by the dichotomies organizing the scholarship.

This ecological view—in the sense that the Chicago School and later scholars of science, technology, and society (STS) have given to the term—is at the service of one important question: how is it that mass-produced shoes are developed as a “global” craft even before they enter the factory? That inquiry is at the service of a larger warrant: to understand the design component that makes relatively inexpensive, beautiful objects and results in customers in the US knowingly buying products from countries with inhumane labor conditions. To paraphrase Walter Benjamin (1974), while it is true that there has never been a document of culture that is not simultaneously one of barbarism, we know—when it comes to mass fashion—a lot about the latter and little about the former. To be blunt, we know why shoes are cheap but very little about how they are made beautiful.

In exploring the global craft of making inexpensive but compelling shoes, I show how knowledge is generated and mobilized. I do so by discussing the processes of apprenticeship of designers, technicians, and fit models; the tension between embodied and disembodied forms of knowledge; the possibilities of codifying and formalizing embodied and tacit knowledge; and the traffic in objects, forms, and people necessary to make correction and approval possible. What are the coordination mechanisms? How is it that things move? And how do they stay the same while being moved from one place to the next?

Answering these questions goes to the heart of an issue that has interested social scientists studying how social and spatial proximity have been able to substitute for vertical integration in production.3 Some of these sociologists and geographers have looked at the process of regionalization and how it relates to the outsourcing of production to the poorer areas of the world. While the regionalization process points at how the cluster of services, workers, and infrastructure generates a spillover effect in which firms learn how to coordinate with one another, outsourcing, on the other hand, refers to how the less elaborated and expensive parts of the process can be shipped to the periphery. Looking at these processes has been a proxy for interrogating the differential rates and speeds at which capital and labor are movable. Key to this literature has been the kinds of knowledge that can be moved or mobilized from one context to another. What some scholars have called “sticky” knowledge, which is costly to acquire, transfer, and use in a new location, is in this project a fruitful avenue to study how and when work can be moved from one location to the next (Von Hippel 1994). Part of what I’ll be discussing in detail here is how this kind of knowledge—embodied, informal, tacit—can be reproduced, and by which procedures, in lower nodes of the value chain.

Of Fetishes and Commodities

Objects like shoes have been conceptualized and studied under two different overarching frameworks. Scholars of capitalism—following Marx—have decried the tension between the material and the immaterial character of production, the homogenizing effect of producing for a mass market, and how much procedures like branding (i.e., the signature on the produced object by a singular creator) generate alienation and hide the actual relations of production behind the commodity, underlining its abstract nature. The exchangeable quality of production for profit is presented as the actual reality behind a secondary ghostly presence, one made out of presenting the object as unique and, as such, potentially capable of attachment and identification.4

Yet some anthropologists (Kopitoff, 1986; Appadurai, 1986; Lee and LiPuma, 2002), by bringing together the Marxist theories of production and the work of anthropologists like Marcel Mauss or Brosinslaw Malinowski, have instead focused on the meanings produced as objects circulate, and how even things produced under capitalism can still generate singularization—the personalized attribution of value beyond what it costs to produce something, instead of the homogeneity that one would expect from the production of commodities. While shoes are mass-produced, they still act as fetishes, in most cases as personalized markers of identity, and—as multiple documents of popular culture have shown—as sources of fantasy. (See the whole Sex and the City series, for instance, and its obsession with shoes at large and Manolo Blahniks in particular.) Designers know this, as they systematically go to shops in New York to observe the routines of friends who shop together—and sometimes of mothers and daughters, who have ingrained shopping in their everyday practices of satisfaction.

So instead of thinking of shoes either as commodities or as fetishes, this book focuses on those who work in producing the logic of difference—designers and developers—which bridges the two ways of conceptualizing shoes. In lieu of decrying and denouncing the reality of one as substituted by the other, the two bodies of the ghostly presence of production and potential consumption inhabit the shoe together. Rather than analyzing commodities to unveil the exploitation that is hidden in them, I want to unpack the commodity to reveal other relationships between people that the object, seen as dull and inert, is not revealing. I scrutinize the commodity to show the relationships between people—without assuming from the get-go that we will only find exploitative relationships, but keeping that assumption at bay or in suspense, to illuminate other relationships that remain hidden if we only look at the commodity as a container of exploited labor and not much else. It is not, in other words, that a schematic Marxist view gets it wrong, but rather that it takes a part (commodities’ exploitative and alienating aspect) for the whole (the commodity as the crystallization of human relationships), in what it could be called a misplaced or misleading synecdoche.

There is of course an economic story to be considered when studying object design and development; it goes hand in hand with one about the realization of desires, and the story can’t be exhausted just by the explanation of the relationships of production (on this see Stallybrass 1998). The history accumulated in the object—as I unpack it from its inception to its production—is one in which both people and objects are social beings. Looking at design and development allows us to think of production and identification in a different way, one that underscores the strategies for creating singularization (making objects unique or special, and as such not immediately substitutable for any and every other) within the process of commodity-making itself.

That cohabitation gives us a good entry point into what historian William Sewell, Jr. (2010) has called the subsumption of desire under capitalism. In his work on the textile industry in Lyon in the late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, the historian shows how the success of the early capitalist entrepreneurs in that industry depended both on their ability to coordinate production spatially and temporally, as well as on their providing goods that had consumer appeal in Paris—where the word for fashion was coined, after all.5 Moreover, his article exploring the beginning of design-oriented capitalism highlights a second dimension central to the kind of work undertaken in this book: how design adds value to the capitalist process without adding hours of labor for input. It did so through the work of Lyonnaise designers who would go to Paris to see what was in fashion and then adapt it a bit and put together their new materials. The parallelisms with the story I narrate here—at a different scale—are staggering.

Looking at designers allows us to see a key agent in the lash-up between the already existing fashion objects and those only projected by trend forecasters, as well as between the taste of consumers in New York and the product...

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface: The Frailty of Commodity Chains
• Chapter 1: From Head to Toe
• Part 1: From the Designer’s Point of View
• Part 2: Feet and Fit
• Part 3: The Global in the Rearview Mirror
• Acknowledgments
• Notes
• References
• Index