As my friend Jeremiah recently pointed out, Abercrombie & Fitch has hit a new low in setting trends among high school students. Take a look at their new line of Men’s Sexual Appeal Tees. These $30 tight “muscle cut” tees sport such slogans as:SPITTERS ARE QUITTERSBAGHDAD ASS UPWILL SPOON FOR POONYOU BLOW, I’LL POPEATIN AIN’T CHEATINTHIRD BASE COACHJeremiah writes:
THINK about what these slogans, even taken as ironic or sarcastic, slowly instill into our acceptable social identity.
He makes a good point. We’re being systematically desensitized to offensive and stereotyping concepts and this is just another kick in that direction. But is it Abercrombie’s fault?I think this is a perfect example of the “who went here first — the teens or the corporations?” debate. The PBS documentary, Merchants of Cool presents it perfectly (you should check it out). Critics blame corporations for corrupting our youth. Corporations claim they’re just offering up what the youth want. The youth, in turn, claim the corporations “don’t get them,” and use their products as a jumping off point to make their “coolness” even more extreme. Corporations counter by jumping forward and marketing the next taboo subculture (to the point of killing its “coolness,” at which point the youth need to jump further ahead again).You can blame whomever you want, but we’re in a vicious cycle of each one trying to outdo the other. There is no end in sight.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe to the feed.
September 24th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
This is an interseting debate and documentary indeed. I think, however, that the wrong question is being asked. Whomever went there first is not what I am interested in. This sounds like two siblings hitting one another saying, “Well Johny hit me first” and Johny responding with, “Well Jane stole my lollipop first” type of argument. This is not to say one should not be interested in the cause/initial reason for the implimentation of an action. Nevertheless, at this point finding out “who went here first – the teens or the corporations” really does not respond too well the true ethical questions that find (or should find) root in this debate.
For starters, we are still speaking of minors whom cannot vote, engage in sexual activity, drugs, war, marriage, even abortion without getting a permission either from a parent or a mature minor doctrine passed by a judge. Minors are looked upon in this society as not fully developed mentally and physically. For such reasons (their vulnerability to coercion and persuasion; their lack of full responsibility for their actions, etc), it has become extremely difficult to even put a minor on death row for a murder. Yet, the corporations are stating that they are just giving the kids what they want. This doesn’t rest too well with me. This, in a sense, may be a different debate if its locus were adults, since it could be better argued that they have developed their analytic and critical faculties and their rational abilities have matured. Nevertheless, we are not speaking of adults, whom in some form of another have the ability to become responsible for their actions, in this discussion. When we direct propaganda and rhetorical methods towards children, like we do (the A & F example being a perfect one), then at this point are we exploiting and taking advantage of the naivete of children and aiding in the decerebration, dehumanization, and demoralization of our culture? It appears so.
Yet, as much as I would like to through the responsibility unto corporations, I am hesitant to do so. The point of business is to make profit. It is bad business not to do so. And I am sure that business ethics is a lot different than metaphysical, religious, spiritual, philosophical ethics (unless we are taking about a the Law and Economic Movement’s ethic). Nevertheless, even though it is individual humans directing the course of action of businesses, the nature of business is to find the loop holes in the system and exploit them. If it is legal, it is ethical in business ethics it would seem. Here is where I feel the truly root of the problem peeks its head.
If there were a hierarchy of responsibility I would have to give the prime responsibility of such mishaps, exploitation of our culture, etc. to the regulators of culture (those whom allow it to happen by setting rules and laws that protect the corporations and allow them to do what they do to the extent that they do). These responsible agents would have to be the government and the people. There needs to be limits, if anything, with what is explicitly directed to minors. Too much responsibility is placed on their parents. Though I am not saying that the parents should not hold some of this responsibility, I feel that we as a society may be able to help in the raising of the children of our future by maybe giving parents a hand.
We know that it is not parents that children attain their cultural norms and values. In study conducted of children from k-12th grade around 2000 we found out that children spend 32 hours a year in conversation with their parents, almost a thousand hours in school, and about 1500 hours in front of the television set (this is about 28 hours per week infront of the TV). This gets us to ask the question: who really is raising our kids? In another study in the mid – late 1990’s it came to be known that the average United Statesian had to filter through about 3600 advertisings a day. Nowadays, with the usage of the internet and so on, this has grown. This means that the regular individual is constantly trying to fight of over 4 thousand (nowadays) instances of someone trying to coerce you to do something you may not have originally wanted to do. It takes a lot of will power and time to fight this form of indoctrination off.
If we want to allow our children to flourish and our society to do the same, become more educated, cultured, etc. it would appear that we would need to set some limits (laws, regulations for advertisings and products, etc.) upon what corporations can and cannot do and the range of their abilities. This, to me makes sense just as it makes sense for me to take Army recruiters out of our high schools (this to me has a bigger consequence and is a topic of which infuriates me…but let’s save that for another day): explicitly taking advanted of the “free will” of an individual whom the state and law has identified as not fully rational and human. This can only mean that such recruiters and advertisers are taking advantage and exploiting the weaknesses of minors in order to get them to do wnat they want them to do (mainly spend money and fight a war). Just because the minor whom has been under the yoke of military recruiters for four years in high school finally decides to go into the army “out of their own free will” when they are 18 years old does not mean that the military should wipe their hands clean of some sort of responsibility for trying to exploit the weaknesses of the masses (about 80 % of the army are minorities or the poor fighting a war against others of similar status from other countries for a way that will never truly benefit them).
I feel like I need to stop because I am getting angry…yet, I will say this. True, it may be a vicious cycle where one is trying to outdo the other, yet, I don’t feel that both have equal responsibility to the ongoing of the cycle.
September 25th, 2005 at 12:01 am
Thanks for your response, Julian. You’ve clearly put a lot of thought into this. However, I’m not sure if I understand what you’re advocating. It sounds like you’re asking for restrictions on media and corporations, limiting what they present to the public.
While I understand how those restrictions could potentially improve the messages our youth receive in their upbringing, I don’t believe the public would accept such restrictions. At the most basic level, creating rules around what can be marketed violates the “American Dream” of free enterprise and free speech. Think back to the days of banned books. Restrictions would spark furious subcultures who find ways to get what they want. Regardless of who started the cycle, we’re in the cycle, and people want their extreme propaganda.
Moreover, if we’re only protecting minors, that would create a further divide between the “under 18″s and everyone else. I’ve met plenty of 16- and 17-year-olds who enjoy more maturity than most adults, and feel discouraged by the limitations of our system. And how would you do it, anyway? Markets address different demographics fluidly — there are no strict lines seperating the adults from the youth in terms of billboard placement.
You make a good point that TV and internet raise kids these days, and I agree that more responsibility should be taken somewhere. But on a practical level, do you really think restricting corporations would fly?
September 25th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Sarah,
You make some good points. Nevertheless, I am not as interested in “The American Dream” as it has been incarnated or if things “would fly”. I am more interested at this point working backwards. Looking at the problem and seeing what could fix the problem in order to start working in that direction.
I am not against limiting the range of corporations if it is such a range that is hindering the development of our culture, education, relationships with others, and social welbeing, etc. I do not see freedom as an unconditional value. Yes, I do see is as valuable, however, I do not understand freedom to be the highest of all values in such a case that it trumps every other value. I am definately willing to restrict freedom for a higher cause. I do understand the slippery ground I would be walking on, yet, I also don’t see something like this to happen over night.
Ultimately, a consensual, social contract, type of change would be the most benefical instead of forcing or coercing the populace toward such a direction and I feel that we should exhaust all resources to hopefully achieve such an outcome.
I understand the dilemma of market demographic fluidity, however, I think that our advertising system in general needs a full makeover. The fluidity of such market advertising would be much easier to focus after a make-over. An example of such a make-over is: like other countries have done, remove advertising from every tv channel and designate “advertising channels” where the only thing they show is advertising. One can then filter advertising as a consumer by what one is looking for as a product. Many other similar make-overs can be applied. Once marketing/advertising is concentrated and has guidelines, the fluidity factor between demographics can be better accounted for.
Though unfortunate, there is no way to not create a divide between minors and adults wherever one draws the line. It would have to be looked upon as a rite of passage of some sort. I agree that many minors are more mature than many adults, yet, for the practical sake of the legal and justice system, certain lines have to be drawn. Our system is full of limitations to our freedoms, hence the fact we have laws that regulate our behaviors regardless and regarding age.
On the subject of Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press…
“The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited; governments may still prohibit certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law; pursue an aim recognized as legitimate; and they must be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals.”
I don’t see how what I am proposing cannot fit the limitations of what our current freedom of speech laws and rights already dictate.
Also, freedom of speech from press or an activist whom may be critiquing, analysing politics, social problems, etc. is totally different from the freedom of speech used by advertisers for the sole purpose of getting the masses to buy a product or a service. I see an extreme distinction here where such an argument can be made.
If we are going to bring to the table the social acceptance of such a proposal I also think it can be done. Our government and media system constantly uses their power of information dissemination and control to get the masses to “consent” to their actions whereupon our freedoms are limited. All it is is a ideological shift or a broadening or redefinition of what we currently understand Freedom of Speech to mean. Regardless of what the populace thinks, if it is going to use the Freedom of Speech and Press argument, if read thoroughly anyways, one can understand that it is not unlimited freedom of speech and of the press. This is a misconception on the part of the masses.
I am much more concerned with the welbeing of our society as a whole and am willing to give up some coporate and market freedoms with regards to advertising, but still have those corporations allowed to sell their products and advertise their products in specific venues and areas.
oh.oh…I am late for an appointment…this is a great conversation and some great questions. Let’s keep this going.
Also, in light of what I spoke to you about with openning up this kind of forum to our current events and philosophical essays articles on thewrit.org, I think it would be great simply for the sake of engaging the whole community to talk about important issues where everyone has equal say and is able to express their opinions openly without restriction, and are able to challenge the writers and the writers have the chance to defend themselves (or even change their mind). I think this is going to be good for the writ community.
Julian Esteban