(For the purpose of satisfying this assignment) I will do something that I hate doing. I will take part in the perpetuation of an exercise that I am going to criticize negatively. It reminds me of previous societal arguments like, “how can someone dislike pornography when one hasn’t seen it”? or “how can one be anti-TV if one doesn’t know what is on it?” To make my point I must show examples of what offends me.
When elephants fight the grass gets trampled. This is happening when the innocent members of our society are used as pawns in our election brawls. If the members of society were aware of such atrocities I believe they would stop but they continue the cycle subconsciously or unconsciously (reference to Marx and Gramsci).
Look at this:
Why put images of children and children’s voices on the media in this fashion? Could adults not ask? Of course they could. But someone somewhere thought that having children ask would be cute or attractive. It is an abuse of our children to have them appear to say words which are really not their own. This is the powerful adults of society using the psychological implications of the innocent child for political gain. And this brings the child into the dominant hegemony before being aware enough to think for him or herself (reference Gramsci).
Look at this:
This seemingly benign use of children is an indoctrination tool being used on the children and then being presented to the public as a spectacle.
Someone in the public then chose to subvert the message through juxtaposing symbols resulting in a collison montage:
We get the point. Don’t we? This media producer sees the correlation between using our children to propose Obama’s presidency and using them to propose Fascism. But who is abused and who is the abuser? Is this how we hoped the shifting of the power of media to the masses would be used? (reference Adorno) Perhaps some would see fun in this juxtaposition. I see only abuse of the meek in both productions. Through my intuition I feel sick about this use of children in this new “free access” media. (reference Gitlin) When the powerless are used by the powerful there is something off whether it is on Youtube or Network TV.
I see the, sometimes ignorant, use of the media by adults to complicate and intellectualize that which should be left to the beauty of nature. Let the kids alone. Let them enjoy their undetermined youth. Should we parade them?
No, we should not parade children in political campaigns. Yes, these depict beautiful moments. Beautiful private moments forever stained by discussions of adult motives:
Have these professionals viewed this footage? Could they continue if they had? How can they call themselves serious professionals? Perhaps I ask for too much. Perhaps they are producing the media which they believe to be desirable? And who are they? Adults. (In the conventional sense of the word)
At least Michelle Obama thinks she should protect her children’s privacy. This is a noble cause but not the whole truth. While talking about protecting their privacy, we see the children in larger than life images behind the hosts of The View:
Children are not intellectual adults. They may have the capacity to ask many pertinent questions (even if done innocently). This use of children is an appeal to the psychological aspect of our fondness for children. Political candidates and commentators use children for these purposes, and it seems that they don’t really care if it has a negative impact on the children’s lives. Why not leave them alone until they can decide for themselves?
In closing I will post another video. Images of young children are paired with a child’s voice-over. Imagine as you listen and view if the images were the same and either John Mc Cain’s or Barack Obama’s voice was the voice-over.
Well, how did you do imagining our (political) adults as the voice instead of the child? Would it have the same impact? What if the video did not invade the privacy of the children in the footage and just showed Obama or McCain explaining their opinion? A novel idea perhaps? Have the candidates speak straight.
I suggest we get the children out of political fighting. Maybe the candidates will have to come up with more than a 10 second sound-bite.
Too much grass is trampled while elephants fight.
Too many children are having “their” politics spoon fed to them before they can chew hard and spit out the stale bits.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
It's Time For Some Campaigning!
Every four years, citizens of the United States get bombarded with advertisements, campaign stops, front-page articles, debates on television, etc. All of these 'beneficial' resources are ways to provide the voter with the knowledge that they need to make a valid decision for a candidate. Based on the information they receive, combined with their own personal beliefs, a voter should have all that they need to vote for the candidate they believe will be best for the country. One could argue that there are more media outlets available that criticize, or poke fun, at the upcoming election, as opposed to providing the voter with the information necessary to make an informed decision. The press acts as an outlet for this information. However, there are plenty of other 'viral' outlets that provide information as well.
I believe that for this election, the campaigns have been plagued with hegemonic ideals. The press is the 'delivery boy' for these ruling elites. We have seen countless stories--I believe more in this election than any other--about prominent politicians, officials, and even celebrities who support a certain candidate. We also see that trusted networks can promote a bias in the election. Raymond Williams' definition of hegemony proposes ideas further than the ideology of manipulation by ruling elites. He mentions that it "is a whole body of practices and expectations, over the whole of living: our senses and assignments of energy, our shaping perceptions of ourselves and our world" (Goldman, p. 364).
The way that new media outlets--blogs, vlogs, and websites where you can upload videos such as YouTube--are being used in this election falls right in line with Goldman's idea of managed critique. To viewers, these videos may be seen as pushing back against ruling elites. Goldman would argue differently. These ruling elites have no problem with these outlets being available because any form of "doubt concerning the status quo is employed to steer the viewing audience back towards the reaffirmation of established forms of conventional morality" (Goldman, p.368). Allowing these outlets to continue pushing anti-McCain, or anti-Obama videos, may in fact do something good for society: produce more voters. If this is a possible outcome, then the possibility that managed critique is working is true. Dry, boring advertisements may not be the answer anymore. Perhaps cheery ads provide more for voters. Either way, when these videos are uploaded and viewed, it may appear like a challenge to the status quo, but it really is supporting ideas of elites through this idea of managed critique. Viewers think they are informed, and will head to the polls.
More voters may head to the polls on November 4, but are the voters really getting informed about their candidates and what these candidates plan to do if they are elected? It appears that more of the ads we have seen lately have been attacks on the other candidate. This is an interesting way to inform the voters. It provides no other message than the fact that the candidate who sponsors the message will not be like their opposition if elected. Ruling elites see this as a message nonetheless.
Whatever form of advertising is used to support, attack, or denounce a certain candidate, I've concluded that the media texts I've discussed are examples of managed critique and that they reinforce the status quo. Perhaps the best thing to do to facilitate change would be to not vote for these ruling elites at all.
I believe that for this election, the campaigns have been plagued with hegemonic ideals. The press is the 'delivery boy' for these ruling elites. We have seen countless stories--I believe more in this election than any other--about prominent politicians, officials, and even celebrities who support a certain candidate. We also see that trusted networks can promote a bias in the election. Raymond Williams' definition of hegemony proposes ideas further than the ideology of manipulation by ruling elites. He mentions that it "is a whole body of practices and expectations, over the whole of living: our senses and assignments of energy, our shaping perceptions of ourselves and our world" (Goldman, p. 364).
The way that new media outlets--blogs, vlogs, and websites where you can upload videos such as YouTube--are being used in this election falls right in line with Goldman's idea of managed critique. To viewers, these videos may be seen as pushing back against ruling elites. Goldman would argue differently. These ruling elites have no problem with these outlets being available because any form of "doubt concerning the status quo is employed to steer the viewing audience back towards the reaffirmation of established forms of conventional morality" (Goldman, p.368). Allowing these outlets to continue pushing anti-McCain, or anti-Obama videos, may in fact do something good for society: produce more voters. If this is a possible outcome, then the possibility that managed critique is working is true. Dry, boring advertisements may not be the answer anymore. Perhaps cheery ads provide more for voters. Either way, when these videos are uploaded and viewed, it may appear like a challenge to the status quo, but it really is supporting ideas of elites through this idea of managed critique. Viewers think they are informed, and will head to the polls.
More voters may head to the polls on November 4, but are the voters really getting informed about their candidates and what these candidates plan to do if they are elected? It appears that more of the ads we have seen lately have been attacks on the other candidate. This is an interesting way to inform the voters. It provides no other message than the fact that the candidate who sponsors the message will not be like their opposition if elected. Ruling elites see this as a message nonetheless.
Whatever form of advertising is used to support, attack, or denounce a certain candidate, I've concluded that the media texts I've discussed are examples of managed critique and that they reinforce the status quo. Perhaps the best thing to do to facilitate change would be to not vote for these ruling elites at all.
Wax on, wax off. Wane on, wane off.
It's time-to-elect-a-president season again. At this happy hour, my mind ponders on Theodor Adorno's “culture industry” idea. Right now, this industry, which exists for consumption by the masses, at the height of its influence. As seekers of power, politicians know the potency of radio and television. Through its inherent ordering of reality, “[t]he culture industry turns into public relations, the manufacturing of 'goodwill' per se... It proclaims: you shall conform, without instruction as to what; conform to that which exists anyway, and to that which everyone thinks anyway as a reflex of its power and omnipresence.” (Adorno, T. "The Culture Industry Reconsidered", from "The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture"
London: Routledge, 1991)
Adorno believed that everything carried by the culture industry becomes a commodity. When politicians use the media, they are selling themselves and must contort themselves into a new shape to fit the medium. In 2008, Sarah Palin has taken this to a new level, changing from appearance to appearance, playing the character demanded of her on whatever occasion. (It would be no surprise to learn that McCain's campaign team chose Palin for those very chameleon-like abilities.)
See for yourself Palin's waxing and waning across appearences. Who was Palin trying to be on...?
+ September 3rd: At the Republican National Convention, Palin stands before a large live crowd as a confident, strong leader, aligning herself with an independent maverick.
Palin Type: The Leader
+ September 23rd: The nation winces during Palin's interview with CBS's Katie Couric when the VP nominee cannot name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade and says that Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. Why does Palin look so dumb? Perhaps she's pandering to the Joe Sixpacks out there.
Palin Type: The Lowballer
+ October 3rd: After Couric, the nation doubts Palin's chances against Joe Biden in the VP debate, meaning that even a modest performance will mean a win of sorts for Palin (in politics, this is called “lowballing”: setting low expectations). At the debate, Palin mixes her “gosh, darn it” persona, with well-timed confident speech.
Palin Type: The Hocky Mom
+ October 18th: After several wildly popular Palin impersonations by comedian Tina Fey, the real thing appears alongside her doppleganger on Saturday Night Live with an unsurprising non-comedian-grade performance. Palin confidently faces her liberal detractors, strong and smug to her supporters.
Palin Type: The Smug One
+ October 26th: During a speech, Palin responds to the fuss over alleged purchases of wardrobe items amounting to $150,000 using taxpayers' money. Here, the VP nominee depicts herself as the local girl who's into clothes and rings from the same stores that you and me frequent (note: I don't buy clothes or rings).
Palin Type: The Shopper-Next-Door
Adorno wrote that what the culture industry paints as new is really a repackaging of the old. By this approach, Palin's hockey mom persona might be new to the political stage, but her ultimate goal is old: like me, relate to me, elect me.
------------------------------------------
See here for Assignment 3.
See here for Assignment 4.
“Is That A Pistol In Your Pocket, Or Are You Just Glad To See Me?”* Gunslinger or American Idol—Caribou Barbie is Hot!
At the drop of a hat, no matter what the target, they both shoot: wolves, moose, friend and foe. Voilà, the VP hero à la Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin.
Who cares who the VP is anyway, as long as we get to keep our guns? From the point of view of the NRA, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution—the right to bear arms—might even trump freedom of speech, assembly, religion and the press.
In “We Build America,” Gitlin identifies that the automobile is one of the most potent devices that advertisers use to exploit the American romance with power objects—metaphors for personal freedom, rugged individualism, and desirable social status. We create these icons all the time, even in politics, where they quickly become surrogates for critical thinking. As long as we wrap the particular political figure or organization in the American flag and other symbols of American virtue, we don’t have to think about what the politicians really represent—their political ideology, policies and agenda as well as their social values. An equally commanding power object is the gun, embodied in another staple American icon, the lone gunman who incarnates in many forms: the heroic hunter-explorer, the moralistic self-righteous cop, the Samurai gun slinger, and the lonesome cowboy or cowgirl. Politicians and political candidates are routinely packaged with stock symbols that connote a figure of strong moral character, a stalwart protector and defender, a self-sufficient and unshakable leader, and above all, a courageous patriot. “On the surface… commercials … manipulate the romance of freedom in order to sell automobiles” (Gitlin, 1986). The metaphor of the gun has been deeply embedded within the American psyche since the early years of our Republic and our aggressive Westward expansion.
Currently, both the Republican and Democratic candidates have adopted, as part of their public aura, particular class values that cut to the proletarian facet of the American persona. Every Joe six-pack and hockey mom can identify with these archetypes; and, in their present mode, they are all products of what Adorno recognized as the culture industry. But wait a minute, there might be a new sheriff in town!
Whether it’s the President or Vice-President, this militaristic vigilante type attitude affects the presidency and the country as a whole. Very few American Presidents have been successful who’ve held an anti-war, anti-violence position. Jimmy Carter ‘s lack of aggressiveness as “commander in chief” of the military was viewed by many as wimpy. Whether Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t seem to matter—if you are not ready to take up the gun, you are considered weak and un-American.
Palin was a nobody that no one remembered until she was recruited and coached by a Republican organization called GOPAC (“Preparing a New Generation of Republicans to Lead America”) for a political career in the same way that young, unknown wannabe entertainers are shaped and displayed on American Idol, creating the next blockbuster entertainment sensation—and you even get to vote! It’s an uncanny how similar American Idol is to the phenomenon of grooming politicians for elected office. First, a group of “experts” with a semblance of authority selects individuals they think are good material. Those who pass the audition are then appropriately tutored and presented to the public in well-scripted events, much like the coming out parties for debutantes. Finally, we the people get to cast our vote yea or nay. It’s all part of the art and science of marketing in which politicians are regarded in the same light as every other commercial product. Spending $150,000 on Governor Palin’s wardrobe and makeup is nothing new. Every politician with ambitions beyond municipal office must consent to be airbrushed by PR specialists in order to become consumer friendly—not only a clean and shiny package at the political check out counter, but a personage palatable to the culture makers: if the culture makers are displeased, the candidates—their public personas—will be shredded and sent back to the media makeover department.
Yes, icons of all stripes are now media products just like Madonna or Hannah Montana, with the potential for selling a variety of associated accessories conveniently included in the ideology box: guns, beer, identity, power. In the context of political marketing, it is definitely more important to spend $22,000 on Sarah’s hair and makeup, fashioning a faux feminist image, than educating her about foreign policy, the constitution, the law, social and domestic policy, history and how the federal government actually works.
Gitlin was speaking about car commercials, but the same methodology and technology are used to advertise politics and politicians. You begin with someone who is a “blank”, an unknown quantity, and turn them into an American idol, an archetype that embodies personal freedom, personal power, virtue and apple pie with all the trimmings. And one of the most enduringly popular archetypes is the gun slinging Dirty Harry
or Annie Oakley. Gramsci would probably ask us to decipher the meta-message: as long as you can keep your gun, you don’t need to worry about educating your children, health care, your job, teenage pregnancy or the poor. A comfortable, false sense of security quells your longing to rise up, protest and question the powers that be. What is being reinforced and rewarded is the attitude that it’s every man for himself: we don’t need solidarity if we can just look after ourselves.
As long as you feel a sense of personal power because you can own a lethal weapon, you don’t have to align yourself with others to improve your community or change the government. This is one of the traditional ways that the power elites have learned to divert the attention of the masses from thinking, speaking, discussing and acting together. Gramsci might acknowledge that the right to bear arms is indeed empowering, but only slightly. Even though every citizen has this right, it is a freedom that is exaggerated and romanticized to the point that it is felt to be the cornerstone of the foundation of our American democracy—as if all of our rights and freedoms are balanced on this singular one and, if we loose it, we will be at the mercy of the government and criminals. But in reality, what does this right confer upon us other than the power to kill an intruder, our neighbor, our boss or massacre our fellow workers, students and teachers.
The symbolic resonance of the gun ripples through our culture at every level and our political idols and leaders embrace it. A modern exemplar was Ronald Reagan, the iconic, modern, cowboy-actor President. With First Lady Nancy Reagan, they were the veritable Roy Rogers
and Dale Evans of the American Presidency. Now we have John McCain = soldier, a professional gun slinger in defense of flag and country; Sarah Palin = Amazon huntress, a Caribou Barbie ready to act and protect; and Dick Cheney = our supreme, predatory hawk, a true believer in the power of the big gun, the primacy of overwhelming military strength, the Bush administration’s primary strategy for driving a foreign policy whose goal is to maintain our global hegemony by any means necessary. Dick Cheney and his possible understudy, Sarah Palin, represent America’s number one sheriff.
Come to think of it, who should be the one with a finger on the button? Well, gosh, it ought to be someone who knows how to shoot and how to get the job done!
In his final days as President, Eisenhower gave a clear admonition that has gone unheeded—to reign in the military industrial complex. Socialists—not the Russian ones—have always warned against the consolidation of power between government, business and the military, and characterize it as the hallmark of totalitarianism.
Is it possible that we give way to a newfound hope on November 4th?
Got Gun ...Power or Crumb? (3rd assignment)
*(Mae West, “She Done Him Wrong” 1933)
Gitlin, T. (1986). We build Excitement: Car commercials and Miami Vice. Watching television: A Pantheon guide to popular culture. Pantheon Books
4th Assignment: The Pen is Mightier than the Gun
Who cares who the VP is anyway, as long as we get to keep our guns? From the point of view of the NRA, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution—the right to bear arms—might even trump freedom of speech, assembly, religion and the press.
In “We Build America,” Gitlin identifies that the automobile is one of the most potent devices that advertisers use to exploit the American romance with power objects—metaphors for personal freedom, rugged individualism, and desirable social status. We create these icons all the time, even in politics, where they quickly become surrogates for critical thinking. As long as we wrap the particular political figure or organization in the American flag and other symbols of American virtue, we don’t have to think about what the politicians really represent—their political ideology, policies and agenda as well as their social values. An equally commanding power object is the gun, embodied in another staple American icon, the lone gunman who incarnates in many forms: the heroic hunter-explorer, the moralistic self-righteous cop, the Samurai gun slinger, and the lonesome cowboy or cowgirl. Politicians and political candidates are routinely packaged with stock symbols that connote a figure of strong moral character, a stalwart protector and defender, a self-sufficient and unshakable leader, and above all, a courageous patriot. “On the surface… commercials … manipulate the romance of freedom in order to sell automobiles” (Gitlin, 1986). The metaphor of the gun has been deeply embedded within the American psyche since the early years of our Republic and our aggressive Westward expansion.
Currently, both the Republican and Democratic candidates have adopted, as part of their public aura, particular class values that cut to the proletarian facet of the American persona. Every Joe six-pack and hockey mom can identify with these archetypes; and, in their present mode, they are all products of what Adorno recognized as the culture industry. But wait a minute, there might be a new sheriff in town!
Whether it’s the President or Vice-President, this militaristic vigilante type attitude affects the presidency and the country as a whole. Very few American Presidents have been successful who’ve held an anti-war, anti-violence position. Jimmy Carter ‘s lack of aggressiveness as “commander in chief” of the military was viewed by many as wimpy. Whether Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t seem to matter—if you are not ready to take up the gun, you are considered weak and un-American.
Palin was a nobody that no one remembered until she was recruited and coached by a Republican organization called GOPAC (“Preparing a New Generation of Republicans to Lead America”) for a political career in the same way that young, unknown wannabe entertainers are shaped and displayed on American Idol, creating the next blockbuster entertainment sensation—and you even get to vote! It’s an uncanny how similar American Idol is to the phenomenon of grooming politicians for elected office. First, a group of “experts” with a semblance of authority selects individuals they think are good material. Those who pass the audition are then appropriately tutored and presented to the public in well-scripted events, much like the coming out parties for debutantes. Finally, we the people get to cast our vote yea or nay. It’s all part of the art and science of marketing in which politicians are regarded in the same light as every other commercial product. Spending $150,000 on Governor Palin’s wardrobe and makeup is nothing new. Every politician with ambitions beyond municipal office must consent to be airbrushed by PR specialists in order to become consumer friendly—not only a clean and shiny package at the political check out counter, but a personage palatable to the culture makers: if the culture makers are displeased, the candidates—their public personas—will be shredded and sent back to the media makeover department.
Yes, icons of all stripes are now media products just like Madonna or Hannah Montana, with the potential for selling a variety of associated accessories conveniently included in the ideology box: guns, beer, identity, power. In the context of political marketing, it is definitely more important to spend $22,000 on Sarah’s hair and makeup, fashioning a faux feminist image, than educating her about foreign policy, the constitution, the law, social and domestic policy, history and how the federal government actually works.
Gitlin was speaking about car commercials, but the same methodology and technology are used to advertise politics and politicians. You begin with someone who is a “blank”, an unknown quantity, and turn them into an American idol, an archetype that embodies personal freedom, personal power, virtue and apple pie with all the trimmings. And one of the most enduringly popular archetypes is the gun slinging Dirty Harry
or Annie Oakley. Gramsci would probably ask us to decipher the meta-message: as long as you can keep your gun, you don’t need to worry about educating your children, health care, your job, teenage pregnancy or the poor. A comfortable, false sense of security quells your longing to rise up, protest and question the powers that be. What is being reinforced and rewarded is the attitude that it’s every man for himself: we don’t need solidarity if we can just look after ourselves.
As long as you feel a sense of personal power because you can own a lethal weapon, you don’t have to align yourself with others to improve your community or change the government. This is one of the traditional ways that the power elites have learned to divert the attention of the masses from thinking, speaking, discussing and acting together. Gramsci might acknowledge that the right to bear arms is indeed empowering, but only slightly. Even though every citizen has this right, it is a freedom that is exaggerated and romanticized to the point that it is felt to be the cornerstone of the foundation of our American democracy—as if all of our rights and freedoms are balanced on this singular one and, if we loose it, we will be at the mercy of the government and criminals. But in reality, what does this right confer upon us other than the power to kill an intruder, our neighbor, our boss or massacre our fellow workers, students and teachers.
The symbolic resonance of the gun ripples through our culture at every level and our political idols and leaders embrace it. A modern exemplar was Ronald Reagan, the iconic, modern, cowboy-actor President. With First Lady Nancy Reagan, they were the veritable Roy Rogers
and Dale Evans of the American Presidency. Now we have John McCain = soldier, a professional gun slinger in defense of flag and country; Sarah Palin = Amazon huntress, a Caribou Barbie ready to act and protect; and Dick Cheney = our supreme, predatory hawk, a true believer in the power of the big gun, the primacy of overwhelming military strength, the Bush administration’s primary strategy for driving a foreign policy whose goal is to maintain our global hegemony by any means necessary. Dick Cheney and his possible understudy, Sarah Palin, represent America’s number one sheriff.
Come to think of it, who should be the one with a finger on the button? Well, gosh, it ought to be someone who knows how to shoot and how to get the job done!
In his final days as President, Eisenhower gave a clear admonition that has gone unheeded—to reign in the military industrial complex. Socialists—not the Russian ones—have always warned against the consolidation of power between government, business and the military, and characterize it as the hallmark of totalitarianism.
Is it possible that we give way to a newfound hope on November 4th?
Got Gun ...Power or Crumb? (3rd assignment)
*(Mae West, “She Done Him Wrong” 1933)
Gitlin, T. (1986). We build Excitement: Car commercials and Miami Vice. Watching television: A Pantheon guide to popular culture. Pantheon Books
4th Assignment: The Pen is Mightier than the Gun
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Politicking Celebs
Celebrity, the word has caused quite a stir in the presidential race.
This McCain ad accusingly labels Obama a celebrity, as if fame is generally considered unfavorable in the US, as if celebrity were a pejorative term, as if McCain himself weren't recognizable around the globe. What the McCain PR team seems to have forgotten is that millions of Americans buy and buy into all the glamour, fashion, scandal and every minute detail of celebrities' lives. We encounter images and stories about the rich and famous everywhere: in the tabloids at supermarket checkout lines, on TV shows, including the evening news, and on websites and blogs devoted to spreading celeb gossip.
Celebrity is the driving force behind much of American mass culture, providing people in our society with both a commodity to desire and acquire, as well as an ideology to espouse. In this way, celebrities assume the characteristics and functions of the dominant class, which in turn subsumes the interests of the people who consume mass culture, thereby maintaining the power dynamic of the rich and elite over everyone else. Celebrities have high cultural status and hold the power to influence our choices; whether it's the shoes we wear or the beverages we drink, celebrities' opinions, image and lifestyles affect how and what we think. It should follow then, that celebrities can influence who we choose to vote for.
By the looks of this video, celebrities believe-- or at the very least hope-- that they have the ability to sway voters' decisions. Here, Ron Howard, Andy Griffith and Henry Winkler complement their celebrity with humor and nostalgia to appeal to viewers. In Marxist terms, what the pathos of this video may accomplish is false consciousness. By yoking entertainment with politics, this video subtly compels viewers to think favorably about the message and about the status of celebrities. Whether the viewer agrees with Howard & co. is beside the point; when someone watches the video, presumably enjoying the process, that person absorbs not only the overt message (vote Obama in this case), but also the idea that celebrities' opinions matter more than anyone else's and that celebrities are some of the most important people in the world-- they are ruling class. By asserting themselves as ideologically dominant in the US, celebrities continually establish their preponderant position in American society, which serves as a constant reminder that "we the people" are subordinate.
Two things are unclear with regard to the issue of celebrities dealing in politics: 1) whether people are genuinely persuaded to vote with the celebs, and 2) why the McCain campaign sought to equate Obama with celebrity in a negative fashion. Of the former, I cannot offer any conclusion. What I can see though is that celebrities don't hesitate to say whatever they're thinking regarding politics or "politicians", especially when they can share those thoughts with the whole nation.
Matt Damon wasn't the only celebrity to speak out against the high profile vice presidential candidate. Pam Anderson also expressed herself and though she was none too eloquent, she didn't mince words either.
This type of persona is probably closer to what the McCain campaign had in mind when it attempted to malign Obama with the celebrity epithet: someone who is famous for partying and being at the center of scandal, someone whose reputation is based on physical appearance, someone who deviates from down-home family values. The McCain ad uses the images of Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton to establish this conception of celebrity. What McCain's campaign did not anticipate was a direct response from the infamous heiress herself.
While this video portrays Hilton as the vacuous jet-setter she is reputed to be, it also convincingly shows her to possess intellect and a form of social consciousness. That she speaks intelligently on serious political issues undermines the apparent claim of the McCain ad that celebrities are ignorant of or indifferent to the quotidian struggles of middle class Americans. This video response to the McCain ad became so popular that it merited a sequel, featuring more celebrities.
The argument from the McCain camp that Obama is unfit to be president because he is a celebrity is not only petty but also obtuse in that it fails to recognize the power and popularity of celebrities. Celebrities are in fact model capitalists:
- they control the means to produce and distribute their message/cultural product
- they have the platform to reach the populace
- they posses the allure necessary to grab the attention of society
- they set the standards for acceptable behavior, which people emulate
- they can create false consciousness by coercing people to enjoy doing and thinking things that are against their interests by means of entertainment
- ultimately, they have the power to maintain the status quo by situating themselves in a class above all the non-rich and non-famous citizens of the USA
So then, if Obama is a celebrity, then he is the perfect person to salvage American capitalism. Isn't that exactly what McCain wants?
Here's another look at the celeb ad, along with my spin on it.
Or check out my original piece on celebrity phenomena.
This McCain ad accusingly labels Obama a celebrity, as if fame is generally considered unfavorable in the US, as if celebrity were a pejorative term, as if McCain himself weren't recognizable around the globe. What the McCain PR team seems to have forgotten is that millions of Americans buy and buy into all the glamour, fashion, scandal and every minute detail of celebrities' lives. We encounter images and stories about the rich and famous everywhere: in the tabloids at supermarket checkout lines, on TV shows, including the evening news, and on websites and blogs devoted to spreading celeb gossip.
Celebrity is the driving force behind much of American mass culture, providing people in our society with both a commodity to desire and acquire, as well as an ideology to espouse. In this way, celebrities assume the characteristics and functions of the dominant class, which in turn subsumes the interests of the people who consume mass culture, thereby maintaining the power dynamic of the rich and elite over everyone else. Celebrities have high cultural status and hold the power to influence our choices; whether it's the shoes we wear or the beverages we drink, celebrities' opinions, image and lifestyles affect how and what we think. It should follow then, that celebrities can influence who we choose to vote for.
See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die
By the looks of this video, celebrities believe-- or at the very least hope-- that they have the ability to sway voters' decisions. Here, Ron Howard, Andy Griffith and Henry Winkler complement their celebrity with humor and nostalgia to appeal to viewers. In Marxist terms, what the pathos of this video may accomplish is false consciousness. By yoking entertainment with politics, this video subtly compels viewers to think favorably about the message and about the status of celebrities. Whether the viewer agrees with Howard & co. is beside the point; when someone watches the video, presumably enjoying the process, that person absorbs not only the overt message (vote Obama in this case), but also the idea that celebrities' opinions matter more than anyone else's and that celebrities are some of the most important people in the world-- they are ruling class. By asserting themselves as ideologically dominant in the US, celebrities continually establish their preponderant position in American society, which serves as a constant reminder that "we the people" are subordinate.
Two things are unclear with regard to the issue of celebrities dealing in politics: 1) whether people are genuinely persuaded to vote with the celebs, and 2) why the McCain campaign sought to equate Obama with celebrity in a negative fashion. Of the former, I cannot offer any conclusion. What I can see though is that celebrities don't hesitate to say whatever they're thinking regarding politics or "politicians", especially when they can share those thoughts with the whole nation.
Matt Damon wasn't the only celebrity to speak out against the high profile vice presidential candidate. Pam Anderson also expressed herself and though she was none too eloquent, she didn't mince words either.
This type of persona is probably closer to what the McCain campaign had in mind when it attempted to malign Obama with the celebrity epithet: someone who is famous for partying and being at the center of scandal, someone whose reputation is based on physical appearance, someone who deviates from down-home family values. The McCain ad uses the images of Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton to establish this conception of celebrity. What McCain's campaign did not anticipate was a direct response from the infamous heiress herself.
See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die
While this video portrays Hilton as the vacuous jet-setter she is reputed to be, it also convincingly shows her to possess intellect and a form of social consciousness. That she speaks intelligently on serious political issues undermines the apparent claim of the McCain ad that celebrities are ignorant of or indifferent to the quotidian struggles of middle class Americans. This video response to the McCain ad became so popular that it merited a sequel, featuring more celebrities.
See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die
The argument from the McCain camp that Obama is unfit to be president because he is a celebrity is not only petty but also obtuse in that it fails to recognize the power and popularity of celebrities. Celebrities are in fact model capitalists:
- they control the means to produce and distribute their message/cultural product
- they have the platform to reach the populace
- they posses the allure necessary to grab the attention of society
- they set the standards for acceptable behavior, which people emulate
- they can create false consciousness by coercing people to enjoy doing and thinking things that are against their interests by means of entertainment
- ultimately, they have the power to maintain the status quo by situating themselves in a class above all the non-rich and non-famous citizens of the USA
So then, if Obama is a celebrity, then he is the perfect person to salvage American capitalism. Isn't that exactly what McCain wants?
Here's another look at the celeb ad, along with my spin on it.
Or check out my original piece on celebrity phenomena.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
I Don't Have a Dollar to My Name, but Can I Get Some CHANGE?
Episode One:
"The Genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we've changed this country before. In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the West, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream... For that is our unyielding faith-- that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it."
-Barack Obama "Our Past, Future & Vision for America" February 10, 2007 Presidential Announcement
FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS- Convincing the masses to believe that they need something that is against their self interest. This means it will most definitely benefit the ruling class.
HEGEMONY- Control without physical force. The dominant groups control by securing spontaneous consent of subordinate groups through negotiated construction of a consensus that incorporates all!
In terms of this election year:
BOTTOM LINE:
This election seems to have reshaped what the masses need; a more liberal Head of State. A conversation held in a coffee shop sparked my interest in whether or not the ruling class is using hegemonic ideologies to enlist the aid of the proletariat to meet a certain end. Really, what we need to question is who is currently the ruling class?
Is it:
If we are to look at all angles of this election, the odds seem against the Republican party. It almost seems TOO perfect. Could it be that we are being directed to think and vote a certain way? Looking at the surface of the Republican party's candidate, it doesn't look too good.
The Stats (working against "the Man"):
Though we have the chance to choose our presidential candidate, it seems that we are being fed the answer to our problems. Reading through articles or watching videos about Barack Obama-- they seem to scream HEGEMONY! Someone is TELLING us to vote a certain way--without forcing us-- without outwardly saying: "This is the who you SHOULD vote for! This is who you NEED to vote for! This is the best possible decision you could EVER make."
Not to discount Senator Obama by any means. Yet, there is a sense that all things pop culture seem to be pointing that way. "The Obama way." There is a sense of rebellion that is attached to voting for Obama; that this is a presidential race built upon voting against the same person who always wins-- right wing, white and elderly. We find that change, for the positive, can be found in a biracial man, who does not quit in the journey to change a nation that finds itself with its index finger on a red self-destruct button.
Yet, in this case, is hegemony so bad? If we look at hegemony as a way to make change in our country, can we not embrace it as Gramsci suggests? Hegemony, in this situation, is pushing for the masses to vote a certain way; the "right way." It is pushing us to make a change. The "common man" is given this option. It almost seems as though the ruling class is giving the regular man-- as manifested, for example, through Joe the Plumber or Joe Six Pack (by the GOP party)-- a way to have a hand in the future of the nation. Oddly enough, we've always been given this right to CHOOSE, to VOTE, and yet, it seems like a gift that we are recently being given as a nation. Suddenly, the minorities of the population (whether referring to race, age, sex, economic stance) are primed to vote. Who is pulling the strings?
EPISODE TWO:
Obama as the Hegemonic Hero.
Discussion of selling an image to win votes.
EPISODE THREE:
Obama Platform: The Facts
Separating the image from the candidate's platform. A short video piece that gets straight to the point.
"The Genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we've changed this country before. In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the West, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream... For that is our unyielding faith-- that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it."
-Barack Obama "Our Past, Future & Vision for America" February 10, 2007 Presidential Announcement
FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS- Convincing the masses to believe that they need something that is against their self interest. This means it will most definitely benefit the ruling class.
HEGEMONY- Control without physical force. The dominant groups control by securing spontaneous consent of subordinate groups through negotiated construction of a consensus that incorporates all!
In terms of this election year:
- Distractors (using popular culture to convince the masses that they NEED to fall into line and vote a certain way.)
BOTTOM LINE:
- The working class unifies to overthrow the ruling class.
This election seems to have reshaped what the masses need; a more liberal Head of State. A conversation held in a coffee shop sparked my interest in whether or not the ruling class is using hegemonic ideologies to enlist the aid of the proletariat to meet a certain end. Really, what we need to question is who is currently the ruling class?
Is it:
- The lower & middle class: As they make up a bigger part of the American population and seem to have a greater voice-- which is made so with their ability to create a buzz via the internet.
- The upper class, the meager two-percent of the population that seem to be screwed either way they vote. (see: Taxes.)
If we are to look at all angles of this election, the odds seem against the Republican party. It almost seems TOO perfect. Could it be that we are being directed to think and vote a certain way? Looking at the surface of the Republican party's candidate, it doesn't look too good.
The Stats (working against "the Man"):
- The elderly, robotic candidate...
- The inexperienced, but attractive, running mate...
- The skimpy, [mostly] inaccurate, and shaky platform of the GOP party...
Though we have the chance to choose our presidential candidate, it seems that we are being fed the answer to our problems. Reading through articles or watching videos about Barack Obama-- they seem to scream HEGEMONY! Someone is TELLING us to vote a certain way--without forcing us-- without outwardly saying: "This is the who you SHOULD vote for! This is who you NEED to vote for! This is the best possible decision you could EVER make."
Not to discount Senator Obama by any means. Yet, there is a sense that all things pop culture seem to be pointing that way. "The Obama way." There is a sense of rebellion that is attached to voting for Obama; that this is a presidential race built upon voting against the same person who always wins-- right wing, white and elderly. We find that change, for the positive, can be found in a biracial man, who does not quit in the journey to change a nation that finds itself with its index finger on a red self-destruct button.
Yet, in this case, is hegemony so bad? If we look at hegemony as a way to make change in our country, can we not embrace it as Gramsci suggests? Hegemony, in this situation, is pushing for the masses to vote a certain way; the "right way." It is pushing us to make a change. The "common man" is given this option. It almost seems as though the ruling class is giving the regular man-- as manifested, for example, through Joe the Plumber or Joe Six Pack (by the GOP party)-- a way to have a hand in the future of the nation. Oddly enough, we've always been given this right to CHOOSE, to VOTE, and yet, it seems like a gift that we are recently being given as a nation. Suddenly, the minorities of the population (whether referring to race, age, sex, economic stance) are primed to vote. Who is pulling the strings?
EPISODE TWO:
Obama as the Hegemonic Hero.
Discussion of selling an image to win votes.
EPISODE THREE:
Obama Platform: The Facts
Separating the image from the candidate's platform. A short video piece that gets straight to the point.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Culture Industry: Now! In Alaska!
Theodor Adorno’s greatest contribution to the field of media studies is his declaration that there is such a thing as a culture industry. He likens the creation of popular culture as we know it to a factory, churning out product to pacify the masses. After all, if we are worried about inconsequential matters such as celebrity gossip and the happenings on our favorite television program, we won’t worry about the things that the ruling class doesn’t want us to. Hegemony at its finest!
This election has turned into a debacle and a sideshow, and there is no more obvious example of culture industry than Sarah Palin. Her candidacy for the Vice Presidency is completely manicured and calculated by the Republican party.
Remember Hillary Clinton?
Some people love her, many people hate her, but the fact of the matter is, she was very close to capturing the Democratic Presidential nomination. The fact that she’s a woman meant she excited the female voter base, many choosing to vote for her because she is a woman. With Clinton’s ultimate loss in the Democratic primary, many Democrats turned on Obama, refusing to vote for him for any number of reasons.
McCain won the Republican Primary easily and he had to choose a Vice Presidential candidate. But who? The Democrats had a black man and a woman – progressive! So why not cater to the progressive voters and try to get the disappointed Clinton supporters along the way? Let’s get a woman! But not just any woman, let’s get a pretty woman that no one’s ever heard of – who has no real political history to speak of and no built up bias after years in the public eye. Is there such a person out there? Why yes, yes there is.
She’s obviously qualified and very well informed about the job she’s going to be doing. It's refreshing to have someone so prepared and experienced with her eye on the White House.
The Republican party has been very careful to keep her away from interviewers, being very choosy about where she appears and what shesays is allowed to talk about. Her appearance on Saturday Night Live last weekend was a ratings bonanza for the show and proves just how calculated her media appearances have been. After all, Tina Fey’s resemblance and perfect impersonation have been drawing viewers to Saturday Night Live since the season began in September. Why not show those naysayers, those Democrats, that Sarah Palin isn’t just a pretty face, she also has a great sense of humor!
It’s not actually certain that she even knows how to read.
But the scariest part of all of this is that people are buying it hook, line and sinker. This transparent farce is working, as a large population of the country is not batting an eye, even as the wool is being pulled over it...er...them.
Assignment #3: Video critique.
Assignment #4: Video response.
This election has turned into a debacle and a sideshow, and there is no more obvious example of culture industry than Sarah Palin. Her candidacy for the Vice Presidency is completely manicured and calculated by the Republican party.
Remember Hillary Clinton?
Some people love her, many people hate her, but the fact of the matter is, she was very close to capturing the Democratic Presidential nomination. The fact that she’s a woman meant she excited the female voter base, many choosing to vote for her because she is a woman. With Clinton’s ultimate loss in the Democratic primary, many Democrats turned on Obama, refusing to vote for him for any number of reasons.
McCain won the Republican Primary easily and he had to choose a Vice Presidential candidate. But who? The Democrats had a black man and a woman – progressive! So why not cater to the progressive voters and try to get the disappointed Clinton supporters along the way? Let’s get a woman! But not just any woman, let’s get a pretty woman that no one’s ever heard of – who has no real political history to speak of and no built up bias after years in the public eye. Is there such a person out there? Why yes, yes there is.
She’s obviously qualified and very well informed about the job she’s going to be doing. It's refreshing to have someone so prepared and experienced with her eye on the White House.
The Republican party has been very careful to keep her away from interviewers, being very choosy about where she appears and what she
It’s not actually certain that she even knows how to read.
But the scariest part of all of this is that people are buying it hook, line and sinker. This transparent farce is working, as a large population of the country is not batting an eye, even as the wool is being pulled over it...er...them.
Assignment #3: Video critique.
Assignment #4: Video response.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Drink It, My Friend! (V3)
Drink It, My Friend!
The advertising industry in Turkey experienced a lack of creativity, capital and technology before 2000, because the visual electronic media only started to make a great amount of money in the mid-1990s. The spread of new visual media experiences and money to the advertising industry took time. It is true that there had always been a few successful campaigns, but the industry itself could not create stable success. Later, advertising agencies had to learn to use time and money efficiently after the devastating economic / political crisis in Turkey during 2000-2001. While the country was still recovering from the crisis, Cola Turka entered the market as a new soda with one of the most successful advertising campaigns in Turkish history.
Cola Turka's two TV commercials listed below were first aired in 2003. On these TV commercials, once the Americans drink Cola Turka they start to acquire Turkish cultural values and speak Turkish. The main message is that the Americans who invented the original cola prefer Cola Turka. In the beginning, we see people on a truck screaming "sampiyon Turkiye", which means "Turkey is the champion". It is related to the most popular sport "futbol” (soccer) in Turkey. This is how Turks celebrate soccer victory in international tournaments. Next, we see Chevy Chase meet with a guy in a bar who has a cowboy hat. They start talking and the guy who has a cowboy hat speaks in Turkish and drinks Turkish cola. He asks Chase how "yenge" is doing. That is a very Turkish way of asking how his wife is doing. The rest of the commercial stresses the message and in one case we see that Mr. Chase grows a moustache. The way that the commercial mocks both cultures is very smart. It draws attention to the commercial while delivering the message.
FIRST COMMERCIAL _( The video on Youtube does not show the beginning of the first commercial, so I had to find a different link. The fact that the video has a different codec on this link, I could not convert and uploaded it on Youtube). Alternative Link (No Beginning)
SECOND COMMERCIAL:
Focusing on a specific quality of a product is one of the key aspects in advertising. For example, everybody knows that Volvo produces cars that have many safety features and BMW produces fast cars. Cola Turka commercials have the same pattern, too. It can be assumed that nationalism was the specific quality of Cola Turka. There is nothing directly related to Cola Turka's taste; the focus is on nationalism. According to Gitlin, consumers feel that they acquire the qualities of a brand when they buy that product. From that perspective, consumers who buy Cola Turka will feel more nationalistic. However, nationalistic branding was not something only used by Cola Turka. Nationalistic branding was very popular in the United States, especially after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. For advertising, marketing a brand at the right time and in the right way is very important. When the commercials were aired on TV in July 2003 in Turkey, Iraq had already been invaded by the U.S. and coalition forces. At that time, a majority of the Turkish people believed that the United States posed a threat to the whole region, which led to the rise of anti-Americanism and Turkish nationalism.
I remember how people were in rush to buy Cola Turka after these commercials were aired. People from any class, age, and sex wanted to taste the new cola in the market. I remember myself buying it in the first week of its release. Well, to be honest, I did not like it and have not drunk it since. On the other hand, it is the second biggest brand after Coke Cola in the soda market in Turkey now. Pepsi lost its place to Cola Turka in a very short amount of time. Successful brand marketing always sells and so companies from developing countries should not feel insecure. Finally, they should focus on creative messages and productions. Thanks to the Internet, today, there are more opportunities and ways to deliver a message, and show a product. Developing countries are still learning how to do more professional advertising campaigns. It is a hard and time-consuming process. Cola Turka's campaign is a good example of using financial and creative sources effectively from the perspective of acting as a professional in the market.
The advertising industry in Turkey experienced a lack of creativity, capital and technology before 2000, because the visual electronic media only started to make a great amount of money in the mid-1990s. The spread of new visual media experiences and money to the advertising industry took time. It is true that there had always been a few successful campaigns, but the industry itself could not create stable success. Later, advertising agencies had to learn to use time and money efficiently after the devastating economic / political crisis in Turkey during 2000-2001. While the country was still recovering from the crisis, Cola Turka entered the market as a new soda with one of the most successful advertising campaigns in Turkish history.
Cola Turka's two TV commercials listed below were first aired in 2003. On these TV commercials, once the Americans drink Cola Turka they start to acquire Turkish cultural values and speak Turkish. The main message is that the Americans who invented the original cola prefer Cola Turka. In the beginning, we see people on a truck screaming "sampiyon Turkiye", which means "Turkey is the champion". It is related to the most popular sport "futbol” (soccer) in Turkey. This is how Turks celebrate soccer victory in international tournaments. Next, we see Chevy Chase meet with a guy in a bar who has a cowboy hat. They start talking and the guy who has a cowboy hat speaks in Turkish and drinks Turkish cola. He asks Chase how "yenge" is doing. That is a very Turkish way of asking how his wife is doing. The rest of the commercial stresses the message and in one case we see that Mr. Chase grows a moustache. The way that the commercial mocks both cultures is very smart. It draws attention to the commercial while delivering the message.
FIRST COMMERCIAL _( The video on Youtube does not show the beginning of the first commercial, so I had to find a different link. The fact that the video has a different codec on this link, I could not convert and uploaded it on Youtube). Alternative Link (No Beginning)
SECOND COMMERCIAL:
Focusing on a specific quality of a product is one of the key aspects in advertising. For example, everybody knows that Volvo produces cars that have many safety features and BMW produces fast cars. Cola Turka commercials have the same pattern, too. It can be assumed that nationalism was the specific quality of Cola Turka. There is nothing directly related to Cola Turka's taste; the focus is on nationalism. According to Gitlin, consumers feel that they acquire the qualities of a brand when they buy that product. From that perspective, consumers who buy Cola Turka will feel more nationalistic. However, nationalistic branding was not something only used by Cola Turka. Nationalistic branding was very popular in the United States, especially after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. For advertising, marketing a brand at the right time and in the right way is very important. When the commercials were aired on TV in July 2003 in Turkey, Iraq had already been invaded by the U.S. and coalition forces. At that time, a majority of the Turkish people believed that the United States posed a threat to the whole region, which led to the rise of anti-Americanism and Turkish nationalism.
I remember how people were in rush to buy Cola Turka after these commercials were aired. People from any class, age, and sex wanted to taste the new cola in the market. I remember myself buying it in the first week of its release. Well, to be honest, I did not like it and have not drunk it since. On the other hand, it is the second biggest brand after Coke Cola in the soda market in Turkey now. Pepsi lost its place to Cola Turka in a very short amount of time. Successful brand marketing always sells and so companies from developing countries should not feel insecure. Finally, they should focus on creative messages and productions. Thanks to the Internet, today, there are more opportunities and ways to deliver a message, and show a product. Developing countries are still learning how to do more professional advertising campaigns. It is a hard and time-consuming process. Cola Turka's campaign is a good example of using financial and creative sources effectively from the perspective of acting as a professional in the market.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Mad Men, Bad Ads and Sad Women: Thanking My Lucky Stars I was Born in the 80s
*This is reposted from class Ning*
So, turns out that 1960 was a crappy time to be a woman or a minority.
During the pilot episode of Mad Men, we learn that the Men of Madison Ave. are: misogynistic, racist, positively affecting the rates of lung cancer, and supporting Richard Nixon. The imperative of the series, then--much like that of the Sopranos--is to make "bad" characters sympathetic and relatable.
The pilot establishes the social hierarchy early and often, often through sexist/racist dialogue cloaked in paternalism ("simple enough for a woman to use") or other visual cues (the elevator scene). Sometimes the writers choose to hit you over the head with the 60s social structure (Joan's advice to Peggy to "always be a supplicant")--occasionally hamhandedly--but it's the pilot, after all, so that's OK.
And the hegemonic structure that defined this weird, repressed, smoke-saturated and sugar-coated post-war/pre-cultural-revolution era is in turn reflected in actual ads that appeared during that time. Here are some awesome, uber-creepy old ads for your morning coffee (or late-morning bourbon, if you're Don Draper):
Seriously, what will happen? I can't make out the smaller text. Is this unsettling spanking scene supposed to suggest that wifey could find her self in serious, potentially physically threatening trouble if she serves up stale coffee? Here's another:
This one causes me to ROTFLMAO. Blowing smoke in a lady's face--guys, this is a SURE FIRE way to get laid. I urge you to try it and see what happens.
Here's another, more insidious cigarette ad:
All babies want to be just like their dad, right? Even when dad's in the next room giving mom a vicious paddling for neglecting to "store-test", at least he won't feel over-smoked as per the Marlboro Miracle. This bewildered, faintly unibrowed baby is sure of one thing: He can't wait to take his first drag, if he hasn't already, and
especially can't wait to start shaving himself, free of Stropping and Honing! The artist managed to make this Amishly-attired baby look both menacing and strangely progeriatric. Could be that the art director was asleep at the wheel on this one, but who knows? These were the earlyish years of mass-produced advertising. Though today's conventional advertising wisdom would probably stipulate that commercials for state-of-the-art men's shaving products not include babies:
movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6D5_J943vOI&hl=en&fs=1">
because Gillette now wants men to associate their product with whipping around in a futuristic fast car and hot women in leather pants stroking their faces--appealing to the very same "adernal energies" that Adorno identified (38).
It's hard to talk about Mad Men without referencing our dear friend Bernays, who was among the first to mine the links between psychoanalytic theory and consumer habits, and who became famous for selling cigarettes to women as a symbol of independence. This is an ideal example of a "spoonful of sugar" moment, to borrow Michelle C's words.
As the series progresses, however, certain characters emerge as agitating against the strict social sedimentation in different, fascinating ways. I don't want to spoil the plot for those who haven't watched Seasons 2 and 3, but it's a great show and a reminder that we have in fact come a long way. (At least we've banned smoking indoors--yuck.) It's also an entertaining summation of all the principles we've talked about so far this semester.
For any inclined, the rest of the creepy old ads can be viewed here.
So, turns out that 1960 was a crappy time to be a woman or a minority.
During the pilot episode of Mad Men, we learn that the Men of Madison Ave. are: misogynistic, racist, positively affecting the rates of lung cancer, and supporting Richard Nixon. The imperative of the series, then--much like that of the Sopranos--is to make "bad" characters sympathetic and relatable.
The pilot establishes the social hierarchy early and often, often through sexist/racist dialogue cloaked in paternalism ("simple enough for a woman to use") or other visual cues (the elevator scene). Sometimes the writers choose to hit you over the head with the 60s social structure (Joan's advice to Peggy to "always be a supplicant")--occasionally hamhandedly--but it's the pilot, after all, so that's OK.
And the hegemonic structure that defined this weird, repressed, smoke-saturated and sugar-coated post-war/pre-cultural-revolution era is in turn reflected in actual ads that appeared during that time. Here are some awesome, uber-creepy old ads for your morning coffee (or late-morning bourbon, if you're Don Draper):
Seriously, what will happen? I can't make out the smaller text. Is this unsettling spanking scene supposed to suggest that wifey could find her self in serious, potentially physically threatening trouble if she serves up stale coffee? Here's another:
This one causes me to ROTFLMAO. Blowing smoke in a lady's face--guys, this is a SURE FIRE way to get laid. I urge you to try it and see what happens.
Here's another, more insidious cigarette ad:
All babies want to be just like their dad, right? Even when dad's in the next room giving mom a vicious paddling for neglecting to "store-test", at least he won't feel over-smoked as per the Marlboro Miracle. This bewildered, faintly unibrowed baby is sure of one thing: He can't wait to take his first drag, if he hasn't already, and
especially can't wait to start shaving himself, free of Stropping and Honing! The artist managed to make this Amishly-attired baby look both menacing and strangely progeriatric. Could be that the art director was asleep at the wheel on this one, but who knows? These were the earlyish years of mass-produced advertising. Though today's conventional advertising wisdom would probably stipulate that commercials for state-of-the-art men's shaving products not include babies:
movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6D5_J943vOI&hl=en&fs=1">
because Gillette now wants men to associate their product with whipping around in a futuristic fast car and hot women in leather pants stroking their faces--appealing to the very same "adernal energies" that Adorno identified (38).
It's hard to talk about Mad Men without referencing our dear friend Bernays, who was among the first to mine the links between psychoanalytic theory and consumer habits, and who became famous for selling cigarettes to women as a symbol of independence. This is an ideal example of a "spoonful of sugar" moment, to borrow Michelle C's words.
As the series progresses, however, certain characters emerge as agitating against the strict social sedimentation in different, fascinating ways. I don't want to spoil the plot for those who haven't watched Seasons 2 and 3, but it's a great show and a reminder that we have in fact come a long way. (At least we've banned smoking indoors--yuck.) It's also an entertaining summation of all the principles we've talked about so far this semester.
For any inclined, the rest of the creepy old ads can be viewed here.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Mad Men and not(yet) Marxist women
"What ever you are doing is okay” says Don Draper in a TV drama set in the late 1950s. We see that an advertising executive aim to make consumers sure that they feel happy when they smoke Lucky Strike cigarettes. Today, the main purpose is the same, advertising campaigns aim to make consumers feel happy. Karl Marx would probably think of advertising as way of manipulation to exploit proletariat by bourgeoisie (Rius, 92). Basically from his perspective we can assume that an advertising agency is a tool of manipulation for bourgeoisie, and an advertising agency is also owned or managed by a bourgeois. Marx would not only be very sad seeing the commercials but the role of women in Mad Men.
I knew that women did not have an equal role with men during the 50s in America, but I was still very surprised to see the amount of inequality between men and woman. A woman has two choices in the show; she can be a low paid worker or a housewife. Additionally, secretaries should entertain their bosses in and out of the office! Engels argues that administration of the household became private service and the wife was a domestic servant at home (Rius, 120). His argument crosses a path with women's role in Mad Men. According to the Marxist idea, working class (women at this point) does not know that it has been exploited by the boss(es). That is why women are not aware of the exploitation; they are blind to the truth.
Finally, I assume in upcoming seasons we will see the uprising of women's rights. The audience will have a chance to experience how roles were changed for women in American society. The show parallels American history and will soon depict the 1960s and 1970s uprising against the inequality of women in the society. Mad Men is a great drama. I have watched every episodes so far and it is one of the best TV productions that I have ever seen. Although it has a very slow paced story line, there is this high level of reality, story structure and acting that makes this drama something I would highly recommend.
Rius.(2003). Marx for beginners. New York: Pantheon Books.
I knew that women did not have an equal role with men during the 50s in America, but I was still very surprised to see the amount of inequality between men and woman. A woman has two choices in the show; she can be a low paid worker or a housewife. Additionally, secretaries should entertain their bosses in and out of the office! Engels argues that administration of the household became private service and the wife was a domestic servant at home (Rius, 120). His argument crosses a path with women's role in Mad Men. According to the Marxist idea, working class (women at this point) does not know that it has been exploited by the boss(es). That is why women are not aware of the exploitation; they are blind to the truth.
Finally, I assume in upcoming seasons we will see the uprising of women's rights. The audience will have a chance to experience how roles were changed for women in American society. The show parallels American history and will soon depict the 1960s and 1970s uprising against the inequality of women in the society. Mad Men is a great drama. I have watched every episodes so far and it is one of the best TV productions that I have ever seen. Although it has a very slow paced story line, there is this high level of reality, story structure and acting that makes this drama something I would highly recommend.
Rius.(2003). Marx for beginners. New York: Pantheon Books.
Monday, October 6, 2008
High, Wide and Handsome: Mad Men
Don Draper on Advertising: “Advertising is based on one thing: happiness. Making people believe that whatever they do, they are okay.”
Satire…I don’t think so. The characters and environment are not exaggerated enough to be ridiculous or even ironic. Rather, they are real, authentic characters. Perhaps they seem over-stated from our perspective, but they represent the cutting edge of what used to be called commercial art (advertising), the new media and marketing technology of that period.
Mad Men is an eloquent and skillful critique about the high flying world of advertising on Madison Avenue during the sixties, hence the term “Mad” (an abbreviation of Madison). The setting of the series, the early ‘60s, is a time of expansion that began in the victorious afterglow of World War II, grew during the social-political chill of reactionary Cold War propaganda and the McCarthy era hysteria, and teetered on the cusp of the radical shift that began in the mid ‘60s—a counter-cultural time bomb ready to explode all over Madison Avenue and Wall Street. It was a power-packed moment of dramatically unfolding possibilities that would change the country but not everyone in it. The Mad Men would survive and adapt to become stronger and more influential than ever before. Or as George Lois, one of the actual ad men of the time, points out, “the creative revolution was the name of the game and it was a lot of hard work.”
Music throughout—big bossa nova, riding high—the rhythm of the men on the move and dolled-up women queuing up.
Don Draper is a Bernays hero, a new archetype, the man that Bernays was trying to invent. He is the consummate advertising executive who had a native intuition—the kind that allows you to see the inside of people, to understand what they really want—what will hook them emotionally and shape their reality.
Opening scene-Draper in bar: he asks a black waiter why he smokes “Old Gold”—in the end, the 2 men, from different classes (the white bourgeois and the black servant) have a common denominator: women are dumb, underclass and they don’t understand them. Draper spends a lot of time asking “what do women want”—answering this question will enable him and his clients to profit from them.
Another scene: Peggy’s 1st day… “the new girl.” Joan lifts the cover off a typewriter and proclaims to Peggy, “don’t let all the technology overwhelm you, the men who designed it made it simple enough for a woman to use.”
Draper has intentionally and totally constructed his enigmatic blankness or, as Gitlin phrased it, [become] a symbolic element of the American culture: “…the emphasis on surface; the blankness of the protagonist; his striving toward self-sufficiency, to the point of displacement from the recognizable world.” (Gitlin p.139) And that is Draper’s hedge, his ace, and he plays it close to the chest. He’s a mystery man and even his wife is clueless: “Just think of me as Moses. I was a baby in a basket.”
The era marked the emergence of the stereotyped, new corporate man—the grey flannel suits who all think alike, who all aspire to the same lifestyle that displays their success, their pride, their modernity and their class. They are the new technocrats of the marketplace. Draper is WASPy, taking advantage of the prevailing ambience of bigotry, sexism and anti-Semitism but he’s also hip…he has a key to the Playboy Club. He is riding the crest of the wave of the post-WWII economic boom.
Roger Sterling asks Draper if the firm has ever hired any Jews. Draper, “Not on my watch.” At a meeting with a prospective Jewish client, the ad agency serves shrimp!! Jews don’t eat shellfish! Draper tells Ms. Menken (Rachel) that “She is way out of line! I’m not going to let a woman talk to me like this!!”
They walked the walk and talked the talk, wearing the same suits, drinking the same booze, owning the glitziest cars, and populating a harem of women. They believed their own hype and in their own market patriotism: sell, baby sell!
Draper meets Rachael Menken for a drink to “make-up”. They talk about love and Draper tells Rachael that real love doesn’t exist: “Love was invented by guys like me to sell someone nylons.” Rachael looks intently into Draper’s eyes, “It must be hard to be a man too; and until this moment…I just realized that you also feel disconnected…out of place in the world.” Like “us” Jews, “othered” and de-humanized.
Of the many thematic elements represented in Mad Men, the most fundamental of them is played out in the pilot episode concerning the tobacco industry’s dilemma: how to get people to desire and love something that will probably kill them… Happy sheep are easily led to the slaughterhouse.
At a meeting with tobacco executives Roger Sterling declares, “Through manipulation of the mass media people now believe that cigarettes are dangerous.” Lucky Strike executive, “By God, that’s what I pay YOU to do!! [manipulate the mass media for me] We’re selling America here—the Indians gave it to us for shit’s sake!!”
And for the sake of what? To sell someone a product and make money for the client so that you can also get rich? In the convoluted zeitgeist of business, this attitude is considered patriotic. How to make this country great becomes a scenario written by the captains of industry! We’re rich, we’re powerful, were modern and good-looking, and proud of it. We are the victors, and this country, its customers and its affluence are our reward. And by God, we’re gonna get what we deserve. Might makes right!
It was a time when the excessive arrogance or hubris of the era was in full swing. The Mad Men genuinely believed they could get away with anything and everything and that the consequences didn’t matter. Don’t worry, we’ll deal with it, they thought—our science, our technology and our wealth can solve any problem. We are the embodiment of the future, riding high, wide and handsome!
Satire…I don’t think so. The characters and environment are not exaggerated enough to be ridiculous or even ironic. Rather, they are real, authentic characters. Perhaps they seem over-stated from our perspective, but they represent the cutting edge of what used to be called commercial art (advertising), the new media and marketing technology of that period.
Mad Men is an eloquent and skillful critique about the high flying world of advertising on Madison Avenue during the sixties, hence the term “Mad” (an abbreviation of Madison). The setting of the series, the early ‘60s, is a time of expansion that began in the victorious afterglow of World War II, grew during the social-political chill of reactionary Cold War propaganda and the McCarthy era hysteria, and teetered on the cusp of the radical shift that began in the mid ‘60s—a counter-cultural time bomb ready to explode all over Madison Avenue and Wall Street. It was a power-packed moment of dramatically unfolding possibilities that would change the country but not everyone in it. The Mad Men would survive and adapt to become stronger and more influential than ever before. Or as George Lois, one of the actual ad men of the time, points out, “the creative revolution was the name of the game and it was a lot of hard work.”
Music throughout—big bossa nova, riding high—the rhythm of the men on the move and dolled-up women queuing up.
Don Draper is a Bernays hero, a new archetype, the man that Bernays was trying to invent. He is the consummate advertising executive who had a native intuition—the kind that allows you to see the inside of people, to understand what they really want—what will hook them emotionally and shape their reality.
Opening scene-Draper in bar: he asks a black waiter why he smokes “Old Gold”—in the end, the 2 men, from different classes (the white bourgeois and the black servant) have a common denominator: women are dumb, underclass and they don’t understand them. Draper spends a lot of time asking “what do women want”—answering this question will enable him and his clients to profit from them.
Another scene: Peggy’s 1st day… “the new girl.” Joan lifts the cover off a typewriter and proclaims to Peggy, “don’t let all the technology overwhelm you, the men who designed it made it simple enough for a woman to use.”
Draper has intentionally and totally constructed his enigmatic blankness or, as Gitlin phrased it, [become] a symbolic element of the American culture: “…the emphasis on surface; the blankness of the protagonist; his striving toward self-sufficiency, to the point of displacement from the recognizable world.” (Gitlin p.139) And that is Draper’s hedge, his ace, and he plays it close to the chest. He’s a mystery man and even his wife is clueless: “Just think of me as Moses. I was a baby in a basket.”
The era marked the emergence of the stereotyped, new corporate man—the grey flannel suits who all think alike, who all aspire to the same lifestyle that displays their success, their pride, their modernity and their class. They are the new technocrats of the marketplace. Draper is WASPy, taking advantage of the prevailing ambience of bigotry, sexism and anti-Semitism but he’s also hip…he has a key to the Playboy Club. He is riding the crest of the wave of the post-WWII economic boom.
Roger Sterling asks Draper if the firm has ever hired any Jews. Draper, “Not on my watch.” At a meeting with a prospective Jewish client, the ad agency serves shrimp!! Jews don’t eat shellfish! Draper tells Ms. Menken (Rachel) that “She is way out of line! I’m not going to let a woman talk to me like this!!”
They walked the walk and talked the talk, wearing the same suits, drinking the same booze, owning the glitziest cars, and populating a harem of women. They believed their own hype and in their own market patriotism: sell, baby sell!
Draper meets Rachael Menken for a drink to “make-up”. They talk about love and Draper tells Rachael that real love doesn’t exist: “Love was invented by guys like me to sell someone nylons.” Rachael looks intently into Draper’s eyes, “It must be hard to be a man too; and until this moment…I just realized that you also feel disconnected…out of place in the world.” Like “us” Jews, “othered” and de-humanized.
Of the many thematic elements represented in Mad Men, the most fundamental of them is played out in the pilot episode concerning the tobacco industry’s dilemma: how to get people to desire and love something that will probably kill them… Happy sheep are easily led to the slaughterhouse.
At a meeting with tobacco executives Roger Sterling declares, “Through manipulation of the mass media people now believe that cigarettes are dangerous.” Lucky Strike executive, “By God, that’s what I pay YOU to do!! [manipulate the mass media for me] We’re selling America here—the Indians gave it to us for shit’s sake!!”
And for the sake of what? To sell someone a product and make money for the client so that you can also get rich? In the convoluted zeitgeist of business, this attitude is considered patriotic. How to make this country great becomes a scenario written by the captains of industry! We’re rich, we’re powerful, were modern and good-looking, and proud of it. We are the victors, and this country, its customers and its affluence are our reward. And by God, we’re gonna get what we deserve. Might makes right!
It was a time when the excessive arrogance or hubris of the era was in full swing. The Mad Men genuinely believed they could get away with anything and everything and that the consequences didn’t matter. Don’t worry, we’ll deal with it, they thought—our science, our technology and our wealth can solve any problem. We are the embodiment of the future, riding high, wide and handsome!
Curvacious Women - Mad Men
Mad Men sucks the viewer into the virtual world of a 1960's New York advertising firm from the first sound and image experienced. The soundtrack has a stunted pre-emptive quality to arrest our attention to the discomfort of the unpredictable nature of a large advertising firm in the sixties in New York. Coupled with this is the minimalist presentation of the introduction sequence for the show. Stark vector lines and silhouettes litter the screen as a male image plunges from on-high into the abyss that is framed by oversixed sexualized images of the female anatomy. This is accompanied by the stunted soundtrack to give a feel of introspection and doubt about self and society.
This begining sequence of the show lends itself to analysis as satire. The overemphasis of the female anatomy as sexualized and oversized implies that the creators are giving us a commentary on the time and the society.
AMC is owned by Rainbow Media Holdings which is a subsidary of Cablevision which is the fifth largest cable provider in the U.S. Marx would not be impressed by the control of the means of production by such a huge organization but when we look deeper we learn that Cablevision is owned by the Dolan family in Long Island. The husband and wife team head the company with three of their six sons. This is a family owned business and Mr. Dolan was one of the founders of HBO. He sold his interest in HBO. Mad Men is the first original drama produced by AMC. Although the emphasis in the research leads us to believing that Mr. Dolan is the owner it is pointed out also that Mrs. Dolan is an equal player.
In Mad Men this overlooking of the contribution of women to society/the work-place is apparent. Mr. Dolan was born in the twenties so it can be assumed that he was involved in the reality that gives the impetus for the virtual world of Mad Men. It is this living through the experience and being a team in the work place with his wife that, from the Marxist perspective, may lead us to believe that Mad Men is a satire of the whole society of the sixties in an advertising agency in New York.
However, to analyze from the Gramscian perspective, this presentation of a sexist society as a satire is far enough removed from the time period to allow us to see and learn but to not let it influence us in the present day. The ease at which we are allowed to see this as a critique of the society of the sixties in an ad agency is indicative of the Gramscian idea of giving a little to quiet the masses. One could argue that this show could be set in the present day (with a few changes) and it could bring to our attention the continued sexism of our society (among other things). While talking to a friend about Mad Men and describing the show he responded "yea they (women) still cry in the workplace, it is still the same. But no man is allowed to cry." He proved to me that sexism is still alive and well.
The lighting of the show is of a chiaroscuro nature almost all the time indicating hidden agendas and deception. The flat lighting is used to show the multitude of secretaries who are all female and all the same i.e. easily replaced.
The dialogue has many examples of sexism: "Ladies love them magazines," If you do the right thing you'll be in the country not working at all," Men who design it (typewriter) make it simple enough for a woman to use." It goes on and on.
The camera angles when shooting men are generally at eye level with even balance. When shooting women the camera angles are usually below eye level and accentuate the curves of the female anatomy. Generally the shots are from the side or the back and many times index vectors of the (stupified) men direct our attention to the female anatomy.
While this does show men in a negative light and one could argue that these aesthetics admire the female anatomy, Gramsic would suggest that it is a satire only to the point where we can see the hypocrisy, but that it is not moving society for change. If it was to move society to change then it should be about the present day. Looking at the past allows us the comfort of subconsciously thinking that this is not how it is today but how it was in the past. To have a positive impact on society we would need to look at the present but perhaps the show would be too uncomfortable for the population to realize the wide spread sexism that is alive and well today. Gramsci would conclude that the removed time period is distant enough to placate society and hold the status quo.
But maybe this team, the Dolan family, do intend us to interpret the show as relevant to today. Maybe it is up to us to interpret the timeliness (or timelessness) of this production whether it is a satire or not. Equality of the sexes is not evident in society today. To admit this in 2008 is a strong step in the direction of evaluation and possible growth.
Maybe Mad Men will continue and grow and change. Maybe it will move forward historically and show us how little has changed since the sixties in relation to women's rights and equality. Maybe this show will tell us something and we will have a Marxist moment of truth for growth in society.
And maybe the Gramscian notion of a little carrot will keep us in our comfortable sexism of 2008 while we watch the "terrible" sexism of our past - the sixties.
This begining sequence of the show lends itself to analysis as satire. The overemphasis of the female anatomy as sexualized and oversized implies that the creators are giving us a commentary on the time and the society.
AMC is owned by Rainbow Media Holdings which is a subsidary of Cablevision which is the fifth largest cable provider in the U.S. Marx would not be impressed by the control of the means of production by such a huge organization but when we look deeper we learn that Cablevision is owned by the Dolan family in Long Island. The husband and wife team head the company with three of their six sons. This is a family owned business and Mr. Dolan was one of the founders of HBO. He sold his interest in HBO. Mad Men is the first original drama produced by AMC. Although the emphasis in the research leads us to believing that Mr. Dolan is the owner it is pointed out also that Mrs. Dolan is an equal player.
In Mad Men this overlooking of the contribution of women to society/the work-place is apparent. Mr. Dolan was born in the twenties so it can be assumed that he was involved in the reality that gives the impetus for the virtual world of Mad Men. It is this living through the experience and being a team in the work place with his wife that, from the Marxist perspective, may lead us to believe that Mad Men is a satire of the whole society of the sixties in an advertising agency in New York.
However, to analyze from the Gramscian perspective, this presentation of a sexist society as a satire is far enough removed from the time period to allow us to see and learn but to not let it influence us in the present day. The ease at which we are allowed to see this as a critique of the society of the sixties in an ad agency is indicative of the Gramscian idea of giving a little to quiet the masses. One could argue that this show could be set in the present day (with a few changes) and it could bring to our attention the continued sexism of our society (among other things). While talking to a friend about Mad Men and describing the show he responded "yea they (women) still cry in the workplace, it is still the same. But no man is allowed to cry." He proved to me that sexism is still alive and well.
The lighting of the show is of a chiaroscuro nature almost all the time indicating hidden agendas and deception. The flat lighting is used to show the multitude of secretaries who are all female and all the same i.e. easily replaced.
The dialogue has many examples of sexism: "Ladies love them magazines," If you do the right thing you'll be in the country not working at all," Men who design it (typewriter) make it simple enough for a woman to use." It goes on and on.
The camera angles when shooting men are generally at eye level with even balance. When shooting women the camera angles are usually below eye level and accentuate the curves of the female anatomy. Generally the shots are from the side or the back and many times index vectors of the (stupified) men direct our attention to the female anatomy.
While this does show men in a negative light and one could argue that these aesthetics admire the female anatomy, Gramsic would suggest that it is a satire only to the point where we can see the hypocrisy, but that it is not moving society for change. If it was to move society to change then it should be about the present day. Looking at the past allows us the comfort of subconsciously thinking that this is not how it is today but how it was in the past. To have a positive impact on society we would need to look at the present but perhaps the show would be too uncomfortable for the population to realize the wide spread sexism that is alive and well today. Gramsci would conclude that the removed time period is distant enough to placate society and hold the status quo.
But maybe this team, the Dolan family, do intend us to interpret the show as relevant to today. Maybe it is up to us to interpret the timeliness (or timelessness) of this production whether it is a satire or not. Equality of the sexes is not evident in society today. To admit this in 2008 is a strong step in the direction of evaluation and possible growth.
Maybe Mad Men will continue and grow and change. Maybe it will move forward historically and show us how little has changed since the sixties in relation to women's rights and equality. Maybe this show will tell us something and we will have a Marxist moment of truth for growth in society.
And maybe the Gramscian notion of a little carrot will keep us in our comfortable sexism of 2008 while we watch the "terrible" sexism of our past - the sixties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
