Bangladesh's garment market is founded on a quirk of people psychology

Image: Collected
New clothes are not about clothes at all, they certainly are a proxy for social status

It isn't unusual for an anthropologist, or a good sociologist, to misunderstand economics. 

Heck, it isn't unusual for a good politician to misunderstand economics and we elect and pay for them to manage the economy for us. 

Sadly even though, this is exactly what is happening whenever we are told that we should quit our desires for and work at “false needs” and concentrate only after the “vital” things that people actually require rather than just want.

This is entirely to misunderstand what the economist is wanting to say. Which is that individuals desire lots of things. 

Furthermore, having more of those things seems to create humans happier. Subsequently, we ought to be working towards humans having more of what they really want because that human happiness may be the goal.

Of course, after that we enter all that nitty-gritty of how exactly to maximise the production and therefore availability of those ideas. 

Should it become the benevolent planner that sorts stuff out for us? The chaos of the marketplace? 

We are able to disagree about which route we desire to take -- in spite of my repeated insistence that it's markets that deliver -- however the goal appears beyond reproach. 

Most of us want more humans to be happier, right? 

Where in fact the true misunderstanding will come in even if is in failing to grasp what it is that the economist is defining just as making persons better off -- as well as, what are those desires that are being fulfilled?

Take, for example, fashion. A large area of the Bangladeshi economy depends after supplying this to persons in other areas of the world. 

It is completely true that no person actually requires a wardrobe full of clothes, nor will be the latest styles essential for the continuation of existence. Yet fashion has been around because the year dot. 

Every exemplory case of every previous civilisation ever shows us that humans prefer to doll themselves up with pretty things. Consequently, why?

Clearly, it isn't now there mere covering of skin because also in cultures where that's not done there is still body paint and so forth. The speaking is normally to something a lot more basic and that element is social status.

We are, as individuals, intensely public beings. Our relative place in the sociable hierarchy is perhaps the main thing of all to us. 

This is true of every society we have ever been able to observe. Fashion, strangely enough, is a essential part of this. 

It isn't something invented by the capitalists to preserve us in thrall. Neither is it mere vanity to need to search good or anything. 

Observe any group of young adults arguing over the most recent sneakers -- or perhaps if you prefer a different example, the most recent dance band or movie -- and the point is always relative social position. 

Those who have the brand new, the more costly, have higher status. This is simply not something about fashion, it really is something about people. 

In more technical terms new clothes, or fashionable ones, are not about clothes at all, they are a proxy for finished . seriously being attained which is usually that social status. 

We might not want to feel that Bangladesh's main export industry is based after such a quirk of people psychology but that's what is true. 

Those billions of pieces of clothing that leave the country each year are not about covering nakedness; they are about attaining a higher position in the individual hierarchy.

This can be a concept that economics covers with the term “utility” -- the all-encompassing definition of what it is which makes humans feel better. 

We think that persons organise their lives to be able to maximise their utility that's. 

We know about twists in this, persons may indeed be misled. 

It is also true that we are actually pretty sure that persons usually do not strive all that hard to increase their utility -- satisfactory may be the usual description. 

The theory is that there could indeed be 500 diverse sorts of toothpaste out there but really, how important is toothpaste? 

So, we swap and select between makes until we find the one which is good more than enough and turn our focus on other areas of lifestyle -- we find something satisfactory rather than expend all that work to find the best. 

But our important stage here is that this utility isn't defined by extra things. 

The economist is always aware -- or else they are not carrying out good economics at least -- that while more stuff could be acquired, that's not in fact the point. 

It really is more basic elements of people psychology that are appearing assuaged. 

More food is not purchased to be able to have more food; it is the hunger that is being assuaged. 

Mobile phones aren't about making calls; they are about that deep desire to socialise and it is merely another manner of meeting it. 

Fashion isn't about non-nakedness; it is about the public hierarchy. Socialising and hierarchy are crucial pieces of the human experience. 

To demand that we quit these “false desires” and concentrate instead upon “vital needs” is usually to miss the point entirely. 

These supposed fripperies are exactly how exactly we gain those true wishes. 

The real human desire is to carve out a respected place in the society around -- those false desires being just how that people do so.
Source: https://www.dhakatribune.com

Tags :

Share this news on:

Previous Story

Trending Topics

Archive