OESTERHOUDT STRIKES
Stereotypes fascinate me because everyone taught me to revile them. It is a dirty word. You are not supposed to stereotype anymore. But what is stereotyping, actually? It means making generalizations about particular people or things, then exaggerating those generalizations in a pejorative way.
Stereotypes are pernicious when applied to "disfavored" groups. They are even worse when a person in "superior social position" directs the stereotype against a person in an "inferior social position." In other words, it is "politically incorrect" for a wealthy white man in America (i.e., a person with a historically "superior social position") to stereotype against a poor black man (i.e, a person with a historically "inferior social position"). Yet when people in traditionally inferior social positions stereotype those in superior social positions, it is somehow more forgivable. After all, who gets up in arms when black comedians say all white people are awkward? No one: Because everyone knows that white people have historically enjoyed a "superior social position" over blacks in America. In this sense, stereotypes are objectionable only in context: They are "bad" only when directed downward from a superior social position against an inferior one.
Still, it is hard to talk about stereotypes without inviting anger. Even outside the racial context, stereotypes raise emotions because they depend on uncomfortable--and sometimes remotely true--assumptions about others. No one likes to be mocked for their intrinsic characteristics, even if their intrinsic characteristics are less than praiseworthy.
It is even difficult to analyze the stereotyper. Ten years ago, I angered the American government when I applied for a Federal scholarship to study the systematic way in which American media stereotypes Germans. I did not get the grant. Apparently, the Federal government did not want to fund a paper that would tell it how shortsighted, ignorant and simplistic most Americans are when thinking about Germany. At the time, I was disappointed I did not get my grant. But it taught me a valuable lesson: Neither the proponents nor the victims of stereotypes like talking about them.
Whether or not the Federal government chooses to recognize it, stereotypes are everywhere in this country. They surround us. We even buy into them without even knowing it. To start, it is hard to watch American movies without encountering some condescending racial, sexual or national caricature. Even in a sci-fi action movie like Transformers : Revenge of the Fallen, the "hip" robots have black voices and banter in ebonics. Most gay characters are pathetically effeminate, with the lisps, hair and flamboyance to match. And people from other countries? Forget it: Germans are merciless, icy, calculating, humorless villains (Schindler's List; Hellboy II). Italians are lusty, hairy, slicked-back tough Guidos who use big hand gestures and talk about their families all the time (Saturday Night Fever). Russians are crafty, suspicious tyrants with thick accents (Rambo III; Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). The French are perfumed, well-dressed, snotty, red-lipped, arrogantly petulant metrosexuals with perfect hair who usually wind up buying baguettes or espresso at some point in the movie (The Matrix : Reloaded, Ronin)(Jean Reno is the default American choice for a Frenchman). The British are absurdly prim, polite, insistent on protocol, silly or villainous (The Patriot). Arabs are maniacal terrorists who wear turbans, shout "Allah, Ackbar!" and blow things up (True Lies). Asians are generally kung-fu-fighting, sword-wielding comic relief with funny accents (any Jackie Chan movie).
Of course, not all American movies support racial, sexual and national stereotypes. There are exceptions in every category. But the fact that so many mainstream films thrive on stereotypes means something. It means that America has an appetite for them. They like laughing at smooth-talking black robots and silly gay men. They expect Italians to be gangsters and Germans to be killers. After all, stereotypes are easy to grasp. They distance "us" from "them." They allow "us" to feel secure in our identities by condescending toward the way "they" speak, act and move. Stereotypes unite through ignorance.
Hollywood films are not the only medium that supports rank stereotypes in the United States. Even so-called "neutral" news networks reinforce racial and national generalizations. Whenever news agencies report on street crime, they usually point out that the suspect is a "black male," or they just show his face onscreen: Just another scary-looking black guy with unkempt facial hair. Whenever news agencies report about China or Russia, they usually make ominous comments about sinister motivations and repressive governments. And when they report about destitute Third World countries, typically they focus on some ridiculous sideshow, like peasants cooking dirt shavings or worshipping a river bank.
In short, Americans get their stereotypes from multiple sources. Stereotypes help them order their world. They help them remember who "they" are. Yet no matter how much Americans love their stereotypes, and no matter how often they buy into them, they also hear a countervailing message: "Stereotyping is bad." Students learn that it is wrong to make sweeping generalizations about ethnic, national, sexual and religious groups. Even corporations instruct their employees that it is "wrong" to generalize about "others." It might not be wrong to exclude "them" from the workforce or relegate "them" to the mail room. You just can't make callous remarks about their low station.
We have lived in the era of "political correctness" for several decades now. Some people have gotten in trouble for breaking the official rules about stereotypes, like Don Imus and some other indiscreet white men. But despite the "official" stance against stereotyping, it survives. It lives on in men's hearts. People can dutifully watch what they say in public without privately abandoning stereotypical thinking. It is very easy to be "politically correct" in observance, yet politically incorrect in spirit. Even the worst bigot can navigate the sparse minefield of forbidden phrases that demarcates "politically correct speech." You just need some minimal public discretion.
But what happens when traditional stereotypers try too hard to show their political correctness? In advertising, for instance, I have noticed an increase in so-called "reverse stereotyping," namely, painfully obvious attempts to portray traditionally stereotyped roles in the opposite light.
Take these examples: A major garment company runs an ad showing a married black man in a very nice home choosing a white starched shirt from a hickory-paneled closet. In the next ad, a home security company shows an affluent black family in a very nice home being terrorized by a white burglar, then calling police. In another ad, a life insurance company hawks its wares by showing an extremely well-dressed black man behind a desk in an office building. He is an "insurance executive;" and a desperate-looking white man calls him to ask about life insurance options. In yet another ad, a trade school notes that "times are tough," then it shows an unemployed white man struggling to find a job. It suggests that he get an education in order to stop receiving public assistance.
What is significant about these ads? In my view, they are even more condescending to "disfavored political groups" in America than flat-out stereotypes. After all, pernicious stereotyping generally operates in a "downward" manner, from people in a "traditionally superior social position" against people in a "traditionally inferior social position." In all the social contexts relevant to these ads, black Americans generally occupy the inferior position: They do not have nice homes; they do not wear button-down shirts; they are not even married; they are the burglars, not the ones who call police; they do not buy life insurance, let alone run the insurance company; they are unemployed and need educations to get off welfare. A flat-out stereotype would have shown white people buying button-down shirts, calling the police on black burglars and running an insurance company. But here the ads simply reverse the stereotypes, placing black people in the traditionally superior positions, while white people fancifully occupy the traditionally inferior positions. This "racial reversal" so obviously contradicts predominant social realities that it invites scorn.
It is easy to see why the corporations did this. They did not want to "appear stereotypical" by portraying blacks in "traditionally inferior social positions." They wanted to comply with "political correctness." But in attempting to avoid stereotypes, the corporations came off as even more patronizing than they would have had they simply stuck with the generalizations everyone expects to see. Americans expect to see black burglars; that's what they see on the news all the time. Americans expect to see white insurance executives; after all, insurance executives are basically all white anyway. And Americans expect to hear about unemployed black people on welfare; laziness is a classic racial stereotype that has long fueled resentment between racial groups in America.
In sum, anyone can see that these ads do not correspond to social reality in the United States. That fact confirms that Americans like their stereotypes. It makes them uneasy--and even disbelieving--to see black people portrayed outside their traditionally inferior social positions. No one will ever believe that black people will run insurance companies. Nor will anyone believe that white Americans will commit street crime in the same proportions as black Americans. Americans are too comfortable with their stereotypes. A few advertisers will not change anyone's assumptions by reversing stereotypical roles that have existed in Americans' minds for generations.
No, Americans still have a voracious appetite for stereotypes. Just go to the movies or turn on the news. And ironically, attempting to be "political correct" only worsens stereotypical thinking. That's because telling Americans that "stereotyping is bad" is like telling a star baseball player that baseball is bad: Stereotyping is what we do--and we really like it. Telling us to stop doing what we like will result in confused, disingenuous absurdity, just as we see in these ads.
Showing posts with label Television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Television. Show all posts
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Monday, December 7, 2009
CAR INSURANCE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN LIFE
OESTERHOUDT STRIKES
No, I'm not kidding. This is no satire. If there is any correlation between broadcast airtime and importance in life, then car insurance must be the most important thing in life.
Watch network television for an hour. I guarantee that you will see at least four commercials for car insurance. During the same hour, you might only see one or two advertisements for erectile dysfunction or prostate pills. There might be an appeal to send money to children in Africa, or the odd statement from a tax accountant or a lawyer--who usually wants you to join a class-action lawsuit involving prescription medication or car insurance fraud. Mixed messages?
But I digress. Let's get back to the real question: What's so important about car insurance? Why are companies spending so much money--and wasting so much of my time--simply to say that they are selling indemnity contracts for my car? I don't even have a car; why the hell would I want car insurance? They talk about low prices (Allstate), discounts (Progressive) and savings (GEICO). Some take a "trust me" approach (Allstate); others try to throw in humor (GEICO and Progressive). Some provide more specific information, like the fact that they also sell boating insurance, garage insurance, homeowner's insurance, life insurance, renter's insurance and lawn insurance. Other provide no information at all, just a slogan and a phone number.
Animated geckos with cockney accents do not provide commercially relevant information necessary to make a reasonable free market decision, no matter what GEICO's Board says. On the other hand, advertisers don't care about providing information relevant to a reasonable free market decision. They just want you to remember them and buy. It doesn't matter if it's the "most reasonable choice" you've ever made. Advertisers target the visual sense: "See this? Now buy this." That's how it works.
This simple strategy explains why car insurance commercials dominate the airwaves. If a company has enough money to advertise, it will advertise as much as it can. After all, an idiot is more likely to remember something he sees ten times in two hours than something he saw only once during the same two hours. Advertisers like GEICO, Allstate and Progressive know that, so they deluge viewers' senses over and over again. Even if people don't think about car insurance every single day in their lives, advertisers make sure that when they finally do think about car insurance, they also think of their company. By bombarding the senses, advertisers create a mental connection. When the mind strays onto the topic "car insurance," it triggers the connection: "Must buy GEICO." When that happens, advertising has done its work. Advertisers don't want reflection. They want reflex.
Broadcast airtime is a precious commodity. It is very expensive. It can reach millions of people in an instant. It has the potential to spread knowledge, understanding and enrichment. If something appears in a broadcast medium, it carries weight: Someone had to pay a huge sum to air it. To convey a message in such a costly medium, the message must be "important." In that light, does it not reveal something about our society that commercials are the only messages that regularly appear in this medium? The broadcast medium could be used to enrich the population with meaningful messages. But in the end, it merely barrages them with animated geckos, cavemen, obnoxious women chirping about discounts and various entreaties to buy boating insurance. After all, car insurance is important: It's on TV all the time.
Some will inevitably say that commercial messages are the only way that networks can finance their non-commercial messages. But most non-commercial material on most television channels is utterly unenlightening. In many cases, it even bows to commercial pressures. Networks will not broadcast material that alienates their commercial sponsors. In a strange way, then, commercial messages dictate which non-commercial messages ultimately appear on television. Advertisers will not advertise on programs that do not draw people likely to buy their products. This limits the kinds of messages that people hear on television because everything comes back to commerce: The programmer must placate the advertiser first. Only then can he exercise some expressive freedom. Without the advertiser, he can broadcast nothing. Who's more important then: The car insurance company or the viewer who wants to see a show about medieval England?
In my view, this is all very pathetic. In the end, car insurance gets more play than momentous world issues in the United States. It may seem absurd to suggest that car insurance is the most important thing in life. Yet I promise you that you will see more GEICO commercials on television than programs about Darfur, the health care bill or the War in Iraq. Those things may be more "objectively" important, but they do not pay the network's expenses. Insurance companies do. So we hear their messages more than any other messages.
That's why it's perhaps not so absurd to say that car insurance is the most important thing in life. Our country dedicates more airtime to it than virtually any other single subject. If airtime is as precious as we hear, doesn't that mean that car insurance is important? It's getting all the airtime, so it must be important. Very important, even.
No, I'm not kidding. This is no satire. If there is any correlation between broadcast airtime and importance in life, then car insurance must be the most important thing in life.
Watch network television for an hour. I guarantee that you will see at least four commercials for car insurance. During the same hour, you might only see one or two advertisements for erectile dysfunction or prostate pills. There might be an appeal to send money to children in Africa, or the odd statement from a tax accountant or a lawyer--who usually wants you to join a class-action lawsuit involving prescription medication or car insurance fraud. Mixed messages?
But I digress. Let's get back to the real question: What's so important about car insurance? Why are companies spending so much money--and wasting so much of my time--simply to say that they are selling indemnity contracts for my car? I don't even have a car; why the hell would I want car insurance? They talk about low prices (Allstate), discounts (Progressive) and savings (GEICO). Some take a "trust me" approach (Allstate); others try to throw in humor (GEICO and Progressive). Some provide more specific information, like the fact that they also sell boating insurance, garage insurance, homeowner's insurance, life insurance, renter's insurance and lawn insurance. Other provide no information at all, just a slogan and a phone number.
Animated geckos with cockney accents do not provide commercially relevant information necessary to make a reasonable free market decision, no matter what GEICO's Board says. On the other hand, advertisers don't care about providing information relevant to a reasonable free market decision. They just want you to remember them and buy. It doesn't matter if it's the "most reasonable choice" you've ever made. Advertisers target the visual sense: "See this? Now buy this." That's how it works.
This simple strategy explains why car insurance commercials dominate the airwaves. If a company has enough money to advertise, it will advertise as much as it can. After all, an idiot is more likely to remember something he sees ten times in two hours than something he saw only once during the same two hours. Advertisers like GEICO, Allstate and Progressive know that, so they deluge viewers' senses over and over again. Even if people don't think about car insurance every single day in their lives, advertisers make sure that when they finally do think about car insurance, they also think of their company. By bombarding the senses, advertisers create a mental connection. When the mind strays onto the topic "car insurance," it triggers the connection: "Must buy GEICO." When that happens, advertising has done its work. Advertisers don't want reflection. They want reflex.
Broadcast airtime is a precious commodity. It is very expensive. It can reach millions of people in an instant. It has the potential to spread knowledge, understanding and enrichment. If something appears in a broadcast medium, it carries weight: Someone had to pay a huge sum to air it. To convey a message in such a costly medium, the message must be "important." In that light, does it not reveal something about our society that commercials are the only messages that regularly appear in this medium? The broadcast medium could be used to enrich the population with meaningful messages. But in the end, it merely barrages them with animated geckos, cavemen, obnoxious women chirping about discounts and various entreaties to buy boating insurance. After all, car insurance is important: It's on TV all the time.
Some will inevitably say that commercial messages are the only way that networks can finance their non-commercial messages. But most non-commercial material on most television channels is utterly unenlightening. In many cases, it even bows to commercial pressures. Networks will not broadcast material that alienates their commercial sponsors. In a strange way, then, commercial messages dictate which non-commercial messages ultimately appear on television. Advertisers will not advertise on programs that do not draw people likely to buy their products. This limits the kinds of messages that people hear on television because everything comes back to commerce: The programmer must placate the advertiser first. Only then can he exercise some expressive freedom. Without the advertiser, he can broadcast nothing. Who's more important then: The car insurance company or the viewer who wants to see a show about medieval England?
In my view, this is all very pathetic. In the end, car insurance gets more play than momentous world issues in the United States. It may seem absurd to suggest that car insurance is the most important thing in life. Yet I promise you that you will see more GEICO commercials on television than programs about Darfur, the health care bill or the War in Iraq. Those things may be more "objectively" important, but they do not pay the network's expenses. Insurance companies do. So we hear their messages more than any other messages.
That's why it's perhaps not so absurd to say that car insurance is the most important thing in life. Our country dedicates more airtime to it than virtually any other single subject. If airtime is as precious as we hear, doesn't that mean that car insurance is important? It's getting all the airtime, so it must be important. Very important, even.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
FOX NEWS, THE UNITED NATIONS, 9/11 AND OTHER FUNNY STUFF
OESTERHOUDT STRIKES
I found some untroubled moments to watch the news this afternoon. Once in a while I like to know what FOX News has to say about the world, if for no other reason than to assemble new ideas for satire. I must actually hear crazy arguments before I can properly mock them. You can't do impressions without listening to your subject first.
FOX started its 7 PM broadcast with "Three Top Stories." The first involved a Muslim terror suspect who allegedly scoured beauty salons throughout New York buying up hydrogen peroxide. The newscaster said that hydrogen peroxide is a "key ingredient in explosives." FOX showed FBI men leading a young, Arab-looking man away in handcuffs.
In the second story, FOX informed me about a "terror imam from Brooklyn." He allegedly knew about the young man's plot, then lied to the police about it. FOX told me that he was being held on a $1.5 million bond for conspiracy. It also told me that authorities charged this "terror imam" with sexual abuse in 1992. I didn't see the connection between sexual abuse and international terrorism, but it sure made the "terror imam" look like a villain. After all, terrorists are bad, and so are sexual predators. But terrorist sexual predators are worse than both: A sum is always more than its component parts.
Finally, FOX interrupted its broadcast to alert me that officials in Dallas arrested a "young Muslim man" for attempting to car bomb a government building. They did not have any pictures to show. They just showed the man's long, Arab-looking name underneath a menacing-looking silhouette. FOX told me that they "would bring me more on this story as soon as they could."
Why were these the top stories? Did 9/11 just happen or something? Is it still October 2001? Does the whole Muslim fear-mongering thing still have traction among FOX viewers? Michael Moore famously mocked FOX for its relentless fixation on "evil Arabs" and vague, terrifying plots in 2004's "Fahrenheit 9/11." It was funny then, even relatively soon after 9/11. But now it's been eight years; Bush's fear-mongering has decayed beyond passe. Any assertion that bloodthirsty Muslims lurk among us now seems pathetically old-fashioned, even hackneyed. It's not 2001 anymore; there's no more Anthrax in the air. People are more worried about Medicaid now than Osama bin Laden. And for good reason: Because health care in America affects many, many more Americans than any terrorist ever will.
But for some reason FOX didn't get the memo or check the calendar. On FOX, it's still a brave battle between proud Americans and evil Muslims with long names and skull caps. Black is still black and white is still white. Hey, I guess it sells; Rupert Murdoch doesn't dish stuff that doesn't sell, truth or fashion be damned.
This is not the only funny thing I saw on the news tonight. I also saw coverage about all the world leaders at the United Nations this week. Leaving all media bias aside (ie, United States and Israel = good; Iran and Libya = bad), I just have to say how silly "collective security" really is. Woodrow Wilson started the League of Nations back in 1920. He wanted Nations to get together and respectfully solve differences without war or acrimony. It didn't work. Franklin Roosevelt tried to do the same when he conceived the United Nations in 1945. There have not been any world wars since then, but just one look at history shows that there has not been too much world peace since the United Nations started hosting world leaders.
But I am not writing about diplomacy. I am writing about the utter foolishness of U.N. speeches. No one listens to them for their substance. No one even really hopes to change minds or solve problems with them. Rather, people listen to them solely for theatrical value. After all, it's all-too predictable what happens, and it is all very staged. For example, Moammar Ghadaffi got up yesterday and railed against Israel, capitalism and the United States for over 90 minutes. As if on cue, the U.S. and Israeli delegations theatrically walked out. They did the same thing when Iran's Ahmedinijad got up and made similar points. Today, Israel's Prime Minister got up and spoke. Libya's and Iran's delegations theatrically walked out. Then the Prime Minister denounced every delegation that did not walk out on Libya's and Iran's speeches the day before.
So is this international diplomacy? Is this genuine dialogue? No--it is classic theater: Simple, emotional, sensational, uncomplicated. The orators speak in grand, emotional tones. They play to the audience. Their rhetoric delights some and outrages others. It is intentional. Delighted delegations applaud; outraged ones visibly walk out. Then later orators chastise delegates who did not walk out on speeches the orators did not like.
Funny stuff. But the sad part is that after all the fun and games, the world's differences remain starkly unchanged.
I found some untroubled moments to watch the news this afternoon. Once in a while I like to know what FOX News has to say about the world, if for no other reason than to assemble new ideas for satire. I must actually hear crazy arguments before I can properly mock them. You can't do impressions without listening to your subject first.
FOX started its 7 PM broadcast with "Three Top Stories." The first involved a Muslim terror suspect who allegedly scoured beauty salons throughout New York buying up hydrogen peroxide. The newscaster said that hydrogen peroxide is a "key ingredient in explosives." FOX showed FBI men leading a young, Arab-looking man away in handcuffs.
In the second story, FOX informed me about a "terror imam from Brooklyn." He allegedly knew about the young man's plot, then lied to the police about it. FOX told me that he was being held on a $1.5 million bond for conspiracy. It also told me that authorities charged this "terror imam" with sexual abuse in 1992. I didn't see the connection between sexual abuse and international terrorism, but it sure made the "terror imam" look like a villain. After all, terrorists are bad, and so are sexual predators. But terrorist sexual predators are worse than both: A sum is always more than its component parts.
Finally, FOX interrupted its broadcast to alert me that officials in Dallas arrested a "young Muslim man" for attempting to car bomb a government building. They did not have any pictures to show. They just showed the man's long, Arab-looking name underneath a menacing-looking silhouette. FOX told me that they "would bring me more on this story as soon as they could."
Why were these the top stories? Did 9/11 just happen or something? Is it still October 2001? Does the whole Muslim fear-mongering thing still have traction among FOX viewers? Michael Moore famously mocked FOX for its relentless fixation on "evil Arabs" and vague, terrifying plots in 2004's "Fahrenheit 9/11." It was funny then, even relatively soon after 9/11. But now it's been eight years; Bush's fear-mongering has decayed beyond passe. Any assertion that bloodthirsty Muslims lurk among us now seems pathetically old-fashioned, even hackneyed. It's not 2001 anymore; there's no more Anthrax in the air. People are more worried about Medicaid now than Osama bin Laden. And for good reason: Because health care in America affects many, many more Americans than any terrorist ever will.
But for some reason FOX didn't get the memo or check the calendar. On FOX, it's still a brave battle between proud Americans and evil Muslims with long names and skull caps. Black is still black and white is still white. Hey, I guess it sells; Rupert Murdoch doesn't dish stuff that doesn't sell, truth or fashion be damned.
This is not the only funny thing I saw on the news tonight. I also saw coverage about all the world leaders at the United Nations this week. Leaving all media bias aside (ie, United States and Israel = good; Iran and Libya = bad), I just have to say how silly "collective security" really is. Woodrow Wilson started the League of Nations back in 1920. He wanted Nations to get together and respectfully solve differences without war or acrimony. It didn't work. Franklin Roosevelt tried to do the same when he conceived the United Nations in 1945. There have not been any world wars since then, but just one look at history shows that there has not been too much world peace since the United Nations started hosting world leaders.
But I am not writing about diplomacy. I am writing about the utter foolishness of U.N. speeches. No one listens to them for their substance. No one even really hopes to change minds or solve problems with them. Rather, people listen to them solely for theatrical value. After all, it's all-too predictable what happens, and it is all very staged. For example, Moammar Ghadaffi got up yesterday and railed against Israel, capitalism and the United States for over 90 minutes. As if on cue, the U.S. and Israeli delegations theatrically walked out. They did the same thing when Iran's Ahmedinijad got up and made similar points. Today, Israel's Prime Minister got up and spoke. Libya's and Iran's delegations theatrically walked out. Then the Prime Minister denounced every delegation that did not walk out on Libya's and Iran's speeches the day before.
So is this international diplomacy? Is this genuine dialogue? No--it is classic theater: Simple, emotional, sensational, uncomplicated. The orators speak in grand, emotional tones. They play to the audience. Their rhetoric delights some and outrages others. It is intentional. Delighted delegations applaud; outraged ones visibly walk out. Then later orators chastise delegates who did not walk out on speeches the orators did not like.
Funny stuff. But the sad part is that after all the fun and games, the world's differences remain starkly unchanged.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
VIVE LA FRANCE!
OESTERHOUDT STRIKES
I am in a rush this morning. But I have enough time to say that I do not like the television show "NYC Prep." It is about six ultra-rich white Upper East Side prep school students who talk incessantly about clothes, advantages and money. They cannot reveal their names or their parents' names for fear that they might be abducted. It is as if they know that their wealth and lifestyles immediately inspire resentment in viewers.
Wealth divides Americans as much as it divides citizens in any other civilization. While we can talk about theoretical inequality all day, it is something else to see the way really privileged people live. It evokes true populist nausea. Most people struggle from paycheck to paycheck their whole lives. They never seem to get anywhere. Their parents had nothing to give and they didn't know anyone who could get them a job that actually could lead someplace. Yet the children on NYC Prep worry about whether they will receive a Mercedes or BMW on their 16th Birthday. How could a wage-earner or debtor not feel outrage when they hear about such blatant excesses?
As I watched these children move through luxurious apartments laughing, texting and planning European excursions, I thought to myself: "This is the kind of stuff that started the French Revolution." And my thoughts led me further: "Wouldn't it be satisfying to guillotine these little assholes along with their absurdly wealthy parents?" That would finally put some fear in them, wouldn't it?
Class inequality starts trouble when enough people realize how bad it really is. Class inequality touches both an emotional and a philosophical nerve. In America, wealthy people do a good job concealing their lives and lifestyles from public scrutiny. But when they come to light, outrage is swift and almost bloodthirsty. Human beings have an innate intuition about fairness. When they see some people with everything, while they struggle for nothing, they cannot help feeling that unfairness is afoot. When these emotions reach a critical mass, revolutions happen. Anger about unfairness topples governments. That's what happened in France in 1789. That was a bad year to be rich.
Revolutions excite me. I love studying them because I love reading about times during which old orders break down and the law fails. In pre-Revolutionary France, for instance, the law supported the wealthy. By law, they maintained their status, property and unequal privileges. But that did not give them right. In fact, the people smashed the law and killed those who violated right. The same thing happened in Russia in 1917. Revolutions obliterate unfair legal systems and the unequal social structures they support. Yet in both France and Russia, there was a spark that ignited smoldering resentments. Both France and Russia experienced international turmoil prior to their revolutions that weakened the law's grip. Thus, a historical pattern emerges: Revolutions happen when two things are present: (1) Massive popular resentment caused by social inequality and wealth disparity; and (2) A destabilizing event at home or abroad that compromises the law's power to restrain dissent.
In America, we have not fulfilled either prerequisite for revolution. While there is enormous social inequality and wealth disparity in America, there is a substantial counterbalance. Namely, there are millions of middle-class people who are sufficiently content with their economic lot that they are not prepared to risk comfort for something better. Additionally, America has never faced the kind of truly devastating "destabilizing event" that weakens faith in government altogether. America has not faced crippling wars in which millions of civilians die. Nor has its currency ever gone worthless, as it did in Germany in the 1920s. Put simply, America is quite stable. And that stability enables the law to control resentment engendered by social inequality. Unfairness, in other words, can survive in peaceful times when enough people really don't give a damn. This is the case in America today.
But resentment lives. You can feel it the minute you tune into NYC Prep and wonder how it is possible that some people have it so easy. And you'll have to forgive yourself for your intuitive desire to dethrone these modern-day nobles. Revolution or not, we can still dream about how gratifying it would be to humble these petulant bon vivants. After all, it's in our nature to recoil from intuitive unfairness.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
OWN A HOME? PAY LESS FOR CAR INSURANCE
OESTERHOUDT STRIKES
I do not typically watch television. I have two reasons for this. First, I do not like most programming. I just do not have much interest in watching people fight alligators for cash prizes, strive to become famous singers while enduring brutal public humiliation, repair their homes on a limited budget or learning about Brad Pitt’s current whereabouts. It just does not interest me. On the other hand, I do like watching documentaries and some news channels. For the most part, I get my news from prowling several different national and international sources on the internet, but sometimes it is refreshing to watch an American newscast.
Second, I do not generally watch television because I absolutely detest advertising. I have written at length about advertising. I call it “the language of commerce,” and I despise it for that reason. When I can, I shut my ears to it. Advertising appeals to as many human senses as possible. It attempts to implant impressions in the human mind. Only human sense can lead to human impressions, and advertisers know that they have a better chance to make impressions when they can appeal to several human senses at once. Television provides them an opportunity to appeal both to sight and hearing. For that reason, advertisers wheel out their best efforts for television audiences. After all, they stand a better chance to stand out in a viewer’s mind through television than they would if they merely put up a two-dimensional billboard on a highway. Television allows the advertiser to directly target a listener in his own home both with memorable sights and sounds. Advertisers also know that their listeners are voluntarily sitting there watching a program they want to see, so they will be hesitant to change the channel. That indirectly forces them to watch their commercial message. In short, there are few better ways to make an impression than to use television.
If I want to watch television, I use TIVO. I locate the programs I want to see, then I record them. When my schedule permits, I replay the recordings and skip the commercials. It is wonderful. And it makes me feel good to deny advertisers their chance to influence me. I have always relished opportunities to spite powerful interests. Muting advertisers is one way to accomplish that goal. I do not allow them to dictate what will be said at a particular moment. I choose what I want to hear, not what they want me to hear.
But it is really not so revolutionary as all that. In fact, I do not like most advertising because it is incredibly petty. So you’re selling a Sham-Wow “shammy” dishrag? That’s wonderful; I don’t give a shit. So you’re selling an industrial strength stain remover for only $14.95 plus shipping and handling? Great, I don’t need an industrial strength stain remover, so I really don’t give a shit about all the carpet-cleaning antics designed to impress me. So you’re selling an erectile dysfunction drug? That’s fine, but my erectile capacities are naturally sufficient, so I don’t give a shit about the drug’s side effects, or the grayed fiftysomething actor who comes on screen to tell me how much the drug improved his late-middle-aged sex life. There is a commonality at work here: Selling things about which I don’t give a shit. When I engage in commerce, I know what I want. I go online and buy it. I don’t need a sales pitch or a misleading gimmick to sway my undecided mind. And should I really be undecided when it comes to buying a dishrag? These are not the kinds of things about which to feel morally divided. You buy or you don’t. It is not complicated.
Yet advertising irks me for a more subtle reason than simple pettiness. Advertising also makes normalizing assumptions. It makes moral judgments as well as financial ones. Through its commercial appeals, it condescends. The new Progressive Car Insurance advertising push provides a ready example. In it, a sprightly, dim-witted insurance saleswoman—who allegedly “loves her job”—answers questions about the company’s insurance products. She asks the prospective buyer whether he “likes discounts.” “Who doesn’t like discounts?” he answers. Who indeed doesn’t? In commerce, you want to spend less money, not more, and discounts cost less than full prices, right? Then the saleswoman recites a whole list of characteristics that qualify insurance buyers for discounts. “Are you a safe driver?” she asks. “Yes,” responds the buyer. “Discount!” she says with a giggle. “Are you a homeowner?” “Yes,” responds the buyer. “Discount!” she says with a louder giggle. In the end, the company logo appears along with a phone number to call. After all, what good would a commercial message be without information about how to buy?
Why did this advertisement bother me? It bothered me because it makes morally normalizing assumptions about people. In essence, Progressive offers “discounts” to people who do not get in accidents and who own homes. In other words, only “responsible” people get to pay less. “Irresponsible” people have to pay more. Is this fair? After all, it falls in some measure to good fortune whether a person gets into a traffic accident. Drunks slam into the best drivers sometimes, whether or not they drive the speed limit. But what about owning a home? Can a poor person really control whether he owns or rents? It takes a lot of ready money and credit to buy a house. Millions of people cannot afford a home. Millions more have credit problems, and not always because they are irresponsible rogues. They have to rent. Yet according to Progressive’s implicit moral judgment, these people are “irresponsible” and they do not deserve a discount.
Am I “irresponsible” because I can’t afford to put $45,000 down on a house? I am so crushed with education debt that I can barely scrape an additional $400 together at any particular time, let alone $45,000. Does this make me “irresponsible?” I don’t get a discount because I don’t “own?” I am just a scumbag renter, huh? That is what Progressive is saying, whether or not they know it. This bothers me because here advertising goes beyond mere attempts to seduce a new buyer. Instead, it passes judgment on people for forces beyond their control. I can deal with pettiness in advertising, but when advertising starts branding me “irresponsible” because I can’t afford to buy a house, I get upset.
Yet this is commerce. It both implies and requires inequality. There are those blessed with money and those not so blessed. There are those who own and those who rent. Some people make $100,000 a year; others make minimum wage. There are those who inherited prosperous family businesses and those with impecunious fathers. Those fortunate enough to have lived relatively stable lives with jobs and salaries can buy homes and get special treatment from the car insurance company. Those who struggle enjoy no such special treatment. Meanwhile, they hear about the special treatment that “responsible” get and they feel worse about themselves because they do not “own.” Nobody likes knowing they are inferior.
I find this significant because commerce involves more than mere buying, selling and talk about buying and selling. It represents a moral perspective, too. It represents a value code premised upon property ownership. People who win success in commerce have particular values; they are “responsible.” Like any moral system, those who follow it look down upon those who cannot fulfill its mandates. But is it fair to look down on someone who cannot achieve commercial success? Today, it is not easy to win in commerce without good fortune and a substantial head start. It is virtually impossible to be a “self-made man” anymore; there is just not enough property to go around. It is already taken. According to prevailing rhetoric, education opens the way to success. Yet for most Americans, debt is the only way to education. And debt constricts freedom: In the end, who can afford to buy a home when he owes thousands every month to loan creditors? More to the point, how can a debt-ridden person afford to buy anything extra? Many people would love to fit the advertiser’s criteria for “responsibility,” but for one legitimate reason or another, they cannot. In my view, failing to meet impossible criteria does not warrant an advertiser’s moral judgment. It is simply unfair to hold people accountable for failings over which they had no control.
In sum, advertising does more than bore me with talk about worthless trinkets and drugs. It condescends toward me with normalizing judgments about “responsible living.” I cannot escape commerce. To some extent, we are all economic entities. I simply choose to do my own research about my material needs. I would rather not hear a biased pitch about a product I do not want from someone who stands to gain from selling it. And I certainly do not want to hear moral judgments mixed in with crass solicitations to buy.
I do not typically watch television. I have two reasons for this. First, I do not like most programming. I just do not have much interest in watching people fight alligators for cash prizes, strive to become famous singers while enduring brutal public humiliation, repair their homes on a limited budget or learning about Brad Pitt’s current whereabouts. It just does not interest me. On the other hand, I do like watching documentaries and some news channels. For the most part, I get my news from prowling several different national and international sources on the internet, but sometimes it is refreshing to watch an American newscast.
Second, I do not generally watch television because I absolutely detest advertising. I have written at length about advertising. I call it “the language of commerce,” and I despise it for that reason. When I can, I shut my ears to it. Advertising appeals to as many human senses as possible. It attempts to implant impressions in the human mind. Only human sense can lead to human impressions, and advertisers know that they have a better chance to make impressions when they can appeal to several human senses at once. Television provides them an opportunity to appeal both to sight and hearing. For that reason, advertisers wheel out their best efforts for television audiences. After all, they stand a better chance to stand out in a viewer’s mind through television than they would if they merely put up a two-dimensional billboard on a highway. Television allows the advertiser to directly target a listener in his own home both with memorable sights and sounds. Advertisers also know that their listeners are voluntarily sitting there watching a program they want to see, so they will be hesitant to change the channel. That indirectly forces them to watch their commercial message. In short, there are few better ways to make an impression than to use television.
If I want to watch television, I use TIVO. I locate the programs I want to see, then I record them. When my schedule permits, I replay the recordings and skip the commercials. It is wonderful. And it makes me feel good to deny advertisers their chance to influence me. I have always relished opportunities to spite powerful interests. Muting advertisers is one way to accomplish that goal. I do not allow them to dictate what will be said at a particular moment. I choose what I want to hear, not what they want me to hear.
But it is really not so revolutionary as all that. In fact, I do not like most advertising because it is incredibly petty. So you’re selling a Sham-Wow “shammy” dishrag? That’s wonderful; I don’t give a shit. So you’re selling an industrial strength stain remover for only $14.95 plus shipping and handling? Great, I don’t need an industrial strength stain remover, so I really don’t give a shit about all the carpet-cleaning antics designed to impress me. So you’re selling an erectile dysfunction drug? That’s fine, but my erectile capacities are naturally sufficient, so I don’t give a shit about the drug’s side effects, or the grayed fiftysomething actor who comes on screen to tell me how much the drug improved his late-middle-aged sex life. There is a commonality at work here: Selling things about which I don’t give a shit. When I engage in commerce, I know what I want. I go online and buy it. I don’t need a sales pitch or a misleading gimmick to sway my undecided mind. And should I really be undecided when it comes to buying a dishrag? These are not the kinds of things about which to feel morally divided. You buy or you don’t. It is not complicated.
Yet advertising irks me for a more subtle reason than simple pettiness. Advertising also makes normalizing assumptions. It makes moral judgments as well as financial ones. Through its commercial appeals, it condescends. The new Progressive Car Insurance advertising push provides a ready example. In it, a sprightly, dim-witted insurance saleswoman—who allegedly “loves her job”—answers questions about the company’s insurance products. She asks the prospective buyer whether he “likes discounts.” “Who doesn’t like discounts?” he answers. Who indeed doesn’t? In commerce, you want to spend less money, not more, and discounts cost less than full prices, right? Then the saleswoman recites a whole list of characteristics that qualify insurance buyers for discounts. “Are you a safe driver?” she asks. “Yes,” responds the buyer. “Discount!” she says with a giggle. “Are you a homeowner?” “Yes,” responds the buyer. “Discount!” she says with a louder giggle. In the end, the company logo appears along with a phone number to call. After all, what good would a commercial message be without information about how to buy?
Why did this advertisement bother me? It bothered me because it makes morally normalizing assumptions about people. In essence, Progressive offers “discounts” to people who do not get in accidents and who own homes. In other words, only “responsible” people get to pay less. “Irresponsible” people have to pay more. Is this fair? After all, it falls in some measure to good fortune whether a person gets into a traffic accident. Drunks slam into the best drivers sometimes, whether or not they drive the speed limit. But what about owning a home? Can a poor person really control whether he owns or rents? It takes a lot of ready money and credit to buy a house. Millions of people cannot afford a home. Millions more have credit problems, and not always because they are irresponsible rogues. They have to rent. Yet according to Progressive’s implicit moral judgment, these people are “irresponsible” and they do not deserve a discount.
Am I “irresponsible” because I can’t afford to put $45,000 down on a house? I am so crushed with education debt that I can barely scrape an additional $400 together at any particular time, let alone $45,000. Does this make me “irresponsible?” I don’t get a discount because I don’t “own?” I am just a scumbag renter, huh? That is what Progressive is saying, whether or not they know it. This bothers me because here advertising goes beyond mere attempts to seduce a new buyer. Instead, it passes judgment on people for forces beyond their control. I can deal with pettiness in advertising, but when advertising starts branding me “irresponsible” because I can’t afford to buy a house, I get upset.
Yet this is commerce. It both implies and requires inequality. There are those blessed with money and those not so blessed. There are those who own and those who rent. Some people make $100,000 a year; others make minimum wage. There are those who inherited prosperous family businesses and those with impecunious fathers. Those fortunate enough to have lived relatively stable lives with jobs and salaries can buy homes and get special treatment from the car insurance company. Those who struggle enjoy no such special treatment. Meanwhile, they hear about the special treatment that “responsible” get and they feel worse about themselves because they do not “own.” Nobody likes knowing they are inferior.
I find this significant because commerce involves more than mere buying, selling and talk about buying and selling. It represents a moral perspective, too. It represents a value code premised upon property ownership. People who win success in commerce have particular values; they are “responsible.” Like any moral system, those who follow it look down upon those who cannot fulfill its mandates. But is it fair to look down on someone who cannot achieve commercial success? Today, it is not easy to win in commerce without good fortune and a substantial head start. It is virtually impossible to be a “self-made man” anymore; there is just not enough property to go around. It is already taken. According to prevailing rhetoric, education opens the way to success. Yet for most Americans, debt is the only way to education. And debt constricts freedom: In the end, who can afford to buy a home when he owes thousands every month to loan creditors? More to the point, how can a debt-ridden person afford to buy anything extra? Many people would love to fit the advertiser’s criteria for “responsibility,” but for one legitimate reason or another, they cannot. In my view, failing to meet impossible criteria does not warrant an advertiser’s moral judgment. It is simply unfair to hold people accountable for failings over which they had no control.
In sum, advertising does more than bore me with talk about worthless trinkets and drugs. It condescends toward me with normalizing judgments about “responsible living.” I cannot escape commerce. To some extent, we are all economic entities. I simply choose to do my own research about my material needs. I would rather not hear a biased pitch about a product I do not want from someone who stands to gain from selling it. And I certainly do not want to hear moral judgments mixed in with crass solicitations to buy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)