Many countries have long relied on manufacturing to generate high-quality jobs and stimulate economic growth, and Indonesia is no exception. One of the most prominent examples is the textile and garment industry, which has historically served as a cornerstone of the country’s industrial development. According to a World Bank report, textiles and garment, alongside the footwear sector, were among the strongest contributors to net job creation in Indonesia, particularly before the Asian Financial Crisis.[1] In 1996, the garment industry alone employed approximately 363,000 workers and contributed around IDR 667 billion in value-added, ranking among the top-performing sectors at the time.[2] Industrial towns like Majalaya thrived on textile exports, earning nicknames such as “dollar cities” due to their significant contributions to foreign exchange earnings.

Today, however, that legacy is under threat. Indonesia’s once-thriving textile production hubs are facing mounting pressures on multiple fronts. Declining competitiveness, surging imports of cheap textiles, weakening consumer purchasing power, and rising input costs have all chipped away at the sector’s resilience. In Majalaya, where logistics trucks once lined the streets to transport goods for global buyers, warehouses are now filled with unsold inventories. According to local reports, many firms are struggling to find buyers at all.[3]

The latest figures underscore the scale of the downturn. Between January and May 2024, the Indonesian Textile Association noted that approximately 20 to 30 textile factories ceased operations, leading to layoffs affecting around 10,800 workers.[4] The bankruptcy of Sritex, one of Indonesia’s largest textile manufacturers, could lead to an additional 12,000 job losses and signals deeper structural vulnerabilities in the industry.[5] Meanwhile, looming tariff measures by the United States threaten to divert global textile trade flows and potentially flood the Indonesian market with even more competitive imports.

The implications of this industrial decline go far beyond economic statistics. The unraveling of the textile sector reveals a broader social crisis. For many individuals and communities whose identities have long been intertwined with textile and garment work, these shifts in the political economy present painful and destabilizing transitions. What are the psychological and emotional tolls of large-scale layoffs? How do workers cope with skill mismatches or navigate the erosion of a once-proud industrial identity?

Industrialization impacts the life dynamics and collective and personal identities of people who engage and intersect with it. For instance, Bole et al. argue that industrialism has symbols that shape perceptions of industrialism through people's experiences and feelings.[6]

One example is Pekalongan, Central Java, Indonesia. Pekalongan is a city known for its high productivity in exporting Batik textiles. Even the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has named Pekalongan the most creative city in the world for craft and folk arts.[7] Aside from Pekalongan’s popularity in agricultural and fishery sectors, the majority of people who live there mainly work as Batik artists, garment makers and sellers, as well as textile factory workers.

Since the beginning of Batik industrialization in Pekalongan in the 1970s, many people have depended on the industry to support their livelihood. The issue of urban poverty there makes the region's dependence on the industry even more apparent. 

The life of the Pekalongan people gives us a glimpse at the way industrialization effects their identity, not only as workers, citizens, and impoverished people, but also as those who take pride in the tangible culture of Batik.

Batik, as written by Alam and Pratiwi et al., has been acknowledged as a symbol of cultural identity, including economic livelihood, especially in Pekalongan.[8][9] The fabric itself contains patterns that have specific meanings about the human life cycle and the value of human relations in the community. In addition, the production process also includes a wide range of techniques, from written, stamped, to printed Batik, meaning that more people have opportunities to produce the cloth.[10] Batik is not simply a commodity, but also a cultural tool in its aesthetic forms. Therefore, for the workers, Batik is a space to create, innovate, preserve their cultural identities, and fulfill their economic needs.

Batik is an embodiment of cultural values, identities, and economic needs. Through considering this complexity, we can see how industrialization affects the way people create and produce Batik. An “industrial identity” is part of the culture embedded in people’s sense of place, including social interactions with fellow workers, the government, and other actors, as well as past and present lifestyle as an “industrial community.” The industrialization uses and highlights “Batik” as its significant symbol in which the people have shared values and beliefs, even before the rise of industrialization.

Industrialization is heavily tied with governance. But as Yanis Varoufakis explains in A Brief History of Capitalism, the science of governance was not born to be hated, feared, or fought.[11] The science of governance, according to the history of civilization, was born because humans needed a mechanism to regulate the distribution of economic surplus from the agricultural revolution equally to all people. We repeat: equally to all people. In the contemporary context, however, "equally" becomes very complex.

As industrialism is strongly related to surplus, the presence of governance in industrialism is also very dominant. This means that politics and governance at the global level, however far and giant they might sound, actually have a great influence on the identity and mental stability of workers in Pekalongan. Periods of economic downturn and instability, such as those triggered by the recent escalating trade tensions, directly impact both formal and informal employment. These shocks often lead to widespread layoffs and force a structural shift from formal wage employment to more precarious forms of labor within the gig economy. In cities like Pekalongan, such transitions are not merely economic; they represent a profound transformation in worker identity. Factory workers who once took pride in their roles within the formal Batik industry now find themselves relegated to casual employment, often accompanied by diminished job security, reduced social status, and a weakened sense of agency.

Gig workers out of need rather than choice and whose primary income is from freelancing tend to have lower sense of agency (SoA), lower degree of autonomy, and lower sense of belonging to their professional communities.[12] Identity, on the other hand, is often less represented in macroeconomic discussions. However, drawing upon Brewer & Gardner’s theory of social identity, we contend that identity for humans is tantamount to breathing.[13] Brewer & Gardner argue that the main motivations for humans to obtain social identification are the needs for feelings of validation, similarity to others, and individuation or uniqueness.[14] Gig workers are more prone to mental health issues, which makes their increasing numbers both a potential public health matter and labor productivity matter.

This essay does not argue that industrialism should be removed from contemporary society, but that governing a society with just principles also means mitigating identity issues for informal workers. In every elitist war, there are identities torn apart around the globe.