Christina S. sent along a link to the British commercial below for Twingo. There’s a twist ending, so I’ll let you watch it:
Notice that, at the very end, the narrator refers to how “we live in modern times,” meaning that we drive socially responsible cars and tolerate cross-dressing.
The idea embedded in that commercial is: now that we’re “modern,” there is no more prejudice and intolerance. Or, “modern” people are tolerant of social differences. Things like bias, hate, and discrimination are “in the past,” confined to those who are “traditional” or otherwise somehow regressive.
This makes sense to us (and the commercial, therefore, works) because many of us have a model of history that assumes that everything will, inevitably, always get better… or at least not get worse. This is a linear model where the line for “progress” keeps going higher and higher over time. However things are today, we assume, things must have been worse before. Thinking like this makes invisible the possibility that people were more tolerant in the past as well as the possibility that we could become increasingly intolerant in the future. As I wrote in a previous post about cavemen:
There are serious problems with this idea: (a) We may stop working to make society better because we assume it will get better anyway (and certainly never get worse) with or without us. (b) Instead of thinking about what things like gender equality and subordination might look like, we just assume that equality is, well, what we have now and subordination is what they had then. This makes it less possible to fight against the subordination that exists now by making it difficult to recognize.
History doesn’t move along in a linear or predictable way. And it certainly doesn’t produce equality just by plodding along. We need to do the hard work of figuring out what an egalitarian society looks like and how to get there. Conflating “modernity” with social tolerance makes it seem as though the work is already finished.
UPDATE! Ashleigh V. sent in another Twingo commercial. This one conflates modernity with sexual permissiveness:
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 25
J — January 24, 2010
I've heard a lot of this thinking over the years - especially about the gender equality movements. This sort of thinking is kind of like a time-based version of cultural colonialism in a way - that's what 'A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court' was about. This delineation between 'then' and 'now' can serve to insulate a culture from change and the fragility of the human condition. If there is a large gulf of experience and difference between then and now, perhaps it is impossible that our sociopolitical institutions are as fragile as those in the past. Like any defense mechanism, this particular way of thinking is useful to an extent in preserving a cultural psyche, but can become an incredibly harmful and self-destructive mechanism when overdeveloped.
Maggie — January 24, 2010
I still really like this commercial, though. And the fact that it equates "modern" with "tolerant"...well, considering how intolerant people still are, especially on TV with regard to people playing with gender (drag queens are still used for a crude laugh on TV ALL THE TIME), this commercial accuses that intolerance as "not being with the times." I think that's a positive message to promote, even if it's problematic, as you said.
Chris — January 24, 2010
This post is pretty weak. What is the basis for assuming that the "we" is anything other than a subculture-thing (which has a clear demographic of 20-30 year old hipsters in mind throughout)?
What evidence is there for the totalizing and teleological subtexts you claim of having overcome "all" prejudice for "all" time? Is there anything beyond the implied "our key demographic has no problem with transvestitism"? I'm not sure of a better way to package this message other than implying that people who disagree have a backwards worldview. It seems that a similar posturing - again, without the teleology/totalization - is very prevalent on this blog?
This post just seems like criticism for the sake of criticism towards a rare instance of a clearly ANTI-oppression commercial. This is among the weakest posts I've seen from your site, which used to be pretty strong. Perhaps you guys should do more posts that aren't just examples of how stupid/backwards popular-culture/everyone-else is.
Sally — January 24, 2010
I'm sorry to have to agree that this post is quite a weak analysis of an ad that definitely deserves our praise.
The young, stylish people are seen as "modern" because they are accepting and enjoying of communities that often portrayed as abhorrent in advertising and the media. This is attempting to sell a product based on tolerance and enjoyment of one another's differences. If that's not laudable on this blog, I don't understand what is.
And if you have to dredge up Foucault's theories of history to make an advert seem even mildly ignorant of oppressed communities -- when it is visibly celebrating them -- then that may be a clue to step back. I'm sorry. I visit and read this blog every day and I love it to bits, but this analysis was not fair.
April — January 24, 2010
I loved this ad! I just posted it to my facebook. I have a friend who is a Sister of Perpetual Indulgence, and I think he'll get a kick out of it.
srand — January 24, 2010
Oddly, I found the ad fairly obnoxious because I assumed the people in the car were only using the drag queen to get into the club, presumably to pursue the (assumed) girl in the blue dress. *shrug*
Anyway, the actual meat of the post is something that often gets on my nerves, especially in certain historical fiction, faux-medieval fantasy, and post-apocalyptic 'regression' fiction in which the earlier or regressed society is 'worse' in every conceivable way.
You can't usefully sum up a time period into a neatly-labeled package any more than you can usefully sum up, say, the Lord of the Rings Trilogy in a sentence. (If nothing else, you'll miss the context in which it was written and the changing contexts in which it's been read!) This is especially true when the time period stretches across cultures or even classes (which, technically, any time period would).
So the notion that 'things' are always getting 'better' only makes sense if you ignore all of the inconvenient detail -- which makes it fairly pointless.
(On an entirely different note: I love the commenters here. They constantly remind me that the purpose of the blog is not to praise or condemn any particular piece of media, but to foster discussion about how the piece fits into our overall culture. I'll admit that some of the pieces inspire direct condemnation, even from the authors, but in the year I've been following this blog, the open discussion has vastly outweighed the occasional outrage.)
Kat — January 24, 2010
A better example: The Economist believes Women have never had it so good
lex — January 24, 2010
I totally agree with the point being made in the post, regarding 'inequality-blindness' (for want of a better etc) brought on by assuming everything's now fixed.
BUT to be honest, even though it initially draws on the connotation of the predatory drive-by to mislead and build the effect of the twist, I found the ad itself really quite warming and even had an 'ohhh' moment. Which, for me, takes quite an ad. Much of the reason I no longer watch TV/read magazines/mainstream newspapers is the ads.
Sorry. I must be waaay more susceptible than I thought :/
lex — January 24, 2010
Sorry - one more thought - there is an implication here that the transvestite dad is the one with the power to be accepted into the club, over the young white male with the flash car, who has to ask, rather than assuming he'll be let in. That's pretty chur. In terms of representing gender privilege, I'm heaps more happy with that than a lot of the other BS out there that reinforces narrow convention and I think it wins out over the perhaps slightly dubious appropriation of 'modern' as a synonym for 'equal'.
For things to change, and to continue to progress, surely we have to have the stories of that change represented? I think if anything, it reinforces ideas of changing social acceptance of difference and may serve to shift the attitudes of those who cling fast to the old ways. And if not the attitudes, at least how people approach their 'right' to express those harmful attitudes by oppressing others?
Tweets that mention Equating Modernity with Equality » Sociological Images -- Topsy.com — January 25, 2010
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by SocImages, José Bernardo and Carina van Rooyen, Martijn de Koning. Martijn de Koning said: RT @SocImages Equating Modernity with Equality http://bit.ly/4vUBU1 [...]
Richardhg — January 25, 2010
The part I liked about the ad was the two boys together in the front seat were much better looking than the two lesbians in the back.
High time the advertising industry stopped promoting that false bill of goods, women dressed to the nines, ass and tits held up by serious anti-sagging devices, painted within an inch of their lives, laughing like they have lost their minds and tossing their hair, as though boys must have one of these ditsy party pieces next to them to have any fun.
Break a nail, girls: those boys looked like more fun!
And I bet dad is fun to have a beer with, as well. And I also bet he can dance.
Great ad. :)
Kat — February 1, 2010
No, you got the last one wrong: It conflates modernity with sexual objectification of women- "empowerment" by poledance.
J — February 2, 2010
A lot of people have said that they're annoyed by the criticism of this ad because it does make a lot of progress, which it does. However, I also feel that both sides should be looked at equally.
As for the second piece, I know that this will be equated with sexual permissiveness, but I don't find sexual permissiveness a problem if it doesn't favor masculine sexual pleasure over feminine sexual pleasure.
This represents not poledance culture but burlesque culture, which differs significantly from stripping in audience(burlesque often appeals to women and contains more elaborate performances and storylines, there is often less nudity), accepted body types, and perceived artistic merit... I'm kind of hoping that this commercial is making a statement against slut-shaming, although it could have been more powerful.
olahus — March 18, 2010
am I the only one to notice the french accent in the end? I think they use it not only because it's a french brand, but because the stereotype that French people (as other western europeans like Dutch/British/Germans) are more socially liberal than Americans.
correct me if wrong
Olahus, eastern Europe :)
olahus — March 18, 2010
later: I saw it's a British commercial. So... maybe not. Or maybe, yes, maybe french seem to manny british more open to that kind of "modernity"
Who Is Primitive? » Sociological Images — March 24, 2010
[...] cures modern ills, women as carries of tradition and progress, representing the Middle East, equating modernity with permissiveness, and civilizing the Pueblos. var addthis_language = 'en'; Leave a Comment Tags: [...]