Advertising and Consumer Culture Part 2

There is a significant need to look at society through the lens of advertising and this is no phenomenon as a student of Media Literacy and Digital Culture. I have learned that it is possible to do so through several specific key concepts such as racism, narcissism, gender, but also the benefits it offers. I would like to offer my understanding of these concepts by comparing and contrasting multiple readings on the topics I mentioned. Anthony Cortese’s chapter titled, “Symbolic Racism in Advertising” provides a strong background on this idea and the connection to popular culture in todays society. Susan J. Douglas’ passage, “Narcissism as Liberation” is a thought provoking piece about the ways that advertising agencies can make any idea benefit them in some way, even if the idea is uncanny. Cortese’s chapter, “Constructed Bodies, Deconstructing Gender” reveals how men and women are victims of sexism in advertising. Sut Jhally and James Twitchell’s conversation, “On Advertising” is an intriguing debate on the overall societal effects of advertising. Contrarily, Joshua Johnson’s article, “In Defense of Advertising” acknowledges the benefits of advertising that are seemingly hard to deny. Although it is worth knowing the main ideas within each reading, it is helpful to understand the points of agreement and differences, across and among these readings, which I will go into next. In addition, I will discuss a major common theme that I find present among the readings as well as which reading I personally find the most compelling and persuasive.

After reading the above mentioned passages, it is apparent that the effects of advertising create a debatable response. This common theme of dubiousness is evident throughout all of the readings which seemingly acknowledge the opposing view at some point. This leads the reader to believe that neither side is denying the questionable aspects of advertising, no matter how strong their views may be. With that being said, lets consider Cortese’s chapter titled, “Symbolic Racism in Advertising,” in which he does a powerful job of solidifying the argument against this aspect of advertising. According to Cortese, the reason we need to scrutinize racism in advertising is because it helps shape larger cultural attitudes and acts as measure of dominant ethnic groups (125). He notes, “Advertising and other media justify, rationalize, and support the status quo and social stratification through stereotypes, controlling images, and receptive text. By controlling images and beliefs about social categories and institutions, this racist system shapes what is considered ‘normal’ in society. ‘Normal’ consists of dominant group beliefs, behavior, thinking, values, and culture. Negative stereotypes of nonwhites can result in internalize oppression—a system of beliefs that causes minority group members to subconsciously believe the distorted and pejorative images and messages about themselves” (163). After understanding Cortese’s point of view it is hard to dispute this undoubtedly negative aspect of advertising, especially when considering the impact it has already had on minority group members.

While complementary to Cortese theoretically, Douglas emphasizes an interesting title in her chapter, “Narcissism as Liberation.” This phrase hints at the carefully thought out nature of a particular point in advertising. Douglas notes, “By the 1980’s, advertising agencies had figured out how to make feminism—and antifeminism—work for them” (267). It is evident that Douglas is pointing out the manipulative element of advertising. While advertising agencies successfully made women feel like their products would give them more personal worth, women were receiving a confusing message (280). This is evident when Douglas says, “Narcissism as liberation is liberation repackaged, deferred, and denied. Again women felt pinioned, trapped in a web of warring messages. We were supposed to work harder than ever; in fact the mark of success was having no time for your friends, your family, or yourself. But we were also supposed to indulge ourselves, and to know when and how to kick back, and to do so with style” (280). It seems that Cortese and Douglas would agree with each other on the undeniable manipulative nature of advertising.

Another chapter by Cortese, “Constructed Bodies, Deconstructing Gender” is a considerable look at the ability of advertising to create what they deem to be a ‘perfect’ world with no natural imperfections (65). Cortese notes, “Although the social construction of gender is not fresh, this perspective has more recently been formalized in sexual objectification theory (Frederickson and Roberts 1997). Accordingly, being raised in a culture that objectifies the female body and sexualizes women leads them to internalize this objectification. This is called self-objectification. Such self-consciousness is characterized by habitual self-monitoring of one’s physical appearance” (88). While I believe his chapter on racism in advertising is the most compelling due to the fact that I will never understand any aspect of racism, this chapter on gender seems considerably persuasive to me as well. This is most likely because I am a female in my late twenties and I have grown up in a society where women are expected to look and act a certain way. The objectification theory that Cortese points out is extremely relatable as I do find myself silently feeling the constant need to be thinner, even if I am aware of my own personal traits that are more important than my appearance. It is worth noting that while the above mentioned readings do not seem debatable right away, it starts to make sense when considering the debatable conversation between Jhally and Twitchell which I will go into next.

When analyzing this next reading, I begin to see significant differences within the same reading as opposed to Johnson’s which I will analyze last. Jhally and Twitchell’s, “On Advertising” is a conversational debate regarding the agenda of advertising and its effects on society as a whole. According to Jhally, advertising is a destructive force on society, but Twitchell believes advertising is holding society together (1). In the article, Jhally says, “The evidence is that material things do not deliver the type of happiness that the system says they should deliver” (2). Twitchell argues that statement by asking, “Is there a system that does deliver more happiness? If so, why hasn’t it elbowed its way through and pushed this system aside?” (3). As they go on to discuss their opinions, Jhally argues that social lives are what people strive for the most (3). Twitchell, on the other hand, considers the idea that maybe society wants value placed on things (3). He considers another idea which is that although people may not agree with how objects are made, objects themselves are considerably delivering what people want and need (3). It is conversations like theirs that lead to larger conversations about similar issues, especially in higher education environments such as the Media Literacy and Digital Culture program that I am currently a part of.

While considering Johnson’s, “In Defense of Advertising” I see a definitive shift in opinions. Johnson and Twitchell may see eye to eye, but the other writers undoubtedly do not agree. Johnson notes, “Advertising dollars put satellites into space so that you can watch your favorite shows and stay up on news from around the world. These dollars build stadiums, keep highways clean and fuel the radio station you listen to on the way to work in addition to the websites that you frequent while you’re supposed to be working” (3). With that being said, it is obvious that Johnson and Twitchell seem to agree that advertising keeps the world spinning. Johnson reveals the idea that advertising gives creative people an outlet in an employment setting (10). He also notes that progressive companies behind positive products are successful with the help of advertising (11). His most thought-provoking statement may be as follows, “This is why I love advertising. For the challenge, the creativity, the emotion, the fun and the raw power it has to truly change the world” (12). That is not something I had thought of before reading his article. How exactly could advertising change the world in a positive way and how can we make that happen? Never mind the fact that this may not be possible in todays world, what if every single advertisement was behind an ethical campaign? This is why ‘debatable’ is the common theme I found most prevalent among these readings.

After offering insight into the five readings I discussed, I am left with the feeling that Cortese, Douglas, and Jhally would probably come to an overall agreement that advertising offers more harm than benefits, especially in regards to racism and sexism. Contrarily, Johnson and Twitchell would probably agree that advertising offers more benefits than harm. I suppose the question we may want to ask ourselves is, where do our ethics lie? Can we support an advertising agenda that actively utilizes racism, sexism, and narcissism? My answer is a passionate no, especially because those are only a few of the issues we find in advertising. With that being said, I would be lying if I said I didn’t appreciate the ability of advertising dollars to provide creative outlets, entertainment, and powerful opportunities, especially when campaigned by good natured employees. Maybe the real question is, which is more important? Perhaps the idea is to try our best to research initiatives we would rather support so as not to add to the success of institutions with morals that do not line up with our own. This type of action is emphasized and encouraged in media literacy education, which I am currently immersed in. Ultimately, it is worth understanding that any action towards what we think is valuable for society is considerably more appropriate than no action.

Symbolic Racism in Advertising, Cortese, Anthony Joseph Paul. Provocateur: Images of Women and Minorities in Advertising. Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.

Narcissism as Liberation, Scanlon, Jennifer R. “The Gender and Consumer Culture Reader.” Barnes & Noble, www.barnesandnoble.com/w/gender-and-consumer-culture-reader-jennifer-scanlon/1101387087.

Constructed Bodies, Deconstructing Gender, Cortese, Anthony Joseph Paul. Provocateur: Images of Women and Minorities in Advertising. Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.

Jhally vs. Twitchell - Sut Jhally Website, www.sutjhally.com/articles/jhallyvstwitchell/.

Johnson, Joshua. “In Defense of Advertising.” Design Shack, 2 Feb. 2011.