Sociology Lens

By Rachael Liberman

As box office numbers for Christoher Nolan’s Inception continue to rise  – right now, Variety reports that the film has grossed $6M ($149M total) – so do the number of individuals that are confronted with the question: What if someone could control my thoughts through my dreams? Inception successfully conceptualizes this ability; Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his team of “experts” use unexplained technology to enter dreams and plant “ideas” into the subconscious that will, according to their logic, eventually seep into an individual’s consciousness. By entering through the subconscious mind, covert operations (including being paid to implant an otherwise controversial idea) are carried out undetected. But what if you didn’t even need to enter the subconscious to implant an idea? What if you could manufacture a desire and send it straight to an individual’s consciousness? While audiences have been pondering the radical notion that ideas can be planted into an individual’s subconscious state, they may not realize that “inception” via consciousness has been occurring since the day they were born. Yes, you guessed it: Advertising.

According to Jean Kilbourne (1999),”The fact is that much of advertising’s power comes from this belief that advertising does not affect us. The most effective kind of propaganda is that which is not recognized as propaganda. Because we think advertising is silly and trivial, we are less on guard, less critical, than we might otherwise be. It’s all in fun, it’s ridiculous. While we’re laughing, sometimes sneering, the commercial does its work” (Can’t Buy My Love, p.27). Beyond the notion that advertising turns audiences into commodities (see Dallas Smythe) is the unsettling reality that advertising can successfully plant the idea that we “need” a material object (beauty products, Mac products, etc.). Advertising, as an arm of the Consciousness Industry, appeals to our emotions, and at its most successful, has the ability to alter priorities and rationality. However, as Kilbourne notes, advertising’s genius is that it operates in the form of an effective cultural backdrop; its omnipresence is desensitizing. So, while Inception is a mental exercise in the possibility of subconscious manipulation, advertising is the actual practice (yet not always successful) of manipulating our conscious desires. In the end, entering an individual’s dream seems like a lot of work when all one has to do is construct a seductive message and deliver it to trained and willing participants.

“Advertising” from The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology

Many lecturers and teachers will recognise the feeling of disheartenment when confronted by an undergraduate essay containing multiple references to Wikipedia. Despite regular exhortations for students to resist its charms, its appeal seems almost overwhelming. Although the site is loved by many, its major selling point of completely open access (i.e. ‘anyone can contribute to or edit’ its entries) is precisely why academics shake their heads in frustration.

However, in a recent interview with Emma Barnett of The Telegraph, Jimmy Wales (co-founder) appears to suggest that things are about to change at Wikipedia. Most noticeable is the creation of new measures, described as “flagged revisions”. In essence, this will mean that all new submissions and edited content, which relate to a living person, will have to be authenticated by one of Wikipedia’s editors, prior to online publication. Despite criticism that the whole ethos of the Wikipedia site will be degraded by the introduction of pre-publication censorship, Wales is convinced that this is the way forward. He points to a slowing of growth amongst new articles on the English version, suggesting that contributors are now concentrating on ensuring the articles already available are accurate, rather than simply adding more and more new material.

Whether the promise of ‘an increasing focus on quality and referencing’ will be able to sway the academic community, remains to be seen. However, the sheer volume of information and the speed with which it is checked and uploaded, makes it unlikely that Wikipedia is anywhere near reaching the stringent standards required for academia and education.

Read More

Allison Cavanagh on ‘From Culture to Connection: Internet Community Studies’

by NickieWild

It’s been over seven years since Naomi Klein published No Logo, which explored the backlash against large multinational corporations. Brand identities such as Nike became increasingly associated with sweatshops instead of what the company wanted everyone to feel when they saw the ever-present “swoosh” logo. Wal-Mart became associated with union busting instead of low prices. Can this phenomenon explain why Starbucks recently “re-branded” one of their Seattle coffee shops with no brand at all?

This move is most likely not caused by bad publicity. Instead, it is another attempt to increase profits through emotional manipulation and paying close attention to cultural meanings. “15th Avenue Coffee and Tea” as the new store is known as attempts to evoke the feeling of an independently-owned neighborhood coffee shop, ironically just the type that has become somewhat of a rarity because of being driven out of business by Starbucks itself. They also sell beer, wine, and food items not normally found at the corporate chain.

Simple advertising and promotion has been gradually pushed out of the consumer picture by branding, which involves imbuing the product with a certain meaning with which people identify. Will this move work for Starbucks? HarvardBusiness.org says no, saying the concept is “fundamentally dishonest” and that “because there’s no way a corporate coffee chain can create an authentic neighborhood coffeehouse experience. Your favorite local coffeehouse is the product of someone’s passion, dedication, and probable borderline craziness.” Such attempts at emotional branding may prove to be their own worst enemy, as people grow ever more cynical at corporate attempts to sell back to them what they have themselves taken away.

Read More

Branding Consultants as Cultural Intermediaries by Liz Moor

Swinson used this advert as an example of extreme airbrushing

By Rachael Liberman

In an effort to put airbrushing on the legislative agenda, MP Jo Swinson and the Lib Dems in the United Kingdom have put a proposal together that would make feminist media scholars jump for joy: ban airbrushed ads aimed at those under sixteen and clearly indicate airbrushed ads aimed at adults. Swinson was quoted as saying, “Today’s unrealistic idea of what is beautiful means that young girls are under more pressure not than they were even five years ago. Airbrushing means that adverts contain completely unattainable images that no-one can live up to in real life.” She also noted that the “focus on women’s appearance has gotten out of hand.” While these conclusions are seemingly correct, and holding the manipulations of airbrushing, including Photoshop, accountable for the circulation of hegemonic femininity appears to be a step in the right direction – how can this really play out? Is this too idealistic?

For media studies, this would represent the bridge between scholarship and practice that most academics spend their lives hoping to accomplish. The endless studies on body image, marketing to children, gender and identity construction, and a host of others, would be lifted out of the ivory tower and placed on the social agenda. Unfortunately, though, there are reasons that these changes have not happened sooner. (more…)

by socanonymous
A U.S. Federal Appeals court recently upheld a 2006 landmark ruling that found top tobacco companies guilty of racketeering and fraud. The companies were found to have deceived the public about the dangers of smoking by using misleading labels such as “low tar”, “light”, and “mild”, on cigarette boxes. Manufacturers have since been required to change the way they market their cigarettes.

The mass perception of smoking has gradually evolved from social acceptance to socially and morally unacceptable. This moral imperative serves to act as a regulatory function in society, for example in controlling public spaces. Governments have responded to changes in societal values through legislation, such as banning smoking in virtually all buildings in some US states and Canadian provinces.

Although societies have made many gains in reducing the amount of tobacco users and thus contributing to healthier citizens and environments, we fail to consider what Marie-Rachelle Narcisse et al. call the social patterning of smoking practices. They note that although tobacco consumption has declined over the past 20 years, new emerging patterns of smoking practices have emerged subsequently. It is of utmost importance to consider the multifaceted links with socioeconomic inequalities and gender-specific smoking patterns. In further understanding these patterns, I continue to question whether smoking is simply an individual bad habit or a consequence of socially patterned inequalities. If it is primarily the latter, we need to begin considering addressing the issue in other ways than simply changing advertising requirements.

Read more

Marie-Rachelle Narcisse et al.

[polldaddy poll=1644220]