There is no un-market
There Is No Unmarked Woman, by Deborah Tanner, uncovers a societal double standard about the way that women, in a society largely run by men, are viewed in daily interaction. Every single action taken by women is flagged as an indication of their true personality, unlike the anonymity granted to men in the same settings. When I first read this piece, the point that caught my eye wasn’t exposing subliminal sexism in society, or the upending of the biological pattern, but rather the application of signaling the piece brought up.
Signaling, a concept I’ve discussed on this blog before, is the idea that anytime two people interact, they enter into a contract. In the contract, you’re either the agent (the person trying to sell something) or the principal (the person looking to buy something). Applying this to Tanner’s example in the conference setting, each person entered a contract with the other. Economically speaking, it’s advantageous to “mark” each person, as both dress and speech can signal to the principal whether the agent is worth engaging with. A person who shows up to an interview in a t-shirt and sweatpants probably doesn’t take things very seriously, and a person who wears a ring on their left hand is probably married.
Gift-giving is also an example of signaling, someone who loves you will get you a good gift |
Why does Tanner object so adamantly against the natural economic phenomenon of signals? Because, looking beyond the theoretical application, two flaws with this system emerge. First, whenever economic actors are put in any scenario, we assume they make rational decisions that maximize their own well-being. Although this is a fine assumption in the long run, at any given decision, it’s unlikely someone will choose the most optimal option. So the signals in any given interaction aren’t trustworthy, against human nature, you can’t assume a person’s entire persona from a single conversation. Secondly, the entry of a contract is inequitable, discrimination is an irrational decision in economics, and the same applies here. Tanner argues that a woman always enters the contract as an agent, subjected to scrutiny as she becomes commodified in the market. The male, if entering the same contract, is much harder to glean information, an asymmetrical market of information.
Although, There Is No Unmarked Woman, is mainly a piece about the injustices of the way our society is structured to put women under constant scrutiny, it’s hard to ignore the economic applications of everything. Economics is less a study of money, as it is a study of decisions, and why we make the choices that we do. Economics helps to provide a window of rationality, into an otherwise irrational world of people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour view of each interaction, especially between individuals, as a contract with agents and principals gives an insight into Tanner's writing and her purpose. We see that one of the individual women in the meeting is more focused on the style of her hair; we see her flinging it around instead of focusing on her speech. This gives us a detailed insight as to how as you said, "economics helps to provide a window of rationality, into an otherwise irrational world of people."
ReplyDeleteThe idea of people entering a contract when they talk is very interesting. I liked your use of an economic lens for this topic and thought it was very insightful.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like how your economic lens actually served a greater purpose than just roping it in for no apparent reason, it better informed readers of the idea of human interaction. I also liked your analysis on the piece, it was insightful given the economic lens.
ReplyDelete