0
2

Design and Religion Butt Heads
Where does the sanctity of religion leave off and branding begin? That’s the question that Sikh transit workers are addressing in their protest against the MTA requirement that they wear the agency’s logo on their turbans.
The issue underscores the importance of design in today’s society and the extent to which we identify and legitimize people’s role through their uniforms. At what point does the perception and authority of the MTA as an agency, or the individual employees become undermined by not wearing part of a uniform? Another MTA concern would be where to draw the line on people claiming an exception to the rule .
While a proponent of the benefits that design can confer, I think it abhorrent that the MTA would seek to desecrate a religious item with an organizational logo. Apparently, I am not alone, as 27 City Council members signed on to a letter of support, urging Transit President Howard Roberts to drop the logo rule adopted after 9/11, when four Muslim women were barred from driving buses while wearing head scarves.
Nonetheless, as religious expressions expands and the hand of branding reaches into ever-increasing areas of our life, from our food, to our clothing, shelter, transportation and entertainment, there will no doubt be more conflicts in retaining “authentic,” unbranded versions of these things. I think the larger lesson is that while we can all appreciate the positive attributes branding brings, we must also be sensitive to its limitations.

Where does the sanctity of religion leave off and branding begin? That’s the question that Sikh transit workers are addressing in their protest against the MTA requirement that they wear the agency’s logo on their turbans.

The issue underscores the importance of design in today’s society and the extent to which we identify and legitimize people’s role through their uniforms. At what point does the perception and authority of the MTA as an agency, or the individual employees, become undermined by not wearing part of a uniform? Another MTA concern would be where to draw the line on people claiming an exception to the rule, for example in letting employees wear other  expressive or nonbranded headgear, such as a Yankees hat (a 2005 survey found more than 100 employees doing so).

While a proponent of the benefits that design can confer, I think it abhorrent that the MTA would seek to desecrate a religious item with an organizational logo. Apparently, I am not alone, as 27 City Council members signed on to a letter of support, urging Transit President Howard Roberts to drop the logo rule adopted after 9/11, when four Muslim women were barred from driving buses while wearing head scarves.

Nonetheless, as religious expressions expands and the hand of branding reaches into ever-increasing areas of our life, from our food, clothing, shelter, transportation and entertainment, there will no doubt be more conflicts in retaining “authentic,” unbranded versions of these things. I think the larger lesson is that while we can all appreciate the positive attributes branding brings, we must also be sensitive to its limitations.

What’s your take on this?

, , , , , ,
Recommended Posts
Showing 2 comments
  • Clare Ultimo

    A perfect convergence of identity…making a kind of a perfect storm significant of the times we’re in. So glad you noted this Howard, and pleased that 27 City Council members don’t want to go along it. If this can be seen as a battle for “levels of authority”, it speaks to the fact that on some symbolic level, our corporations think they are THAT important. Too important to be accountable, so they must feel like God these days…

    And I guess what I would ask the MTA is why the logo has to go on headgear…don’t they have to wear a uniform and isn’t that ENOUGH?

    • Howard Levy

      Branding is a tool for making corporations feel important, and it was designers that have sold them on that concept to begin with. As for uniforms, it’s still a shaky line – the other day, I saw a postal worker in a USPS branded t-shirt, an indication of the deterioration of the organizational dress code. If someone wants to wear a sari or other traditional form of apparel, where do we draw the line?