FASHION ‘diamond is not forever, or at least its hyper-inflated value is not. The recession is destroying the strength of the diamond invention and its creator and protector, the De Beers corporation. Imagine, at last, alternatives to the dia- mond symbol of engagement, and to all the diamond-encrusted signs of economic success. Certainly, there is little joy to be taken from the endless stream of economic woes that appear to be multiplying daily in the news now. Perhaps a slight smugness is merited from those of us with socialist or humanist leanings that have objected to the rampant growth of nearly unfettered capitalism and globalization. Although | think people are wondering finally whether free market capitalism is best for society, itis still painful to see the world go down, and to see so many losing jobs and homes, To see a great giant ike De Beers quake is something else though. This is a company that has seen only growth for over half a century, thanks to its thuggish control of the market and publicity campaigns that have changed the very notions of romance, courtship, and marriage in many countries. While all companies try to position them- selves a leaders in their industry, De Beers has gone much further, controlling the diamond market with their infa- ‘mous cartel, which has set the prices of diamonds at astronomical levels by rigidly controlling competition and supply. In London, the majority of the world's diamonds are stored in the care of De Beer's “Central Selling Organi zation’. The notion of diamonds as scarce is false, and that the myth has continued until today represents the power of one of the most successful monopolies ever. ‘Add to this false perception the role that diamonds have taken on in contemporary society- diamonds are the sym- bols of romance, power, and wealth. De Beers has been responsible for some of the most brilliant and insidious publicity campaigns of the century, and since they are, essentially, the bosses of the diamond industry, the name De Beers is rarely seen in connection with this publicity- itis only the concept of the diamond itself that is promoted. Campaigns began seventy years ago to instil in Americans first the idea that the promise of an engagement is made with a diamond ring, and then later with the idea that the bigger and shinier the diamond is that is given, the greater the expression of love from the giver. This image of the diamond as the ultimate and really, the only true symbol of romance was created by massive publicity campaigns by De Beers, which involved giving large dia- monds to movie stars and publishing photographs of them with their husbands in all women’s magazines, and get- ting diamonds into the movies themselves and then later television. They also made sure that magazines would publish articles discussing diamonds given to celebrities and especially to include the size of the diamonds. This is a practice that continues today. The fuss over engagements of stars like Jennifer Lopez and Beyonce are more focused on the size and estimated cost of their diamond rings than they are on the impending marriage to an- other human being. De Beers has spread this mania for diamond engagement rings to Europe and even Japan, where previous marriage rites had remain virtually unchanged for 1500 years, but now a diamond ring is consid- ered the essential sign of marriage. De Beers, originators of the classic slogan, "A diamond is forever”, certainly one of the most successful slogans ‘ever, has moved into the territory of rappers in an effort to promote the modem image of diamonds being the symbol of success. The craze for “bling’, a term we now all accept in common speak, has been actively nurtured by the company, but now the emphasis on conspicuous consumption is backfiring on the diamond industry. The re- cession has ushered in a time for belt-tightening, both in actual spending terms and in appearances, and the frothy bubble of diamond bling is an obvious bust. ‘The fashion shows for Spring couture and for Fall prét-a-porter had more jewelry on the runway than ever, but these styles were extra large and design-heavy, focused on high-impact forms rather than luxury, indicating hope- fully that the death of the high-flash, big cash bling era will usher in a more democratic and artful period in jewelry. by Laura Rysman