Should efforts be made to preserve traditional forms of dress ?
Most countries wish to preserve their national character and have every right to do so. National dress is part of this character. The question of preserving it only arises when for business and other reasons a significant group of foreigners enters the country and perhaps settles there. They bring their culture with them; business offices, machinery, technology and communications. Over the decades, Western dress has evolved to meet these requirements. Men wear suits with pockets for pens, diaries, money etc; women import their own styles and use hand or shoulder bags. Formal, casual and sports wear has accompanied this standard form of day dress. The effect of this has been that local inhabitants have copied the immigrants and have relegated traditional dress to the observance of national customs and ceremonies and religious festivals. The danger is that traditional dress may thus be lost forever.
The above applies to countries which either have dealings with the West or lie within it’s sphere of influence. The same is true of the Communist bloc. The worker’s tunic, trousers and flat cap, often used by both sexes, has spread far outside the boundaries of Soviet Russia, with the same effect. The problem does not of course arise with the uncommitted countries. A further, and international influence si the style of dress favored by young people; tee shirts, jeans and trainers.
Part of the problems has been that these imported styles are somehow considered better than the traditional styles, and certainly more fashionable. This is not true. In almost every case, traditional dress could be easily adapted to fit modern requirements without any loss of character. A sarong is more elegant than a blouse and skirt, and the colorful materials of traditional male dress are much more aesthetically pleasing than the business suit. Both are probably more comfortable and hygienic than their modern counterparts since they have developed in relation to the heat and humidity of equatorial climates. The European swelters in a so-called lightweight suit or dress when in West Africa, Malaysia, Singapore or India. Why should not he or she use local dress rather than unsuitable imported garments ?
The change from national to imported dress is bad for local clothing industries and may cause unemployment. This is a good governmental reason for supporting the continued production of local dress, as well as the other folk industries which produce traditional artifacts such as sandals, handbags, household wares, etc.
All this raises the question, ‘should long-term immigrants or settlers impose their own culture or assimilate to the local culture ?’ The answer should be to assimilate.
Sometimes immigrants claim that racial origin, politics, or religion dictate the forms of dress, hairstyle etc that they should use overseas. Again, all arguments seem to favor assimilation to local custom as a duty, in return for the hospitality they have received. In Britain, Sikhs insist on wearing turbans when riding motorcycles, thus technically contravening the law, which stipulates helmets. Britons of British origin have to obey the law. Why should exceptions be made for immigrants ?
Whatever the intellectuals may think is good for us, the paying public will always vote with its feet. Entertainment in the widest sense remains the primary objective of the Arts if the Arts are to survive.
