I was just sitting and mindlessly watching television, and a commercial for a health insurance company came on. It showed adults walking around the streets of a city dressed in costumes – astronaut, doctor, ballerina. The tagline of the commercial was a variation of “Be YOU. Be what you want to be.” It occurred to me as I watched the commercial, and the costumes representing the childhood dreams of people who end up actually becoming waitresses, construction workers, receptionists, and day laborers, that this is an enormous line of bullshit that we are being fed. This commercial reflects the middle-class ambitions of modern Americans, and promotes the idea that the only thing holding us back from realizing our childhood dreams is ourselves. What a load of crap! I had the same reaction when I heard a snippet of Steve Jobs’ commencement speech to Stanford in 2005, in amongst all the news stories about Jobs’ death. This is what he said: “Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma – which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And, most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.” I mean no disrespect to Steve Jobs, but he is spouting the same line of hegemonic hypnosis as the health insurance commercial (though I am willing to give him a partial pass, since this kind of cliched spew is exactly what is expected from a commencement speech). Steve Jobs did amazing things that changed the way we interact with our world today, and in many ways I am grateful for that. But Steve Jobs’ amazing success is the exception. It is the plane crash, not the safe landing. It is the thing that makes the news because it is unusual. It is the kind of success that allows the hegemony to be perpetuated, because it gives us an example to point to and say, “That could be me!” Really? Could it really be you? I’m not sure I agree. Hegemony means believing that you can achieve the same pinnacle of success as the richest people in the United States, but it just isn’t true. Yet, here we all are, listening to the “follow your heart, follow your dream” message, and somehow feeling a little empty or inadequate because we are the waitress, or the mid-level manager, or the hair stylist, and chances are we will never be more than that, no matter how hard we work, no matter how much we study or train or dream, because there just are not that many seats at the head table. The people participating now in the Occupy Wall Street and related protests are, I think, finally understanding this reality. It’s not just about working hard. Believe me, immigrants to this country, illegal or not, work really fucking hard. Working class parents with the food service and delivery driver and labor jobs work really fucking hard. Will they ever occupy a position like Steve Jobs did? Probably not. Should they believe the easily digestible pablum about following your dream, or should we finally just be realistic and tell people, “This is as good as it will ever get for most of us.” Our dreams should be about more than what we do to make money… shouldn’t they? Shouldn’t we work on making sure that, even if you aren’t an astronaut or a doctor or a ballerina, you are compensated well enough for what you do that you don’t have to worry about feeding your kids or paying your mortgage or going to school? Shouldn’t we have a system that supports the reality of life for most people in America? Isn’t that what the protestors want? So let’s stop listening to the platitudes, and start sharing a dream about making sure the needs of all the people are met instead of lying and making people think that it is their fault that they aren’t in the one percent at the top of the economic pyramid.
Author: Ranthropologist
-
The Tyranny of Advertising
In my last post, I talked about how I had been living without television for months. Well, it’s back now, and aside from a few guilty pleasures such as “Hoarders” and “Pawn Stars,” it hasn’t made much of a difference. However, I do think that my months without television caused a bit of culture shock for me, kind of like a person who visits an impoverished village and then returns to the superabundance of the United States. As it happens, during the time I was living without television I was also neglecting to read my magazine subscriptions (Health, Runner’s World, and Real Simple were casualties of my busy life; I managed to keep up with Mother Jones and The Nation). But now the dissertation is done and I can watch TV and read my lighter magazines without guilt, and I have noticed something: the subtle tyranny of advertising.
A big part of my dissertation discusses the concept of hegemony, which is basically the underlying structures of power that serve to perpetuate economic and social inequality. In the case of advertising, economic hegemony is served by convincing us in barely noticeable ways that we need things that we really don’t. On television and radio, advertising attempts to trick us by using labels that make things sound more important than they really are. These are usually phrases that describe self-evident things in ways that make them sound special or unique. For some reason I tend to notice them in relation to food advertising. Carl’s Jr. touts its “hand-breaded” chicken sandwich as something more desirable than a sandwich breaded by a machine. This is similar to “hand-leafed lettuce” or “hand-crafted coffee.” But when you stop to consciously think about that, you realize it’s meaningless. Let’s assume the breading used is the same regardless of whether the labor is done by man or machine, and that it is applied to a fresh chicken breast that is then frozen to be cooked later. Okay. If I put both a hand-breaded piece of chicken and a machine-breaded piece of chicken in front of you and ask you to taste them, will you be able to tell the difference? I’d wager not. Is there something about a piece of iceberg lettuce pulled from the head by hand that makes it taste better than a piece handled (pun intended!) by a machine? No – iceberg lettuce still tastes like iceberg lettuce. Yet this is used as a persuasive piece of advertising that implies a human touch improves the quality and taste of the food, even when the food itself has not been altered in any way. In all truth it probably does make the consumer more likely to want the hand-breaded or hand-crafted food. It sounds like higher quality, and more care, is going into the product. But the bottom line is that Carl’s Jr. is only using that description to increase its market share and not to give the consumer a better product, and the advertising agency that created the campaign is banking on it. We are being fooled and we don’t even know it. And that, my friends, is hegemony.
Magazines are another story altogether. The actual advertisements are usually pretty obvious, although women’s magazines (and probably men’s) often employ advertisements that look very similar to articles, and you may even start reading them before you notice the tiny-print “ADVERTISEMENT” label at the top of the page. But what’s much more insidious is the advertising in the articles. To wit: you read an article about this summer’s new hairstyle trends. There are a few puffy paragraphs about ponytails or hairclips or what have you, accompanied by product suggestions and pretty pictures. “To get this look, try Revlon Silky Shine Spray, $4 at drugstores.” Or “Get the perfect glossy lip with Lancome Pout Perfection, $18, Macy’s.” These are commercials. IN the article. Try an experiment: grab your favorite light magazine and go through it page by page, and count how many pages do not have a single advertisement or product suggestion. I would bet that you will find maybe 10 percent of the pages are product-placement free.
This is hegemony. This is what we are led to believe. This is what we think we have to have, and we don’t even know why. This, we are told, is what keeps the capitalist machinery operating – and that part of it is actually true. I’m not saying we’re all automatons without free will, but I am saying that advertising can easily fool even the most skeptical of us. Try a week or two without your TV or magazines, then go back, like I did. I’m sure you’ll see it too, if you haven’t already; and if you’ve noticed it before, it will be even more obvious after you choose to ignore it for a while.
Now excuse me while I go shine my hair, perfect my pout, and eat my hand-breaded chicken – after all, there’s an economy to grow!
-
It’s Never Sunny on Nancy Grace
I canceled my cable TV in July 2009. Since then, my only access to television has been at the gym or at other people’s houses. Now that I am getting close to finishing my dissertation, I am thinking about getting TV again. In some ways I have missed it; there are shows I like that I miss, such as Mythbusters, that I look forward to watching again. But at the same time, I have enjoyed the sense of freedom I have at not being a slave to the television schedule. Granted, I realize that plenty of people use TV the way it is intended; that is, as entertainment and not as a lifestyle. But thinking about reintroducing TV to my life has made me ponder the many things I do not like about modern media programming. So let the rant commence!
When I am at the gym, there are three TVs overhead that can be viewed from the treadmills. One is usually showing a sports channel, one is cable news, and the other is often tuned to the Food Network (aside: who the hell thinks it is a good idea to have cooking shows playing while people are working out? I really don’t want to see frigging Paula Deen making pies while I am trying to burn calories!) My beef is with the cable news channel, usually HLN (Headline News – CNN). What they show is not news. Okay, okay, yes, each half-hour starts with a run down of actual news, but I need to define my terms here. Let me distinguish in this way: News, with a capital N, is information that is important for people to know. This includes weather events, political issues, international affairs… the serious stuff. The other news, with a little n, is junk food. Entertainment stories, human interest, even stuff like crime news… these are informational Twinkies.
I concede that my definitions of News and news are very broad, but I don’t want to get bogged down in the details. The point is, it seems that producers don’t think viewers want to hear the News. The News tells people what is going on in the world so they can be informed about what their leaders are doing, what their country’s relationship is with other parts of the world, what critical events (e.g. a hurricane, a demonstration, an election, food recalls, illness outbreaks) may be affecting their portion of the country. The news, on the other hand, gets people fired up about things that are, in the big scheme of things, much less important than the News. This is obvious when it comes to entertainment and sports, but less so when it comes to things like crime. But herein lies the real crux of my beef: WHY is it considered newsworthy when a child is abducted? Or when a husband murders his wife? Or even when there is a big car wreck? I’m not saying these things aren’t important to the communities where they occur, and obviously they are important to the people directly involved. But what does it say about us as News/news consumers that cable news shows spend an inordinate amount of time on a child abduction? I’m talking to you, Nancy Grace. I mean, really, WTF? The sensationalization of crime is out of control on these shows. But the sad thing is that it’s much easier to find a talking helmet head like Nancy Grace blathering about a child murder or what have you than it is to find rational, substantive, and objective commentary about the ongoing war in Afghanistan, or the significance of the recent election, or the impact of joblessness on America’s cities. Why are there no one hour talking head shows about that? Yes, yes, there are political shows, but I’m talking about News, not a Roman theater of arguments and insults that do nothing to reveal the true nature of the debate.
So I guess if I do get TV again, I’ll just stick to watching It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
-
Is It Okay to Laugh at People on the Interwebs?
There is a lot of funny stuff out there on the interwebs. Lots of the funny seems totally harmless, like ICanHazCheezburger, for example. How can anybody possibly be offended by funny pictures of cats? No one, I say. There is plenty more G-rated, totally inoffensive humor on the web where that came from. But then, there are sites like People of Walmart. This site dedicates itself to posting pictures of people taken in Walmart. Why is that funny? Well, because on any given day you can see pictures of people who look as if they have never had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of a mirror, or a shower, or any sense of propriety or self-awareness whatsoever. Bad clothes, bad hair, bad attitudes – People of Walmart has it all. The photos are accompanied by scathingly witty captions that have not even the slightest hint of empathy for the subjects. I find this website to be frequently laugh-out-loud funny.
So here’s the question: is it okay for me to be amused by these pictures of folks who probably have no idea they are being posted and laughed about on a website? In spite of how jaw-droppingly awful or absurd some of these people look, they are still human beings. Is this the internet equivalent of pointing and laughing, just with the patina of anonymity to make it seem acceptable? Maybe I’m taking it too seriously, but I do wonder.
Informal social control often takes the form of gossip, shame, or scorn. Within a tight-knit group, if an individual seems to deviate from what is socially acceptable, the other members of the group will let him or her know through their reactions. The reactions may be similar to what happens now when we look at people on the internet, and laugh, or gasp, or ridicule… but those reactions do not reach the intended targets. Gossip, in particular, has likely been around since human social groups first formed, but nowadays the gossip we share about those we see on a regular basis is supplemented by gossip about those we will never meet, e.g. celebrities. Yet the urge to gossip is the same with celebrities as it is with our regular group, because communication has changed to make it seem as if we have actual contact with the people we see on TV, in movies, and in magazines. It’s an ancient and long-adapted mechanism for helping people behave in ways that are the least disruptive to the group.
So how does this all translate to me anonymously laughing at pictures of people on the internet? I have decided to conclude that my electronically-anonymized reaction is okay, because if I saw these people in real life, I would still laugh.
-
Health Care Fascism
The American Heritage Dictionary defines socialism as: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. The same dictionary defines fascism as: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Socialism and fascism are two terms that have been bandied about a lot lately as people voice their dismay with various policies being proposed or pursued by the United States government. In particular, the prospect of new health care legislation has led to outcries that the government is trying to take over our lives, and that if it is passed, the country is one step closer to socialism, if not outright Communism (the capital C is an important distinction, marking a governmental system as opposed to a traditional style of communal, cooperative living typical of small hunter-gatherer societies). I suggest, for those who fear that the new health care system is socialist, that they closely study the definition of socialism posted above. What the new legislation proposes is just about as far from socialism as you can get. For one thing, it vastly increases the market share of private insurance companies. The government mandating that all citizens purchase health insurance means a massive increase in revenue for existing insurers, whether those premiums are paid by citizens as individuals, by businesses, or by the feds. And, in any case, what the government is trying to do is make people responsible for their own health care, instead of having them wait for an emergency they can’t afford, and which the government (whether state or federal) will end up paying for anyway. But the socialist point is, if the industry is still in private hands, then in no way does this legislation constitute socialism.
Many of the people who are opposed to mandated health insurance are upset with the idea that the government can force you to do certain things. I will admit that I tend to be somewhat libertarian about the government’s role in things that should be personal choice. Philosophically, I oppose helmet laws, seat belt laws, smoking laws…. basically, if you choose to do things that are risky to your health and safety, so be it. It’s not government’s place to make me wear a helmet, etc. And I suppose I could say the same for mandated health care. The reason I support health care legislation (even though I believe the current bill is massively flawed for failing to include a public option) is because of the structural inequalities that make access to health care so difficult for so many in this country. From an economic perspective, I support the legislation because I believe that ultimately, access to care makes for a healthier population, which costs society much less and saves a lot of money in the long run.
But back to socialism/fascism. For those who are afraid of the government “taking over our lives,” let me ask you this: is the government telling you what health insurance provider to use? Is it telling you what procedures or medications you can or cannot have (answer: no – the insurance companies are the ones who still get to do that). In other areas of your life, does the government mandate what food to buy? What car to drive? What books to read? What magazines to subscribe to? What news channel to watch? What TV shows to follow? What websites to read? What sports team to root for? Who to vote for? What you can say in public, on television, on the internet? Where you can go? Who you can talk to? What job you have? And, if the government has too much control of our lives, takes too much of our money, then I guess they should stop funding schools, roads, public safety, scientific research, job training, higher education, etc. They should also stop legislating things such as sanitation standards in restaurants, truth in advertising, product and consumer safety (lead-based paint or toys, anyone?), drinking and driving, traffic laws, tracking of sex offenders (oh, except wait – the government doesn’t do enough to keep us safe from sex offenders!). After all, if we as citizens are responsible for making the right decisions, then we don’t need to legislate all those things, because people will do the right thing without having to be told (end sarcasm). This is the tragedy of the commons – we cannot assume that people or industries will police themselves, if there is no cost associated with the use of the commons (read: laws that make people behave). This is not socialism or fascism – this is the consequence of trying to maintain social order when dealing with enormous groups of people.
Requiring health insurance is, in my opinion, no more socialist than requiring car insurance. It makes people take personal responsibility (gasp!) for their own health, just like car insurance covers your liability if you are in an accident. Hmmm, personal responsibility – isn’t that a conservative value? Isn’t it worse when people don’t have health insurance and expect the government to pay if they need medical care? Frankly, this legislation is less socialist than the current system.
-
Culling the Herd
In simple societies with small, easily manageable populations (like hunter-gatherer groups or those that practice simple horticulture and animal husbandry), social control is a relatively simple thing to maintain. There are no written laws, no formal judiciary, and no law enforcement bureaucracy. Instead, there is gossip, shame, fear of the supernatural (e.g. gods, spirits, dead ancestors, witchcraft, or magic), and finally, ostracism, banishment, or death. The ways in which these social controls are applied varies from culture to culture, but the basic idea is the same: motivate people to follow the rules of the group. This is for the good of the individual as well as the good of the group, because when you are dealing with small populations, individual survival depends on group survival and vice versa. As populations get larger (as occurred inexorably with the advent and spread of intensive agriculture) social control becomes much more difficult. The same simple methods that work in small populations will often still work on a limited scale, e.g. within a family, neighborhood, church, or other small sub-group. But when it comes to the really big issues, bureaucracy becomes necessary. Rules must be codified into laws. Punishments must be defined, as well as the ways in which they are carried out. This is the system we are dealing with today.
This system is not as well adapted to meeting our society’s needs, I think, as the ways of the hunters and gatherers were adapted to meeting their society’s needs. It is the best we can do when dealing with enormous groups of people and the myriad laws we are all tasked with obeying, but sometimes I think it would be simpler if we could just cull the herd. What I mean by this is, when a person’s guilt is without question, and the crime committed is one of violence against the group (and violence against an individual is also violence against the group), then we cull that person from the herd for everybody’s protection – not by locking them away, but by taking their life. The problem, morally, is that culling the herd requires absolute certainty of guilt. This was not a big problem in small groups – there was no need to convince a jury of peers, there was simply the evidence of that person’s behavior as witnessed by other members of the group, or even just the victim. The needs of the group outweighed the needs of the individual, and dangerous people were banished or killed outright.
We are so disconnected from the lives of those around us, even though we are surrounded by other members of our group every day. They are in the cars on the freeway, in the checkout line, in the other houses on our block, but we have no idea what they are doing. This is not the way human beings have evolved to live, and so far we are not adapting very well to the needs of being members of enormous groups. Yet, we still feel the shock and outrage when a stranger in our community – someone we would never otherwise have met or even heard of – becomes a victim of one of those who should be culled from the herd. This, I think, is because we are still adapted to the belief that individual survival and group survival are linked. We still feel threatened in the same way that the members of a small group feel threatened when one of their own becomes dangerous. We feel the need to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and even other strangers from suffering the same horrible fate. How can we take that instinct, that adaptation, and use it to devise a better way of protecting the members of the group? How can we find better ways to recognize the individuals who must be culled? I’m not sure there is a way, but in the meantime, when we know with certainty that someone is dangerous, then I am all for culling the herd.