Greetings classmates,
The article I have chosen for this assignment is titled "Dove's 'Real Beauty' Backlash" by Jennifer L. Pozner. The question in specific I have chosen is the final, namely, "Characterize Pozner's tone in this selection, particularly in her comments regarding male critics of Dove's ads. What effect does it have on your response to her essay?"
That being said, I would primarily characterize her tone as that of anger, bigotry, and hypocrisy. My response to her essay is that of disgust, revulsion, and dismissal. She openly refers to Richard Roeper on page 195 as a sexist "who wears gender-based bigotry as a badge of pride." To boot, while Richard was certainly impolite in his comments that she quoted, in no way did he ever state that heavier women are inferior nor did he "demand that women be displayed only in the hyper-objectifying images they feel is somehow their due," (196). He only stated that he was not aroused by the images of heavier women and that he prefers thinner women. Ironically enough the only person in this article who used demeaning language against women was Pozner herself, who refers to thinner women as "the bags-of-bones in competitors' campaigns," (194). Exercising a preference is not demeaning. And while Richard's preferences are not representative of all men, he is certainly more qualified to make such statements than Pozner a woman. If exercising a preference as Richard has is an insult, then certainly women themselves are more to blame for this than men. The average male will encounter rejection in his life far more than women will ever encounter from men. Otherwise there would not be mass shooters like Elliot Rodger who left behind an entire 151 page manifesto explaining the role that rejection played in his life and the pain that women caused him.
Being thin is actually a very easy thing to do. With the exception of disabled people and those with certain medical conditions, the majority of people can do it through diet and exercise. This is in stark contrast to the insanely high standards that are placed upon men. Not only do you have to have the perfect muscular body, but you also have to be extremely wealthy, tall, and possess confidence, charisma and wit. Pozner continues her diatribe on page 196 when she states "Certainly, these men so quick to demonize 'the Dove girls' show no understanding that those 'fantasy babes' of traditional ads have a profoundly negative impact on the health of girls and women in America." Are the the same 'fantasy babes' that she earlier refers to on page 194 as "bags of bones"? I have been short my entire life and no matter how much I diet or exercise that is something I will never be able to change. I receive no sympathy whatsoever from women like Pozner for that. Yet weight is something that is perfectly within the control of most individuals and women like Pozner expect sympathy from me.
Pozner commits a logical fallacy on page 196 when she states that because the women in these advertisements are actually "smaller-sized than the average American woman" that it must mean they are healthy. In Latin this is called the Argumentum ad Consequentiam, it means to suppose that because a proposition would have negative consequences that the proposition must not be true. In reality though the consequences of a proposition have no bearing upon whether or not it is true. It is perfectly conceivable, for example, that the majority of average American women are unhealthy, and thus the arguments against these sort of advertisements as normalizing an unhealthy lifestyle of obesity are perfectly legitimate whether Pozner likes it or not.
In conclusion, I believe that if Pozner had not resorted to personal insult, demonized men like Richard for exercising a preference, and openly insulted smaller women as "bags of bones" while simultaneously expecting sympathy for larger women she could have formulated a valid argument. She could have argued that featuring heavier women is a positive simply for the sake of diversity, but instead this was lost through anger and insult.
James.
Thursday, July 5, 2018
Week 3, Chapter 2, Craig
Greetings classmates,
I have chosen to respond to the fourth and final question. Namely, "Why does Craig believe that 'a threat to patriarchy is an economic threat?"
The answer to this question can be found in the conclusion of the article. Here Craig states rather bluntly, "Entire industries (automotive, cosmetics, fashion) are predicated on the assumption that men and women will continue behaving according to their stereotypes," (192). What this means is that if people stop conforming to certain patterns of behavior then they will no longer purchase products marketed in such and such a way as to exploit that behavior.
I agree with the principle of Craig's argument although I strongly disagree with his example. In short, I do not believe that the differences between male and female behavior are purely the result of nurture nor do I believe that patriarchy is synonymous with oppression and evil. I would agree that advertisements tend to exaggerate these differences and perhaps present them in such and such a way that can be unhealthy for society, but in the end I do not believe that the role of nature can be ignored. Even so, it cannot be denied that advertisements have taken these very real differences between men and women and set them up in such and such a way to maximize their company's profits.
Craig states on page 192, "Advertisers seem quite willing to manipulate these fantasies and exploit our anxieties, especially those concerning our gender identities, to sell products." I like his use of the word 'manipulation.' That is what I believe advertisers have done. They manipulated that which already exists for the sole purpose of making a profit. And therefore any threat to the manipulated image they have erected is one that would cost them money. Advertisers need to maintain these fantasies because people purchase their products in order to conform to them.
James.
I have chosen to respond to the fourth and final question. Namely, "Why does Craig believe that 'a threat to patriarchy is an economic threat?"
The answer to this question can be found in the conclusion of the article. Here Craig states rather bluntly, "Entire industries (automotive, cosmetics, fashion) are predicated on the assumption that men and women will continue behaving according to their stereotypes," (192). What this means is that if people stop conforming to certain patterns of behavior then they will no longer purchase products marketed in such and such a way as to exploit that behavior.
I agree with the principle of Craig's argument although I strongly disagree with his example. In short, I do not believe that the differences between male and female behavior are purely the result of nurture nor do I believe that patriarchy is synonymous with oppression and evil. I would agree that advertisements tend to exaggerate these differences and perhaps present them in such and such a way that can be unhealthy for society, but in the end I do not believe that the role of nature can be ignored. Even so, it cannot be denied that advertisements have taken these very real differences between men and women and set them up in such and such a way to maximize their company's profits.
Craig states on page 192, "Advertisers seem quite willing to manipulate these fantasies and exploit our anxieties, especially those concerning our gender identities, to sell products." I like his use of the word 'manipulation.' That is what I believe advertisers have done. They manipulated that which already exists for the sole purpose of making a profit. And therefore any threat to the manipulated image they have erected is one that would cost them money. Advertisers need to maintain these fantasies because people purchase their products in order to conform to them.
James.
Week 3, Chapter 2, Twitchell
Greetings classmates,
I have chosen to respond to Twitchell's first question. "What do marketers mean by 'positioning' (para. 3), and why is it an important strategy to them?"
The answer to this question can actually be found in the preceding paragraph. Here Twitchell defines positioning as "to convince different sets of consumers - target groups - that the quarter they observe is somehow different in meaning and value than the same quarter seen by their across-the-tracks neighbors," (178). In other words, what this means is that marketers need to present their products in such and such a way as will appeal to a certain customer base. This is important because it can maximize a company's profits depending upon how their product is presented.
Twitchell continues his explanation in the next paragraph, "The object of much consumer research is not to try to twist their feathers so that they will flock to your product, but to position your product in such a place that they will have to fly by it and perhaps stop to roost," (178). What this means is that positioning works by gaining an understanding of the target audience and then presenting a product in such and such a way as will exploit that knowledge to make a profit. For example, different sports fans might prefer different beers because of the association with certain teams, or a suburban housewife might want to feel wealthier than she actually is so she will purchase the product that is associated with wealth and affluence.
James.
I have chosen to respond to Twitchell's first question. "What do marketers mean by 'positioning' (para. 3), and why is it an important strategy to them?"
The answer to this question can actually be found in the preceding paragraph. Here Twitchell defines positioning as "to convince different sets of consumers - target groups - that the quarter they observe is somehow different in meaning and value than the same quarter seen by their across-the-tracks neighbors," (178). In other words, what this means is that marketers need to present their products in such and such a way as will appeal to a certain customer base. This is important because it can maximize a company's profits depending upon how their product is presented.
Twitchell continues his explanation in the next paragraph, "The object of much consumer research is not to try to twist their feathers so that they will flock to your product, but to position your product in such a place that they will have to fly by it and perhaps stop to roost," (178). What this means is that positioning works by gaining an understanding of the target audience and then presenting a product in such and such a way as will exploit that knowledge to make a profit. For example, different sports fans might prefer different beers because of the association with certain teams, or a suburban housewife might want to feel wealthier than she actually is so she will purchase the product that is associated with wealth and affluence.
James.
Week 3, Chapter 2, Solomon
Greetings classmates,
I have chosen to respond to the third question. That is, "Why, in Solomon's view, has McDonald's been so successful in its ad campaigns?"
The answer to this question can be found on page 171. Here Solomon states, "McDonald's success can be traced to the precision of its advertising. Instead of broadcasting a single 'one-size-fits-all' campaign at a time, McDonald's pitches its burgers simultaneously at different age groups, different classes, even different races." What this means is that McDonald's has succeeded not by appealing to a particular niche market but by making itself appeal to everyone. That is, marketing itself to as broad of an audience as possible. In the paragraphs that follow, Solomon continues to discuss the specifics of how children, adolescents, teenagers, adults, and even senior citizens are targeted in their ads. What I find interesting, however, as Solomon himself also notes, is that sex does not come into play despite being one of the most powerful and widely used advertisements of all. He states on page 172, "This is understandable, given McDonald's desire to present itself as a family restaurant."
For the most part I would agree with Solomon's assessment. Each of his arguments are solid and it makes sense that by appealing to as large of an audience as possible an advertisement campaign would also maximize its success. However, I believe that social factors like lack of access to healthier alternatives and people not having as much time to cook anymore also contributes to their success. For many parents in particular, fast-food is a matter of convenience. I have no doubt that McDonald's advertisement campaign has played a huge role in their success, but I believe that the importance of the aforementioned external factors cannot be undermined.
James.
I have chosen to respond to the third question. That is, "Why, in Solomon's view, has McDonald's been so successful in its ad campaigns?"
The answer to this question can be found on page 171. Here Solomon states, "McDonald's success can be traced to the precision of its advertising. Instead of broadcasting a single 'one-size-fits-all' campaign at a time, McDonald's pitches its burgers simultaneously at different age groups, different classes, even different races." What this means is that McDonald's has succeeded not by appealing to a particular niche market but by making itself appeal to everyone. That is, marketing itself to as broad of an audience as possible. In the paragraphs that follow, Solomon continues to discuss the specifics of how children, adolescents, teenagers, adults, and even senior citizens are targeted in their ads. What I find interesting, however, as Solomon himself also notes, is that sex does not come into play despite being one of the most powerful and widely used advertisements of all. He states on page 172, "This is understandable, given McDonald's desire to present itself as a family restaurant."
For the most part I would agree with Solomon's assessment. Each of his arguments are solid and it makes sense that by appealing to as large of an audience as possible an advertisement campaign would also maximize its success. However, I believe that social factors like lack of access to healthier alternatives and people not having as much time to cook anymore also contributes to their success. For many parents in particular, fast-food is a matter of convenience. I have no doubt that McDonald's advertisement campaign has played a huge role in their success, but I believe that the importance of the aforementioned external factors cannot be undermined.
James.
Week 3, Chapter 2, When You Come Home
Greetings,
I have chosen to respond to the second question. Namely, "To whom is the ad directed? What emotions does it play on? Be sure to provide evidence for your answers. What are the "dearest possessions" the ad refers to?"
Upon first glance, this advertisement appears to be directed toward housewives and stay-at-home mothers who may have encountered it in a magazine or something while their husbands were at work. I can only speculate given the historical context that since this advertisement was made in 1914 that the men were working extremely long and hard hours, so they probably would not have had very much time to devote toward reading. However, it is also worth noting that both of the adults are depicted as being immaculately dressed and in an extremely spacious home at that. This was not the reality for the average person at the time at all. From what I learned in one of my history classes a few semesters go, the majority of people at this time were very poor, forced to work long and dangerous hours in grueling working class occupations, and living in crowded, abysmal conditions.
These factors combined with the title, "When You Come Home," leads me to believe that this advertisement was specifically directed toward wealthier couples who could afford to dress nice, live in a spacious home, and be able to go out every night while their children are presumably left under the care of a nanny. The second chapter of the book defines connotation as "the feeling that the advertiser wishes to associate with the product," (158). With the image of children and fire in the upper right corner of the advertisement, it is safe to assume that the feeling this advertisement is trying to sell is that of safety itself. It is preying upon every parent's fear of losing their children - in this specific instance, to that of a fire.
Upon closer inspection of the upper right corner, the woman using the extinguisher appears to be the wife herself and not a nanny. I am beginning to question whether or not this advertisement was truly made for upper class wealthier people even in light of all the other historically inconsistent factors like their spacious home and nice clothing. This could possible be an example of what the book defines as the commodification of desire, "In other words, desire itself becomes the product that the advertiser is selling," (161). That is, it is possible that this advertisement is trying to sell the image of wealth and prosperity to the struggling working class masses at the time.
There are honestly so many possible angles for this advertisement and arguments that could be made, but in conclusion, I still stand by my answer that the dearest possessions are the children and that it plays upon a parent's fear of losing their children. To whom the ad is directed to is where I am still a bit confused.
James.
I have chosen to respond to the second question. Namely, "To whom is the ad directed? What emotions does it play on? Be sure to provide evidence for your answers. What are the "dearest possessions" the ad refers to?"
Upon first glance, this advertisement appears to be directed toward housewives and stay-at-home mothers who may have encountered it in a magazine or something while their husbands were at work. I can only speculate given the historical context that since this advertisement was made in 1914 that the men were working extremely long and hard hours, so they probably would not have had very much time to devote toward reading. However, it is also worth noting that both of the adults are depicted as being immaculately dressed and in an extremely spacious home at that. This was not the reality for the average person at the time at all. From what I learned in one of my history classes a few semesters go, the majority of people at this time were very poor, forced to work long and dangerous hours in grueling working class occupations, and living in crowded, abysmal conditions.
These factors combined with the title, "When You Come Home," leads me to believe that this advertisement was specifically directed toward wealthier couples who could afford to dress nice, live in a spacious home, and be able to go out every night while their children are presumably left under the care of a nanny. The second chapter of the book defines connotation as "the feeling that the advertiser wishes to associate with the product," (158). With the image of children and fire in the upper right corner of the advertisement, it is safe to assume that the feeling this advertisement is trying to sell is that of safety itself. It is preying upon every parent's fear of losing their children - in this specific instance, to that of a fire.
Upon closer inspection of the upper right corner, the woman using the extinguisher appears to be the wife herself and not a nanny. I am beginning to question whether or not this advertisement was truly made for upper class wealthier people even in light of all the other historically inconsistent factors like their spacious home and nice clothing. This could possible be an example of what the book defines as the commodification of desire, "In other words, desire itself becomes the product that the advertiser is selling," (161). That is, it is possible that this advertisement is trying to sell the image of wealth and prosperity to the struggling working class masses at the time.
There are honestly so many possible angles for this advertisement and arguments that could be made, but in conclusion, I still stand by my answer that the dearest possessions are the children and that it plays upon a parent's fear of losing their children. To whom the ad is directed to is where I am still a bit confused.
James.
Week 3, Chapter 2, Intro
Greetings classmates,
The advertisement I have chosen for this assignment is attached below.
Originally I saw this advertisement in a magazine although I was able to find the exact same image online. It is for a men's fragrance by Guess called "Dare" and it features Texan supermodel Hannah Ferguson riding on the back of a motorcycle with another extremely well looking male model. I have chosen it because I believe it represents the supreme cultural myth of our name. Namely, that of materialism, youth, and the fast and furious lifestyle. It is being shown to a male audience like myself in order to convince us to purchase the fragrance in the hopes that it will make us resemble the man in the image. That is, to be extremely and unrealistically attractive with an extremely and unrealistically attractive woman in tow, young, daring, and living out that sort of fast and furious lifestyle on a motorcycle that is reminiscent of James Dean. It is worth noting that the female model Hannah Ferguson is wearing what appears to be leather, which evokes images of the Mad Max universe, further cementing the anarchistic biker mythos surrounding this advertisement.
The female represents the sort of hyper idealized standard of Western beauty that girls in our society aspire to while the male stands for the ultimate image of the rebel action hero that boys aspire to. For both sexes this advertisement is going reinforce the idealized, gender specific standards that our society imposes upon them. More than that, it glorifies our nation's very cultural ideal itself. The United States was founded upon rebellion against the British Empire. Our national heritage was defined by the Wild West. We are the only nation in the world I am aware of where private firearms ownership is a guaranteed right via our Constitution and Hollywood fathered the action film. Each and every last one of those elements comes into play in this advertisement.
On a more negative note, it is telling that for men the primary "accomplishment" being sold through this advertisement is the idea of having an extremely attractive female partner. That is, masculinity is being defined through sex and having the most beautiful woman on the block even more than anything else in this advertisement. The inverse is also true, that for women the primary "accomplishment" being sold through this advertisement is the idea that their worth is defined through being as beautiful as a supermodel and likewise having an extremely attractive man. For both sexes this sets up unrealistic expectations both for themselves and for a partner.
The male appears to be partially Hispanic like myself and I believe that Hannah Ferguson may also be of mixed descent, so I do not think that race is really applicable to this advertisement. But again, both parties are extremely young and attractive, so older people are being excluded as well as the overweight, short, and pretty much anyone who does not conform to that standard of beauty.
James.
The advertisement I have chosen for this assignment is attached below.
Originally I saw this advertisement in a magazine although I was able to find the exact same image online. It is for a men's fragrance by Guess called "Dare" and it features Texan supermodel Hannah Ferguson riding on the back of a motorcycle with another extremely well looking male model. I have chosen it because I believe it represents the supreme cultural myth of our name. Namely, that of materialism, youth, and the fast and furious lifestyle. It is being shown to a male audience like myself in order to convince us to purchase the fragrance in the hopes that it will make us resemble the man in the image. That is, to be extremely and unrealistically attractive with an extremely and unrealistically attractive woman in tow, young, daring, and living out that sort of fast and furious lifestyle on a motorcycle that is reminiscent of James Dean. It is worth noting that the female model Hannah Ferguson is wearing what appears to be leather, which evokes images of the Mad Max universe, further cementing the anarchistic biker mythos surrounding this advertisement.
The female represents the sort of hyper idealized standard of Western beauty that girls in our society aspire to while the male stands for the ultimate image of the rebel action hero that boys aspire to. For both sexes this advertisement is going reinforce the idealized, gender specific standards that our society imposes upon them. More than that, it glorifies our nation's very cultural ideal itself. The United States was founded upon rebellion against the British Empire. Our national heritage was defined by the Wild West. We are the only nation in the world I am aware of where private firearms ownership is a guaranteed right via our Constitution and Hollywood fathered the action film. Each and every last one of those elements comes into play in this advertisement.
On a more negative note, it is telling that for men the primary "accomplishment" being sold through this advertisement is the idea of having an extremely attractive female partner. That is, masculinity is being defined through sex and having the most beautiful woman on the block even more than anything else in this advertisement. The inverse is also true, that for women the primary "accomplishment" being sold through this advertisement is the idea that their worth is defined through being as beautiful as a supermodel and likewise having an extremely attractive man. For both sexes this sets up unrealistic expectations both for themselves and for a partner.
The male appears to be partially Hispanic like myself and I believe that Hannah Ferguson may also be of mixed descent, so I do not think that race is really applicable to this advertisement. But again, both parties are extremely young and attractive, so older people are being excluded as well as the overweight, short, and pretty much anyone who does not conform to that standard of beauty.
James.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Essay 1, Rough Draft, Week 3
Richards 1
James Richards
Professor April Nogarr
English 221 (0241)
28 June 2018
On Mass Media and its Role in Shaping Cultural Values and Beliefs
From the most popular shows on television like Game of Thrones, Sex and the City, and Breaking Bad to social media websites like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, most individuals rely on some form of mass media throughout the day whether they realize it or not. Ousting traditional venues of entertainment like newspapers and magazines with online publications and in theory providing every individual with the opportunity to be a celebrity, the smartphone has without a doubt defined an entire generation. It is to the Digital Age what the printing press was to the Reformation, the Winchester ’73 to the American Wild West. No other invention has had as profound of an effect upon the 21stcentury as the smartphone. It is both the culmination of and driving force behind mass media and its role in shaping cultural values and beliefs. Never before in the history of mankind have individuals been able to access such a vast library of information while simultaneously being exposed to such an abundance of mass media at every single moment of their lives from the time they wake up to the time they go to bed at night.
But how much information is too much? And is the role that mass media plays in shaping a society’s cultural values and beliefs necessarily a good thing? Most people are aware of propaganda and the subtle yet effective strategies utilized to control the public. From a commercial for a particular political candidate to a paid advertisement for a product or service, mass media has always been a tool to sway the masses and influence public opinion. Is it
Richards 2
possible that with great advancements in technology, mass media, and the delivery of information that its role shaping our cultural values and beliefs has been negative? Indeed, for mass media, despite its many benefits, has unfortunately had an extremely negative and pronounced effect upon our cultural values and beliefs because it is driven by profit.
In his 1997 article titled Commoditize Your Dissent, Thomas Franks writes, “The structure and thinking of American business have changed enormously in the years since our popular conceptions of its problems and abuses were formulated,” (154). What this means is that contrary to enabling the public to question the establishment and think independently, mass media has rather accomplished the exact opposite in society. From political campaigning to advertisements, commercials, and even subliminal messaging, corporations and unscrupulous businessmen have exploited mass media to better serve their bottom dollar. Even worse is that they did it not by establishing the mass media as the polar opposite of our society’s cultural beliefs and values, but as the expression of them. For in the case of the former at least the public would be able to critically evaluate the mass media and what it stands for on their own, but in the case of the latter, the public is deceived into believing that the mass media is their friend, and thus becomes complacent to whatever message they receive from it.
Franks takes it further a few paragraphs back when he states rather poignantly, “Consumerism is no longer about ‘conformity’ but about ‘difference,” (153). What he is referring to is the fact that the mass media capitalized upon our society’s progressive ideal of nonconformity and questioning the establishment in order to deceive the public. Instead of holding the establishment accountable and aiding the public in their pursuit to question authority, the mass media merely enabled the establishment to go underground so to speak, its presence
Richards 3
veiled and shrouded in mystery yet its power and influence at an all time high. Understanding this is paramount to understanding why the mass media has had a negative effect upon our cultural values and beliefs because it begs a very unsettling question: if unscrupulous businessmen and corporations can exploit it through the almighty dollar with ease, then what other nefarious purposes could the mass media be used to accomplish?
Indeed, unscrupulous businessmen and corporations out for a profit are but one relatively benign and harmless way the mass media can be exploited for nefarious purposes. If they want to try and market our own cultural values and beliefs back toward us in a way that serves their own personal self-interests then let it be. Those with money will always find a way to cheat the system whether we like it or not and nothing will ever change that. However, but what about when the mass media defines our very cultural values and beliefs for us? In a 2012 article written for The New Yorker titled The Aristocrats: The Graphic Arts of Game of Thrones, Emily Nussbaum explores the way popular television shows like The Sopranos, Mad Men, andGame of Thrones can shape the views of society on important topics like class, gender, and race. To the benefit of mass media, it can be used to encourage thinking and promote healthy dialog. For Nussbaum declares, “And yet the undergirding strength of each series is its insight into what it means to be excluded from power: to be a woman, or a bastard, or a ‘half man.” However, it can also be used to encourage unhealthy attitudes toward such important topics and even insensitivity, as she continues, “Game of Thrones is the latest entry in television’s most esteemed category: the sophisticated cable drama of about a patriarchal subculture.”
However, it does not end at class, gender, and race. In fact, the very assumption that those are the three most important topics in the world that every conversation must inevitably
Richards 4
revolve around is in itself but one viewpoint out of many as is the assumption that patriarchy, hierarchical structures, and absolute power are inherently bad things. The true danger lies in the fact that the mass media can be used to support one viewpoint over another instead of encouraging individuals to explore different viewpoints and arrive at one for themselves. The world is a very diverse place housing a very diverse assortment of views on topics ranging from religion and politics to poetry and film reviews. It is only fair that every viewpoint should be represented honestly and afforded the privilege to be able to make their case before the public. What the mass media does is present some views as being superior to others while blatantly misrepresenting and vilifying views that do not align with those of its sponsors. Such behavior does not encourage people to think for themselves nor does it foster healthy dialog as much as it simply leads to indoctrination, division, and the mass vilification of “the other side.”
It is one thing, for example, to disagree with the actions of the president. It is quite another, however, to dismiss everything that does not align with a left wing viewpoint of reality as hatred and bigotry not warranting even the slightest bit of respect or consideration. It is similarly one thing to agree with the actions of the president, but quite another, however, to condemn every last one of his detractors as unpatriotic and disloyal communists who do not even deserve the honor of being able to call themselves Americans. The inability to fairly represent all viewpoints while simultaneously presenting some as superior to others is but another way the mass media plays a negative role in shaping our cultural values and beliefs.
The third and perhaps most unsettling way that the mass media plays a negative role in the shaping of our cultural values and beliefs is that it enables unhealthy behavior. In a 2010 essay penned for the Los Angeles Times titled The Social Networks, Neal Gabler observes, “It’s
Richards 5
not that we prefer television to human contact. The laugh track attests that most people don’t really want to be alone in font of their TV sets. They want to be part of a larger community. Yet another study indicates that TV provides a sort of simulacrum of community because the relationship between the TV viewer and the people he or she watches on the screen competes with and even substitutes for physical encounters with real people,” (317). What this means is that for many individuals the mass media and television in particular has become a sort of substitute for real human interaction and meaningful relationships. Instead of actually going out and obtaining that which individuals desire most the mass media provides an easier alternative.
This is perhaps the most harmful way the mass media has negatively impacted our society’s cultural values and beliefs. It has led to isolation and loneliness, hindering any sort of real personal development and growth. As Gabler concludes on page 318, “For the fact is that we miss the friendships we no longer have, and we know that Facebook or emails cannot possibly compensate for the loss. So we sit in front of our television sets and enjoy the dream of friendship instead: a dream where we need never be alone, where there are a group of people who would do anything for us, and where everyone seems to understand us to our very core.” While watching television in moderation for the sole sake of entertainment is one thing, it is quite another for an individual to utilize it as a form of escapism from their real life problems. The mass media has enabled the public to ignore their feelings and become isolated.
These are but three different ways from three different sources that the mass media plays a negative role in the shaping of our society’s cultural values and beliefs. To summarize, it has given unscrupulous businessmen and corporations yet another venue for taking advantage of the public in order to serve their own financial self interests. Indeed, the mass media will always be
Richards 6
susceptible to the corrupting influence that is money and spending. Similarly the mass media, while occasionally providing an avenue for exploring important topics like class, gender, and race, has also been used to encourage unhealthy attitudes toward these topics and more while simultaneously favoring some viewpoints over others instead of encouraging the public to arrive at their own conclusions through honest inquiry and logic. Thus the mass media becomes a tool for propaganda, and can negatively influence our society’s cultural values and beliefs. Finally, the mass media enables individuals to avoid their problems in favor of a cheap substitute and thus encourages isolation and loneliness instead of real human interaction and relationships.
Even in light of these three main arguments, it cannot be denied that the mass media certainly possesses many benefits that warrant consideration. In a chapter titled “On the Air: Television and Cultural Forms,” Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon explore in their book Signs of Life in the USA the different ways mass media and especially television often reflects the contemporary culture of its time and can shed light upon certain sentiments. They compare the hit television series The Walking Dead, for example, with the threat of terrorism and economic uncertainty, explaining that “Such fantasies appeal to a society suffering from an apparently eternal threat of terroristic violence…and economic malaise,” (257). For just as ancient art and literature was a reflection of its time, affording viewers a more intimate understanding of a society’s fears, hopes, and aspirations at a given era, so too the mass media today can shed light upon where the modern world is and more important where it is going.
Additionally it has provided the public with more information than has ever been made available throughout history, allowed every individual to have a voice and given them a platform on which to express that voice, and perhaps most importantly enabled communication at such a
Richards 7
faster pace than ever before that we are never truly alone. It cannot be denied that the mass media even possesses the potential for artistic merit. For indeed Maasik and Solomon concede on page 258, “Television offers an especially rich field of possible writing topics, ranging from a historical analysis of a whole category or genre, of TV programming (as we briefly presented above with respect to the Western) or of a general trend, to an interpretation of a single TV show episode.” There are many such examples of times when television has transcended simple entertainment into the glory that is fine art, such as the fifth season of Supernatural which explored themes such as God and death, the problem of evil, and existence of freedom. Perhaps the most philosophically complex and pressing question ever asked was in the last episode, when Castiel asks of Dean, “What would you rather have: peace or freedom?” Another such example might come from The Terminator franchise with its message of freewill and the triumph of human tenacity, its tagline being “No fate but what we make for ourselves.”
Perhaps it should be considered that the arguments against the mass media and the role it plays in shaping our society’s cultural values and beliefs are not so much the fault of the mass media itself as much as it is the fault of humanity itself. As people we have always found ways to deceive the public for the sake of our own personal self interest, encouraged unhealthy attitudes toward important topics while simultaneously working to silence all dissenting viewpoints, and found ways to avoid our problems through drugs and alcohol abuse. Perhaps the mass media did not actually create these problems as much as it simply provided them with a platform. Even without social media, television, and the Internet individuals would always find a way to do these things and this is confirmed by the long saga that is human history. Pinning it on the mass media alone is simply an easier alternative than facing the more daunting task of asking why it is
Richards 8
that human beings are like this and what we can do to change it. Even so, the role of the mass media cannot be undermined. For it was such a rapid change at such a rapid pace that it occurred before individuals were ready for it, before society even knew what hit it.
In conclusion, the mass media will change. Technology will advance without a shadow of a doubt, as the march of progress is inevitable and cannot be stopped. There are many problems inherent to technology and the media just as there are many problems within the human heart. Despite whatever changes may occur within five, ten, or even one hundred years down the line, we will always remain human beings. Society will always have to face important topics like gender, race, and class regardless of its stance toward the mass media and technology. We can only hope that as the mass media and technology inevitably become more intertwined with our lives that we will exercise the prudence and responsibility necessary so that it becomes a force for all that is good instead of a force for all that is bad. Only time will tell.
Richards 9
Works Cited
Frank, Thomas and Weiland, Matt. ‘Commodify Your Dissent.’ Signs of Life in The USA:
Readings on Popular Culture for Writers. Eds. Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2015. 150-155. Print.
Gabler, Neal. ‘The Social Networks.’ Signs of Life in The USA: Readings on Popular Culture for
Writers. Eds. Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2015. 315-
319. Print.
Maasik, Sonia and Solomon, Jack. ‘Video Dreams: Television and Cultural Forms.’ Signs of Life
in The USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s,
2015. 255-267. Print.
Nussbaum, Emily. “The Aristocrats.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 19 June 2017,
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/07/the-aristocrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)