My modest claim is that advertising is the most powerful and sustained system of propaganda in human history and it's cumulative cultural and political effects unless very quickly checked will be responsible for destroying the world as we know it. In the process of acheiving this the masters of the advertising system, global corporations bent on nothing but private profits, will be responsible for the deaths of millions of people, mostly non-Western. In addition the peoples of the world will be prevented from achieving true happiness. Simply stated our survival as a species is dependent upon minimizing the threat from advertising and the commercial culture that has spawned it.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Sut Jhally's Modest Claim About Advertising
I transcribe the opening line from his speech here. You can watch the video to see if he justifies it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Jon,
There are some good points about consumerism in this video (or at least the first 40 min I've heard).
Reminds me of a book I read awhile back that you might find interesting as well. Talks about how our pop culture/consumerism reshapes and redefines the way we view reality.
For example, families that are too busy to have a sit down meal and order fast food or pizza delivery lose touch with the opportunities to have a deep connection with their family and community.
Additionally, their perception of other cultures and history also diminishes. One cannot understand the significance or messages attempting to be conveyed by Jesus during the last supper in 1st century Judaism if one's experience of sharing communal meal is sitting (or standing) around the TV wolfing down a slice of pizza from a cardboard box between commercials.
Additionally, pop culture becomes more self referencing, losing touch with art and classic literature.
If you compare the references in mass media from the 50s and 60s to today, you see a shift from references to Shakespeare, the Bible, etc to references to jokes about last year's TV show, or pop culture from the 70s/80s/90s.
For me, this is very apparent when you look at "older" comedy TV shows such as Monty Python's Flying circus. Peppered between the absurd are references to classical art, literature, and history.
http://www.amazon.com/Children-Suede-Shoes-Introduction-Redesign/dp/1433528223
One cannot understand the significance or messages attempting to be conveyed by Jesus during the last supper in 1st century Judaism
I find the loss of this particular (non-event) to be a good thing.
Paul,
Personally, I find it rather sad. But aside from this, I'm guessing we would both agree on a lot more things than we would disagree concerning consumerism and our current culture.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Hey Jonathan -
I am open to persuasion on the issue but I do not actually have negative views on (responsible) consumerism.
Put it another way, considering I had no choice on having been born, I am glad that I was born in the current era versus anytime in the past. Certainly there are lots of interesting things in history that I would think cool to experience first hand but I would not willfully sacrifice my life today for a life in the past.
Jon - talks often about simplifying his life. And I encourage him to do so. I admire that he has that as an ambition. I just don't share it. At least not to the same level. I like "things" and if I can have/buy these "things" and I do it in a responsible (however you wish to define that) I don't see a problem. I'd be happy to know/hear more about counter-views.
As to our current culture - on this too I would rather live in the now than in some historical context. W/O having giving it sufficient amount of thought my current inclination is that culturally speaking we haven't progressed enough.
Obviously on board with Paul on this - someone mentioned a disconnect at the dinner table which is true, but we also have far more ways to connect during everyday activities to eliminate that as a need during dinner.
My son can and sometimes does call me 3-4 times per day at recess or breaks (he's 6). My wife and I exchange emails, texts and calls to plan daily events and future events. When traveling I can Skype and be in the room almost unlimited.
I talk to my father and am closer to him now than every before - we play Xbox golf together, he Skype's in to watch the kids basketball games or to share in a moment yet he is 3 hrs away.
And I am patently the exception to some study/rule - there is a zero percent doubt that many "things" improve our way of life tremendously.
For us, Paul, it is a great time to be alive. But the things that are made available to us are paid for by others in the form of environmental destruction. Our children pay.
And what I think the studies show is that yes, you like your things and you think they are important for your happiness, but you'd actually be happier without them. But you have of course been conditioned to think you won't. Because it's profitable if you think you need things, even though what would probably happen if you gave them up is you would be happier.
It's kind of like the Muslim woman in the hijab. She says she likes it. Part of our struggle is educating people to recognize that they have been conditioned to desire this thing and in reality they are better off without it even if they don't now see it.
Chad,
I think your phrasing in your last message is rather telling.
"but we also have far more ways to connect during everyday activities to eliminate that as a need during dinner"
Seeing sharing a meal with family or friends as a need or duty which can be substituted through other activities or technology is a much different view than many cultures have held historically.
In contrast, meal time has been seen as a great pleasure which brings friends and family close for hours on end.
I agree, I love some of the great technologies of today and in fact, my aspirations to create a location independent lifestyle would not be possible without these innovations, but often times what seems as a technological improvement is actually a poor substitute.
Take skype or face time with the folks. My parents live 8 hours away, so this has been huge in connecting my children with their grandparents. But why are we 8 hours away to being with? It's because we've lost our sense of family in this culture, and the combination of need and desire have made it acceptable, and even necessary to be great distances away from family.
People extract their greatest sense of meaning and identity in community and with family, and the fact that many families such as mine and yours are living such distances away are indicative of a society and culture which falls short in delivering happiness, and tries to substitute it with technology.
Being an avid entrepreneur I would admittedly fall more in line with the "American" in the story below, but I do think there are some nuggets of wisdom in the following fable...
A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village.
An American tourist complimented the Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took him to catch them.
"Not very long," answered the Mexican.
"But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked the American.
The Mexican explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family.
The American asked, "But what do you do with all your time?"
"I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings, I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs...I have a full life."
The American interrupted, "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you!
You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat. With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers.
Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant."
"You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City! From there you can direct your huge enterprise."
"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican.
"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the American. "And after that?"
"Afterwards? That's when it gets really interesting," answered the American, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start selling stock and make millions!"
"Millions? Really? And after that?"
"After that -- and this is the best part -- you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, catch a few fish, take a siesta, and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends!"
For us, Paul, it is a great time to be alive. But the things that are made available to us are paid for by others in the form of environmental destruction. Our children pay.
We do not disagree on this. Though, perhaps naively, I think that if we had the collective will much progress can/could be made to mitigate the negative externalities that I think you are inferring to.
Now perhaps due to lack of wisdom/knowledge on the subject matter but I believe that in terms of quality of life for a "typical" person - the modern day person is overwhelmingly better off than the typical person in some historical context.
I suspect we agree with the above comment (in a vague sense).
To the following -
It's kind of like the Muslim woman in the hijab. She says she likes it. Part of our struggle is educating people to recognize that they have been conditioned to desire this thing and in reality they are better off without it even if they don't now see it.
I waffle on this a bit but in the example I don't actually believe the woman (that she likes to wear a hijab). But assuming she did. Maybe she does like it, in part, because she was conditioned. But also it is in part (perhaps larger part) of insufficient information and or knowledge.
Possibly the example actually goes goes counter to your argument. In the sense that her conditioning is a result cultural tradition (e.g historical).
There also appears to be an underlying assumption, which I do not grant, that having close connection to other people makes one happier. That could be true for many. Most perhaps. But that too may simply be a result of conditioning.
want to add a slight clarification to what I said in the following
There also appears to be an underlying assumption, which I do not grant, that having close connection to other people makes one happier. That could be true for many. Most perhaps. But that too may simply be a result of conditioning.
There is nothing wrong w/ wanting close connections to other people. If that is what "one" wants that is great. Where I would disagree is to extrapolate that all should want the same.
I think a lot of people in a moment of introspection ask themselves would I be happier if X. X possibly being if I had less things. If they genuinely think that if X they may be happier than they ought to pursue a course of action that makes X the case.
Paul,
I agree with you that it would be wrong to say that everyone *should* want what I arbitrarily deem as important and valuable (if that is what you were implying), however, I would argue that wide swaths of scientific study and philosophical inquiry come to the same conclusion linking close connections and happiness. I don't recall too many news stories of people committing suicide from having too many friends, or know of many people who do not find pleasure in being part of a "tribe" i.e. "I'm a Packers Fan", "I'm a runner", "I'm a hunter", "I'm a free thinking liberal" etc.
Additionally, people are notoriously poor and predicting what is going to bring satisfaction and enjoyment, and so it is rather naive to say "hey, Fred says he's happy spending 16 hours a day playing World of Warcraft in his apartment alone, and if that's what makes him happy, who am I to judge?". I might not cut Fred's DSL connection, but I might encourage him to go out and get some exercise and know that he would live a much more satisfied life if he made some different choices.
Regardless of how much we try and fight against our physiological makeup, or attempt to exert our free will and independence, we are intrinsically wired in such a way that we are happier when he help others and feel part of a community.
Tying this back to modern day culture, while I am certainly not going to try and force others to do the type of things I view as leading to a better life for them, I do believe that almost everyone without exception who grew up in a culture which was more focused on family and had less consumerism would feel they lived a more fulfilling life. It's not a matter of enforcing an ideology on making the world a better place, or a critique on the evils of consumerism, it's just how we are wired.
Jonathan,
Certainly not discounting family/meal time, but like my wife's family's upbringing the dinner table was the only socializing they did and the parents thought they were a good family just because.
Dinner is for eating, while we converse during - the heavy lifting (parenthood) has already been done or will be done and is assisted by tech. By turning off the tv to sit and watch others eat while maybe having a heavy conversation during seems illogical to me and cheapens your arguement. Parenting moments and stating that not having dinner time is a detriment, I think is maybe a bit short sighted, but I think I understand the point your attempting to make. My families dinner table is RV'ing, is when we play go fish or when we read bible stories.
Paul, Chad
I think you missed the point. WANT is DETERMINED by Consumerism(by definition).
i.e. Chad's justification of Firearms and his 4X4, his attitude to Taxation and so on.
If you accept capitalism in it's totality you MUST by definition accept 'the fetish of Capitalism...consumerism.... advertising et al.'
Put another way if you were to have sex only girls 12- 13 (pre/early pubescent) are you any less a paedophile than if you had sex with 6 year olds?
Or that tee shirt you wear is made by child labor just not yours is that any less wrong?
Unlike Jon I don't believe the absence of 'things'(asceticism)= happiness or contentment.
That, I believe lies in the notion of control of desires (wants) it's a cerebral thing.
like my interpretation of Buddha's dictum.
If you want contentment first control your desires seek only your needs ( anything more is a bonus). It's harder to sell you something if you're happy with what you've got. i.e. my hand me down cell phone V a whole heap of features that in the final analysis I know I won't use.
I.e. I have a wizz bang Bicycle but for a lot of reasons it is better for me physically than a cheapy. But it was the cheapest that met my physical needs, far from the best and expensive in the shop or in the market. Even though my family offered to buy a better/ more expensive one.
i.e. need V want.
Jon,
he right about Obama too.
I found it hard to believe that I hadn't seen this or heard of Sut before. Doubly so given 98% of what He's saying is what I've in principal been saying since day one here.
I do note that his opening remarks also talked about the excess and that we need to do something about advertising.
My stance is that advertising should be dialled back a lot not eliminated as in none...
Specifically the tendency toward misrepresentation. (puffing and false association)De Beers is a point in fact.
What he neglected to point out that without the false market blood diamonds wouldn't be able to fund wholesale, corruption and slaughter.
To me it's not capitalism i.e. the efficient use of capital (regardless of it's form) but more its amoral predatory nature,(exploitation of weakness, non costed real consequences of resource exploitation, externalities, accountability, artificial dominance and associative practices Stifling of improvements et al ).
Ex -
w/ regards to the following
I think you missed the point. WANT is DETERMINED by Consumerism(by definition).
Wikipedia states the following
Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the purchase of goods and services in ever-greater amounts. The term is often associated[by whom?] with criticisms of consumption starting with Thorstein Veblen. Veblen's subject of examination, the newly emergent middle class arising at the turn of the twentieth century,[1] comes to full[citation needed] fruition by the end of the twentieth century through the process of globalization. In this sense, consumerism is usually considered a part of media culture.
But I think it is not important to focus on the explicit definition but rather the general concept I think the conversation in these posts have gone.
If you accept capitalism in it's totality you MUST by definition accept 'the fetish of Capitalism...consumerism.... advertising et al.'
Really?
I think of myself as a liberal (e.g. progressive). What that means w/ regards to your counter factual of me accepting the totality of capitalism (as you define it) and its consequences I'll leave to you to reassess.
Put another way if you were to have sex only girls 12- 13 (pre/early pubescent) are you any less a paedophile than if you had sex with 6 year olds?
Or that tee shirt you wear is made by child labor just not yours is that any less wrong?
I suspect that both were rhetorical but what the heck. In spirit of discussion I will answer.
To the first example - from the perspective of what the law should be and its consequences I make no distinction. At risk of being thought some kind of (sick) radical there is a big difference between the maturity of a 6 year old and a 12-13 year old.
To the second analogy - no I don't think it is any less wrong (because it was someone else's child). Though I think I miss your point. Have anything I've said suggest that I would think otherwise?
Paul
Thank you for your response.
I'm not that sure you are quite following the context of the article.
For Capitalism to exist it needs to sell its out put. To sell it's endlessly increasing products it need a compliant desire (wants) based population .i.e. Consumerism. That is from the video.
Advertising actually conditions the people to this way of *wants* . By associating happiness etc with a brand name or a product (stuff and things). Again this is explicitly the context of the video. Are you saying that the prof is wrong in his analysis ? Fair enough if you are, that is your right but would you please explain how?You need to prove or show a workable capitalism where it can sell its products to sustain the endless growth.
You would need to disprove the facts he cited . Not simply ignore them and run your own selected facts. That is gain saying or he says she says not mounting an argument. Your discussions with Chad appeared to be the latter.
You quote *A* definition of Consumerism without context then claim what ? end of?
the truth is this misses the point. e.g. a definition of a tack hammer is benign but would you give one to two two year olds child to play with? ( only one if his name was Maxwell and the hammer was silver ;-) ) Beatles reference. Ergo by definition i.e. its construction and common sense (potentially) dangerous.
There is no plausible context in which capitalism doesn't need consumerism to exist or vise versus .
As for your claim of rhetoric are you say this doesn't happen?
Are you saying its OK?
One of the major problems with Capitalism ( like ANY philosophy) i is that it is, included all the self interested distortions (laws, spin, abuse of power etc). Today its Primary (most used) tactic is that it focuses on EXPLOITATION OF THE WEAKEST the least powerful .
BTW It is demonstrable that ANY philosophy in and of it's self is a recipe for societal collapse. Simply because by codification they are rigid and not flexible enough to cope with the functional unpredictable randomness of reality.... except possibly in the language of mathematical constructs ….good luck with that one.
It appears that at the basis of a lot of Republican thinking is a deliberate myopia.
An extreme but real example is the way the USA manufactures weapons and then sells/ gives them away to others i.e. any enemy of MY enemy ( road block to our *perceived* interests is a friend of mine)
Look at the list of countries the USA armed then it's come back to bite us (killing *our * troops/people)
Vietnam, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan none of which were ever a threat to Americans.
Part 2
Same principal with off shoring say simple manufacturing jobs.(China has gone from a backward 3rd world country to the second biggest economy and potentially the next power BECAUSE of that one fact of capitalism.
e.g. The huge US copper mine in West Papua and the subsequent military support for Indonesia doing the same thing for the largest Islamic( population) nation in the world.
Literally funding, supporting a tyrannical rule, genocide of Almost 40% of the east Timorese ( 3-400K devoutly Catholic people). Even amongst the true Indonesians their Islamic extremists slaughter,terrorise their own (sic) Buddhists and Hindus. And don't forget the West Papuans ( another largely Christian people) because they want independence or at least some of the huge profits to improve their lives.
BTW the multi Millionaire Generals etc have pecuniary interests in the mine that inspires them to let loose their racist troops with extraordinary brutality.
Ask yourself at what stage would YOU regard the moral consequences of the exploitation of these minorities for copper wealth a bit 30 pieces of gold(ish).
Oh BTW the Indonesians are forcing Islamic conversion on the Papuan Christians.
Republicans tend to disassociate the consequences from their self interested causes. It isn't a surprise then that they choose Capitalism and its primary tool Advertising to foster the myopic aims of Consumerism. All to assuage their pecuniary motivated moral integrity.
Post a Comment