When Sammy wakes up on the street after a
raucous night, he discovers three things about himself: his back is sore, his
head is pounding, and he is wearing a pair of “auld fucking trainer shoes” (1).
Throughout the remainder of the novel How
Late it Was, How Late, Sammy literally walks in someone else’s shoes as he
tries to figure out how to operate in a world he can no longer see. Author
James Kelman invites the reader to walk in Sammy’s shoes and view the world
from the perspective of an unemployed man who cannot seem to navigate the
labyrinth created by an unresponsive government.
Sammy
knows these trainers, or sneakers, are not his prized “leathers” because for a
brief time in between waking up on the street and getting beaten blind he can
see his feet (Kelman 1). What he cannot see even when he has sight is that he
is walking in shoes that were probably made by someone who is even worse off
than he is, someone who is also ineffectual at communicating with a powerful
system, in this case a transnational corporation. As Sammy totters about the
streets with only a painted mop handle to guide him, he is constantly annoyed
by the shoes, which he thinks ruin his smart look. The fashion issue aside,
Sammy is unaware that the shoes were probably made by the exploitive labor of
some woman in Indonesia or China working for pennies.
Sammy isn’t the only one blind in this
picture — Nike shoes were a popular brand in Scotland when the book was written
in 1994 and during that time the company was criticized for turning a blind eye
to the way in which its products are produced. A $25-billion company, Nike
seemed to suffer from its own version of Bruce Robbins’ “Sweatshop Sublime”
theory. Just as a consumer might find it overwhelming to comprehend the origins
of a teakettle, Nike found it conveniently overwhelming to contemplate the
origins of its bank account. It’s a pathetic cycle: the company exploits one
worker by paying poverty wages in order to make a product that will be used to
exploit another worker, also making poverty wages, by charging that worker/consumer a high price for
a product that cost only a few dollars to make. Consider the advertising
possibilites: “Buy the new Nike shoe, The
Exploiter, from one exploited worker to another!”
Nike turned a blind eye for the most part
as if the problem were truly sublime rather than a problem that easy to solve. When
the brand name became synonymous with the word sweatshop, protesters standing
outside Niketown stores motivated the company to improve working conditions at
its overseas factories. Nike shoes are primarily produced in factories
in Asia (China, Indonesia, South Korea, India, Japan) although they do have
factories in Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Italy, and Bosnia. The problem is not
completely solved, however; last year in Indonesia female workers at a Converse
(owned by Nike) factory said they were routinely slapped, kicked, and called
names like “pig” and “dog” (“Two Faces of Economic Development”). In
response to continued complaints about the production of its footwear, Nike now
offers on its website an interactive guide listing the countries producing the goods
and information about the workers, including gender and age. (nikeinc.com).
Although Robbins
contends that activism is not a good solution to the issue of worker
exploitation as “the general population is likely to hear only another form of
elitism,” protests against Nike apparently shamed the footwear company into
setting a minimum standard for its factories (Robbins 93, Wong). It’s ironic that Sammy ends up in The Exploiter
trainers and that his own shoes were taken by a guy who presumed him dead, or
so Sammy hypothesizes. And it's interesting that Sammy complains throughout the novel that he is wearing someone else's shoes, a mysterious, ghost of a man. The shoes literally do not fit him and, at the same time, perhaps the discomfort has a deeper source -- it’s clear in the novel that everyone and everything merely trots
along oblivious to the fate of others in the same city and around the globe. Sammy just keeps on walking in those trainers and telling himself that he is “gony
be fine…that’s all ye do, step by step, ye walk step by step, by step, ye keep
going” (Kelman 57).
Group project by Sandra Parker, Shannon Pfeifer, Tony Bonura
Kelman, James. How Late it Was, How Late.
Wong, Annabelle. “Two Faces of Economic
Development: the Ethical Controversy Surrounding U.S.-Related Sweatshops in
Developing Asian Countries.” Global
Ethics Network. May 2013.
Nikeinc.com
Robbins, Bruce. “The Sweatshop Sublime.” P.
93.
Your use of he phrase, "a blind eye" is, as I'm sure you are aware (or else you would not have used it), another metaphor for ignoring the plight of the sweatshop workers. As in Robbins, it is easier to dismiss such laborers if one does not have to see them--ignorance is bliss, as they say. Robbins used the example of not using exploited workers in one's house as domestics--literally too close to home. I enjoyed reading your blog. The significance of the sneakers is something I had not thought about. Thank you. Wayne
ReplyDeleteI also liked your use of "a blind" eye in your post. This not only made me think of Robbins' discussion on people choosing to wear clothing knowingly produced in sweatshops--thus turning a blind eye--but it made me consider how often we turn a blind eye to other things in everyday life. For instance, I know all about the health benefits of organic produce, meats, beverages, and beauty products, however, I do not choose to purchase organically, thus, turning my own blind eye. It's certainly not that I don't want to, I mean, I DO buy organic bananas, it's more of a matter of price for me. Although this is a trite example in comparison to sweatshop labor, it is still an example of choosing to do one thing and pretending, or forgetting, to not know the consequences of such choices.
ReplyDeleteWe see Sammy as such a pathetic man which makes it interesting how you said someone "worse off than he is". His work situation isn't great - but the abuse workers have to tolerate in sweatshops (and I assume it was worse then than it is now) is a whole other level. There are so many that work hard, show up every day, and tolerate horrible conditions and pennies for their time.
ReplyDeleteNike is a great example of activism working. I don't think they're perfect right now, but I remember when Nike was being attacked.
I can remember protests around Nike and the Kathy Gifford line that was at K-mart so long ago. I find it a bit frustrating, and yet somehow terribly inevitable that this type of exploitation survives. The discussion reminds me of the recent New York Times expose of the Apple factory in China. (I say recent, but it was actually written back in 2012, that's how profound it's effect was on me.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
ReplyDeleteSammy's laziness certainly contrasts with the incredible amount of work that the laborers who made his shoes put in every day. Perhaps he'd like to trade places for a day. Even though he is literally walking in someone else's shoes, he isn't very aware of the effect that should have on him. And also, perhaps its because they's so ill-fitting, but most people would be elated to have a pair of Nikes, as they are generally considered very good shoes, with the top fitness engineers designing them. I find it interestin, compared to Clare being in the same position--walking in someone else's Nikes.
First things first, I loved how you refer to Sammy's shoes as "The Exploiter" but beyond that I found the comparison between Robbins' belief that protests are not the way to accomplish change and the success of protests fascinating. I would enjoy knowing what Robbins' thoughts are on this particular event. Are these people actually effecting change by protesting and getting Nike to change their practices? I wonder what those protests did to other shoe companies, if they changed their production means to avoid such a demonstration.
ReplyDeleteThe connection you make between Sammy and the factory worker that likely made his trainers is interesting. It's clearly there, yet it seems doubtful that Sammy would ever make it. They're both tiny parts in huge systems (one system really) and they're both parts that are somewhat marginalized yet necessary. The worker must produce the shoes in order for the production and consumption cycle to continue, and if we see Sammy as the consumer (although he didn't actually purchase these particular shoes, they were exchanged for ones that he did purchase) he is a driving force in the cycle. This is an interesting position for someone like Sammy who in so many other aspects lacks agency.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that you chose the shoes because they were clearly an important part of the novel but I tended to brush them aside and not consider what they represented very much. By bringing them back to the forefront you have made me think a bit more about it and one way that I'd like to look at them is as the point at which we physically connect to the world. In Sammy's case, someone else has interrupted the point at which he connects and monkeyed with the relationship. The ill-fitting trainers might represent Sammy's inability to effectively assimilate into his world.
Thanks for a provocative post and a great discussion, both of which seem to offer a few possibilities for grafting the novel onto economic networks. First, it seems that we can read Sammy's blindness as a metaphor for a broader "blindness" about labor conditions; second, Sammy's blindness can indicate the difficulties navigating such a vast system, or the difficulty of seeing the totality of that system; third, we might read Sammy as a counterpart to the exploited workers who made his trainers. That is, Sammy's the "developed" world equivalent of disposable, excess labor, and so it is ironic that he is blind to the products of exploitation that he wears on his own feet (Jerremy gets at this when he talks about Sammy as "part of the cycle"). I think that all of these (even at the same time) are possibilities for reading the novel, and are examples of how literary modes (things like extended metaphors, questing narratives, thoughtful ironies) are indeed crucial tools for interrogating the economic world.
ReplyDelete