If there is a common thread to the readings for this week it may be that television in the 1950s represents an exercise in capitalist ideology reproducing the means of production in an Althusserian sense, albeit from a number of different perspectives. I think Lipsitz’s essay forms a thorough account of the changing political economy in Post-War America and brilliantly charts television’s nascent superstructural role in redefining Depression Era familial ideals of frugality and community, using nostalgia to pretend as if “ethnic rivalries and discrimination did not exist” and “instead, ethnics attain a false unity through consumption of commodities” (98). Both the Mellencamp and Modleski essays demonstrate in part ways in which ideologies of gender are used to both reinforce traditional patriarchal forms of power, but also to redefine motherhood and feminine domesticity through consumption and evolving conceptions of house work.
I really resonated with Charlie’s comments about the ways in which these ideological, or as Charlie observed technological, forces remain largely unchanged today, which is understandable given the continuities of capitalist political economy. Watching the Super Bowl on Sunday I was struck by the sheer volume of advertisements whose narrative revolved around some version of an explication of the diversity of American identity positions, followed by an assertion that despite these differences what brings us together is our shared love of consuming brand x. Pepsi’s halftime show began with one, there were Toyota and Dodge Ram commercials that shared this appeal, and probably several more that I have since forgotten. Given Lipsitz’s observation of the same ideological process in 1950s depictions of ethnic diversity I am more concerned that not only have we normalized the idea that an American identity based on consumption has the transcendent ability to erase the social tensions that arise from diverse identity positions, but so much so that it has become a generic convention in advertising. It also seems to me that there were less uses of sexualized female bodies in commercials this year, although I do remember a few. I wonder (and this is a tangential and very casual hypothesis) if there is a causal relationship between a surprising amount of the former and a reduction in the latter (if there was indeed a reduction). Regardless, it struck me as interesting that the cultural logics of capitalist advertising that Lipsitz identifies in his essay are as relevant today as they were in the 50s.
Thanks for this post, Bill — you're right that I identified them as technological, but they should be read with a deeply ideological bent. Reflecting on a few of the ads, specifically the Dodge Ram one, I'm struck by how different people's readings will be. Certainly there is space for oppositional reading if you know King's speech (here's a take where someone used a later section that specifically decries this kind of advertising: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_v1h6Zoi-Q), but that's not the dominant reading — though if you google the ad you might think that it is the only way that people read it. Which is something I'm curious about: the cultural logics are similar, but it seems like the situations that Lipsitz/Hall talk about as encouraging more oppositional readings are in decline. What does that mean?
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about the *goals* of Super Bowl advertisers these days. In his review of this year's ads (maybe you've already seen this: https://slate.com/business/2018/02/best-and-worst-super-bowl-ads.html), Justin Peters posits that it's the president's "churlishness" that's caused so many companies to work so hard to "imply or outright shout their high-mindedness" -- e.g. to present these utopic visions of transcending difference through consumption that Bill identifies. I'm inclined to agree with Peters to a large extent, but then how do we account for the fact that Super Bowl ads are supposed to reach to a large swath of the "divided," "partisan" nation, in a media climate that is otherwise very fragmented? Do advertisers devise ever more ingenious mechanisms in anticipation of a kind of base-level multiplicity of oppositional readings/ideological positions?
ReplyDeleteOne example might be Bud Light's ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAWUCtcWe4U) which takes place in a medieval fantasy world, evoking properties like GoT and LotR whose fandoms seem to cross a really broad ideological spectrum. But then, I don't know if any ad would ever convince people who don't already think of themselves as Bud Light drinkers to drink Bud Light. Is the ad, then, just a courtesy for people who already drink Bud Light and want to see their beer represented in the ritual spectacle that is Super Bowl commercials?