20 thoughts on “Week 5 – Manipulative Effects of Media (T3)”
Edwin Lee Xian Ming
One of the most salient points in this week’s articles is that made by Siegfried Kracauer, on his article “Cult of Distraction: On Berlin’s Picture Places”. True to Karl Marx’s concept of the various degrees of alienation workers face within a capitalist society, it was commented that workers were overburdened to such an extent, that they were unable to progress their own way of living.
This ties in well with last week’s readings on the total domination of the culture industry by Adorno and Horkheimer. Although there is truth in that humans have agency and that the subsequent model does not hold true universally for everyone, we can look to Ewen and Enzenberger in order to further the narrative of how the working class is exploited.
Ewen argues that workers have been taught that consuming things is a “civilising” process, and it cannot be more true in today’s society, whereby every solution to our problems have been associated with a marketable product – Cholesterol Pills are touted to reduce high blood pressure, despite high cholesterol being a symptom, not a cause (free cholesterol being released in order to heal damaged blood vessels).
While new media has been touted to have the potential in allowing us to break free of this supposed exploitation, Enzenberger asserts that the ability to transmit and receive content only result in worsening the situation, and I am inclined to agree.
Today’s advertisers have caught up with the new variations of technologies – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are all utilised to reach a wider audience. With Enzenberger’s concept in mind, it is evident, once we visit these platforms for a moment, that his opinion holds true – new media has been used to further strengthen the thought that “consumption is the cure”.
Elix Lee
For Enzenberger, the logic of media is defined in the shaping of consciousness. Interruptability is a condition for universality. Media is making possible mass participation as opposed to witnessing. Our engagement with media has become active but not necessarily democratic. For Enzenberger, media is all about manipulation. Participation is not necessarily emancipatory but can be enslaving. We think of participation as agency but it is not necessarily freeing.
For Chomsky and Herman, mass media serves to amuse, entertain, inform and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, codes that will integrate them into the institutional structure of larger society. It allows for massive inequality of wealth and power . Chomsky and Herman talks about 5 filters of the propaganda model in which the mass media is used to manipulate the audience.
Kelyn Phua
Participation in media can be enslaving and shapes our consciousness. It creates desires. Not just the desire for consumption, but the desire for production. We are constantly obliged to reply to text messages and calls, check social media pages. A group of people sitting together but using their phones in silence is not an unusual sight. Our desire for production in social media – posting about our whereabouts and posting pictures on Instagram, further deepens and contributes to this sense of constant engagement. With increased virtual experience, what’s lost is personal and interpersonal experience. The irony is that in trying to capture memories (photos/videos), we miss out on truly embracing in the moment. For example, people record live concerts and try to store the music, the atmosphere and excitement. This is similar to Ong’s take on writing and how we rely on devices to remember things. Therefore participation in media affects human experience.
Ajriani Asrul
Rather than commenting on the supposed negativity of the manipulation effect of the media, I would like to make an observation and share some thoughts about living in a time where such commonplace practices are going to continue to proliferate for a long time to come.
I would argue that almost all thought that consume anyone of us today is informed in one way or another through the media. If your mother gave you some health advice, she probably got it off the newspaper. If you’re wondering why water is blue, you’ll probably try your hardest to think to that day in science class when the teacher was teaching something about refraction and white light and the sun’s rays and she learned that from all her years of learning science from her teacher. There is not much content which is original, spontaneous and not influenced by something else. We probably either heard it from someone or read or saw it from somewhere. Arguably, creators of ‘original’ content are using languages not of their ‘own’, techniques that are learned and ideas which are rooted in thought that is inspired by something else. I am not attempting to go all technical on the meaning of the word ‘original’ but rather, I lament on the fact that it scares me slightly that my thoughts are not all my own and the lack of agency that I have over them.
Take for example my non-consumption of Starbucks. I list off reasons such as their destruction of small businesses, their supposed practice of fair trade coffee production, their ridiculously overpriced drinks and not to mention, their ‘selling’ of a lifestyle that I am not keen to attach to myself. One may argue that hey, it’s just a drink. But I look beyond that and reject the branding that they project onto consumers. Sure, as an organisation they do a lot of good things as well such as supporting local talents, some CSR here and there but I say they’re not doing enough where it really matters. So I think that I have agency in making these decisions. In actuality, I have done some self-conscious non-consumption that has been informed to me by these very same advertising mojo. Either way, I have been affected by it and I am influenced by it and I make my decisions based on them. Now, that’s just frightening.
Bryan Chia Yong Siang
The readings which were presented for the week painted a perfect picture of Singapore in my opinion.
I was at Orchard Road with my friend from Canada quite some time back and she commented that Singaporeans have a strong habit of shopping. There are shopping malls built at almost all MRT stations and branded goods can be purchased easily nationwide. She highlighted to me that it is very interested to note the number of the same branded stores which could be found along Orchard Road. All these are the work of Capitalism. With more brands choosing to establish in Singapore, the locals are cultured to the “branded lifestyle” and such lifestyle would actually creep into other aspects of the society – the long hours spent on working to meet the material desire, at the expense of family time.
All of us would attest that the media is powerful in altering the perception of people. Advertisement is a tool used by marketers and often targets on individual’s self-consciousness, creating a false impression whereby buying a branded good would be reflective of one’s social status. On top of the advertisement used by the media, the media is also effective in propagating a political ideology. It portrays what the local government wants us to see – that family time is important in our social life as well. Yes, we would agree that increasing productivity would mean more resources, more money and time with our family. However, what Ewen brought up made sense too – increase in resources to contribute to the local economy which is heavily infested by the capitalist. Such a move could also be perceived as a “distraction” to divert our attention away from Capitalism and the underlying problem of inequality which we are experiencing in our society.
Brandon Lye
In the article “Cult Of Distraction: On Berlin’s Picture Palaces”, Kracauer explains media’s potential to distract the masses. Media’s power is further heightened when the transmitted message is received by the masses, creating a false consciousness.
Karl Marx famously predicted a revolution by the proletariats, and I feel that the distracting qualities of media is a huge factor as to why the supposed revolution did not take place. As media increasingly pervades societies and the same message is constantly fed to the masses, more and more people become distracted from their inferior material conditions as compared to capitalists. Instead, their focus is shifted onto the spectacle created by the media.
This is in line with Stuart Ewen’s idea that capitalists often utilise the culture industry to generate consumer desire. This consumer desire can be said to be a form of “distraction” that Kracauer suggested. The continued generation of distractions and consumption creates a feedback mechanism whereby the lives of the masses are geared towards fulfilling their desires by product consumption.
Isobel Nga
Herman and Chompsky explains how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social and political policies is ‘manufactured’ in the public mind due to this propaganda. Indeed, the five filters provided by Herman and Chompsky just reinforces how it is the cause of media biasness even in Sinporean context. Even though the US has countless examples of media institutions tweeking and manipulation media content to the masses, let us look closer to home. Singapore Media Development Authority is not an independent body of public media communications governed by a private community who strives for freedom of press. No, it is not surprising that the media serves the ends of a dominant elites. Tan Meng Dui(Audit committee) is the Ministry of Defence. Members of the Board of directors in this group include Hugh Lim(Ministry of culture, youth, community), Moliah Binte Hasim (Ministry of education) etc.
If these individuals, with ties to government institutions are a part of regulating and choosing what should be on print ads, newspapers, television, radio, then is the media really a spokesman for free speech and serve general community interests? Would certain topics and news be censored so as to protect specific interests of the dominant class in society? Media reorients our attention. It creates this social perception to the public that whistleblowers and ‘breaking’ news are made available for their consumption. However, the reality is the inequality of wealth and power has its effects on mass-media interests and choices. Then, News has its useful purpose for those controlling the interests of the media – the state and large corporations.
Chua Xiu Juan
The gatekeeper function of mainstream media used to be a pride in journalism, indicating the objectivity and factual news reporting journalists have to adhere to. This objectivity is especially important because news is consumed by the masses. Contrary to the positive effects of gatekeeping, Herman and Chomsky proposed that the gatekeeping function of news media is not beneficial to the masses, but instead, works for the interest of bureaucratic organizations like the state and large, profit-driven corporations. This critical approach in perceiving media function aligns to the Frankfurt School.
As their argument focuses on traditional media, new media forms including online forums, blogs, online news and current affairs websites are not taken into account. Some socio-political news and current affairs websites for example, The Online Citizen, deliberately takes on an alternative view point to what they deem as state’s propaganda. Since traditional news media often echoes the viewpoint of the state due to the “bureaucratic affinity” shared with the state and corporations, and is reliant on the state as a result of regulation through official licensing, the relatively unregulated new media appears to be the media form “untainted” by state’s propaganda.
However, the new media has been increasingly regulated. In Singapore for instance, the government has implemented the new licensing regime application to online media. The online news licensing scheme requires online news sites “to comply within 24 hours to MDA’s directions to remove content that is found to be in breach of content standards.” This signifies a tougher stand taken by the state pertaining to regulating online news. Under MDA’s new licensing framework, Internet Content Providers also have to be registered, with political news websites having to sign an undertaking not to receive foreign funding under the Political Donations Act. Failure or refusal to abide by the state’s rule will result in cessation of the website, as what The Breakfast Network has shown. These attempts by the state to regulate the online media have resulted in considerably strong public backlash, especially from the online community.
Herman and Chomsky seems to hold a deterministic viewpoint that the masses will always be entrapped in the propaganda model offered by the media, state and large wealthy corporations through advertising and information shaping akin to the agenda setting function of the media.
Indeed, advertising has penetrated into our lives through our interactions with the media. This is regardless of the form of media. Be it on Facebook, Google or random websites, sponsored advertising are plastered on the virtual walls of our pages.
Yet, is there really no way out of this propaganda? Do we really have no agency in the face of the media and their bureaucratic affinity?
With the aid of technology, individual actors like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have acted as the whistleblower by revealing information that the states hope to conceal from the masses. Unfortunately, these whistleblowers have paid a heavy price for that. Both are currently seeking asylum from Ecuador and Russia respectively, suggesting a political tug-of-war at work as these two countries directly opposed the US government. Similarly, local independent film makers Lynn and James got into trouble with the authorities as a result of their interviews with bus drivers involved in the SMRT strike just because their interviews provided an alternative insight to the strike, contrary to the news reported in traditional media.
Herman and Chomsky´s The Propaganda Model published in 1988 in Manufacturing Content, echoes the Frankfurt School or in general the critical Marxist tradition. Focusing on the interplay between political power and economic power, they offer a critical perspective on the seemingly free information flow of communication channels (mass media). According to them, the mass media is in reality part of greater total framework influenced greatly by the dominant ideals of the dominant social classes. By comparing the liberal pluralist view with the critical Marxist view of the media they offer a critical view on our understanding of a free press. However, looking at the United States and their freedom of press, it becomes very much clear, that their critical stance may not be too pessimistic but realistic.
“Reporters without Borders” (RWB, http://en.rsf.org), a non-governmental organization, established in 1985, promoting “freedom of information and press”, released the annual “Press Freedom Index” (PFI). The report is describes as a “reference tool that is based on seven criteria: the level of abuses, the extent of pluralism, media independence, the environment and self-censorship, the legislative framework, transparency and infrastructure,” explained by Christophe Deloire, the secretary-general of Reporters Without Borders. Looking at the Index what sticks out is that the United States dropped by about 13 places to category 46. Their low rated of their freedom of press and information is mainly due to their harsh treatment of Whistleblowers, such as Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning, who was send to prison for 35 years. Manning played information regarding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to the website Wikileaks. The RWB website explains, the high prison sentence served warn those who may think of sharing information that they see as valuable to the public, which the world´s leading powers want to hide and keep secret.
The treatment of media informants shows how the rule of law comes into play when restricting the free flow of information.
Referring back to Herman and Chomsky, the PFI reveals that the freedom of press in the United States contradicts with a modern democracy, where, within the liberal-pluralist view, information can be shared freely and political information is accessible to the public. Here the focus is also on choice, which means that nothing should be hidden from the public but the citizen should be able to evolve a critical perspective on world politics.
The importance of the freedom of information exchange already became clear when reading Jürgen Habermas´s work on the “public sphere”: the place where individuals exchange information about politics, serving as a space free from political authority, where one can discuss openly. In The Structural Transformation of the Public sphere” (1991), he explains that with the growth of the printing press and the evolvement of mass media, a shift from the bourgeois public sphere to a modern mass society took place and the division between private individual and the state became blurry. Slowly but steadily, according to Habermas, the public sphere, has become more and more controlled by the state, who influence the media publishing industry. With the increase of control and loosening of freedom, the critical aspect of the public sphere got lost.
The critical information regarding the U.S. government, “the dominant social class”, cannot be tackled by the media or at least not with severe consequences. Then, the media looses its power to form a counter-weight to political power, desirable for a democracy. As explained by Herman and Chomsky, then, the ideology of the United States finds itself implicitly present in the media messages, citizens read and believe. This reveals a link between the political power and media power.
Seow Yi Min Eunice
A takeaway from Stuart Ewen ‘s article would be his critique of the mass production culture. He highlights the evident shift away from traditional capitalism, whereby modern capitalism focuses mainly producing for the masses to consume. He touches on 2 points, one being, the physical production (whereby wage and labor power is involved) and the other being, social production (highlighting the rise of mass advertising).
Importantly, the rise in mass consumerism can be critically analyzed in terms of both physical and social productions.
Firstly, perspectives regarding physical productions have shown a transcendence of the worker from one’s mere status, to a consumer (whom has purchasing power). However he criticizes this presented “industrial democracy”, pointing out the underlying tensions of exploitations (in a different form) occurring. This being, the masses, whom have been turned consumers, are merely pawns for the larger scheme of capitalism, and the need for consumers to contribute to its continuation.
Secondly, the perpetuation of consumerism is encouraged by the growing industry of social production: mass advertising. A shift from traditional consumerism can be seen here, whereby “real needs” are replaced by “desired needs”. The creation of such “desires” is a focal point in the argument, whereby, there are hints of physical production being compared to such social creations (via advertising). The exploitative act here however differs, whereby it is being compared to the “spiritual side of trade”. Thus, indirectly, stating that “spirituality” here is being manipulated by these analysts, hoping to “control the consumption of a product”
The repetitive drudgery nature of the production process, is not only seen present in the physical production. Rather, advertising has pointed out that “universal notions” of people are developed with regards to how they respond. Ironically, advertising requiring creativity and individuality, is replaced by merely reaching for the “mass audience, via universal appeal” in hopes of being efficient.
The mass culture ingrained in this society, is one to be critical and aware of.
Koh Hui Yi
In Siegfried Kracauer’s “Cult of Distraction: On Belin’s Picture Palaces”, he addresses the Berlin’s picture palaces as a distraction. He talks about how the masses have become a homogenous cosmopolitan audience in which everyone has the same response. The masses who are working face tension everyday in their work and this causes them to crave for the need for enjoyment, relaxation which comes in the form of entertainment. Therefore, the addiction to distraction is so prominent in Berlin because the working masses face more stress and tension everyday compared to masses in other provinces.
The picture palaces in Kracauer’s view serves to satisfy the mass’s need for such form of entertainment and distraction. The design of the palace is such that the interior design’s sole purpose is to rivet the audience’s attention to the peripheral. It stimulates all the senses so well that there is no place for any contemplation. The masses do not have any time to even try to make sense of what they were experiencing at that moment. Kracauer argues that all these are pure externality that offers only surface value entertainment and do not contain any substantial value. Today, we see such distractions all around us from magazines, television programs and even movies as discussed last week where there is no room for any thinking as scenes are constantly changing, and there is no focus at all.
The picture palaces pulls the masses away from seeing the external damages of society and deflect the attention onto the private individuals. One example is the notion of high art where the Berlin audiences shun from these art events for the surface level entertainment of the stars, film and production values. All these cover ups and distractions are actually proofs of the disorder of society.
Chua Pei Yi
Stuart Ewen’s “Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture” delves into the rising use of productions lines and how it shaped consumerism. The push for higher wages and shorter working hours strategically turned workers into advertising boards, contributing to the consumer market because they get to spend money in their leisure time. The use of advertisement mobilized the masses’ instincts and made people more self-conscious of others and what they themselves possess. This succeeded as a result of people wanting to see themselves as the models in the advertisements. Advertisement manipulates and intensifies consumers’ needs and desires, making them yearn for products they didn’t necessarily require or want. Advertisement presents discontentment in their mode of life by posing problems, and try to sell the products as the solution. Through this mind manipulation, it triggers in individuals the need to consume the certain product to find satisfaction with their life, and as what Ewen mentioned, “Satisfied customers are not as profitable as discontented ones”.
The above two ads exemplify how in consuming a product, we are not merely consuming the product, but rather the lifestyle that comes along with it. In consuming the product, we are somehow empowered. In buying that pair of jeans, we immediately elevate our status. In drinking that bottle of beer, we feel like a superstar. In actual fact, very little emphasis is actually placed on the product itself — that same product we are supposed to consume.
The above two ads exemplify how in consuming a product, we are not merely consuming the product, but rather the lifestyle that comes along with it. In consuming the product, we are somehow empowered. In buying that pair of jeans, we immediately elevate our status. In drinking that bottle of beer, we feel like a superstar. In actual fact, very little emphasis is actually placed on the product itself — that same product we are supposed to be consuming.
Lyndon Leong
As Enzensberger talks about the manipulative aspects of media and where Stuart Ewen mentions that the use value of “prestige,” of “beauty,” of “acquisition,” of “self-adornment,” and of “play” were all placed in the service of advertising’s basic purpose, the Victoria Secret Fashion show came to my mind. The concept of the show is an extravaganza of glitz and glamour, formulated by idealism and a lifestyle that most of us would not be able to live. It is what Struart Ewen calls the “creation of a fancied need”, which was the imperative to the modern advertiser. With the advent of Youtube and cable television, such programmes are being broadcasted to the masses. It could a problem when female viewers internalise the images of the models and their insecurities start to manifest. The artificiality of the fashion show makes people dissatisfied with themselves but the reality is, the models that walk the runway on these fashion shows are doing it as a career and a huge amount of effort is being made to shape them into the way the look on the runway itself, furthermore, they are being paid to do it. The glamorisation of the elite lifestyle with the exhibition of expensive cars, top-class hotels and high-rollers within the segments of the show truly exacerbates the inequality between the social classes that exist within societies as well. People are fundamentally being manipulated by the advertising geniuses behind the production of the show. Viewers hardly look past the superficiality of the show because of the mesmerising effect of the show itself, people enter a “day-dream” when they watch these shows, letting emotions rather than rational thinking formulate their thoughts while being subjected to these sort of travesty. What Chompsky says about the interweaving of institutional structures into social behaviour can be seen in this case where Victoria Secret creates some sort of an imaginary world with each theme, through the various segments of the show, and it makes people want to be a part of it. Viewers might then start to dress like the models or walk like them or even try to impersonate them. As a result, they start buying Victoria Secret products and might end up going for plastic surgery, all of which stimulates the circular flow of income in the economy. In essence, the power of advertising as a stimulus for the capitalistic world today has largely succeeded because of the manipulation of consumers.
Lim Zheng Wei
Reading Chomsky made me think about how insidious the effect of outside interests can be. I feel that out of all his filters, the part about advertising dollars is the one that is most true today. Advertisement has only continued to grow since his article. Worse, now they appear to supersede the media in importance. After all, subscribers and readers and viewers serve only to boost the ad dollars a medium can get. Looking at the example of print journalism today, readers do not matter to newspapers. Many newspapers have gone bankrupt not for lack of readers or content, but because of the lack of advertising dollars. In this way, the main audience of newspaper is not the public, but corporations.
Are there any example of free media today? Every media has to get funding from somewhere. If not from corporations, they will depend on the government, which only makes them susceptible to another form of influence. Digital media or social media has often been said to be the most democratic form of media, but Facebook depends just as much on advertisements as any traditional media. It is scary to think of a world where nothing is truly independent. Another question then, has to be raised. Were things any different in the past?
Tiara Robyn Chew
One of the points that stood out to me in the article, “Cult of Distraction: On Berlin’s Picture Places” by Siegfried Kracauer, was about how workers were “so overburdened.. that they (were) unable to realise their own way of life”. This brought to mind two things, one was Marx’s theory of alienation and exploitation in capitalist society and how workers are made to do repetitive jobs that are external to themselves in order to earn minimum wage. The other was the article by Horkheimer and Adorno previously, where the writers regarded the masses as passive consumers of the media, even though what is presented to them often undergoes several stages of editing that ultimately present a distorted perception of reality. So as a means of distraction from their real conditions, they treat “the world it reflects” as “the only one”. Additionally, according to James Carey, those in power use the media to promulgate certain ideologies, and in so doing, shape the lives of its consumers through instilling false consciousness thereby maintaining the state of class distinctions, .
I felt that this was also somewhat reflected in the article, “Constituents of a Theory of the Media” which describes the media industry as the “pacemaker for the social and economic development of societies in the late industrial age”. Thus by articulating specific ideologies through the manipulation of media, it will have the effect of shaping a society’s culture and way of life according to bourgeois views. Thus i found it interesting to see these links being drawn between the different readings.
POH YANG ANN
Enzenberger asserts that electronic media has the potential to mobilize individuals, where mass participation is enabled and encouraged. However, such potentials, as Enzenberger argues, are intentionally suppressed. To be clear, electronic media has been organized as a medium for distribution as opposed to communication. Implicit in the above statement is the power relation – between those who produce/distribute and those who consume. To use the terms of Enzenberger, those in control of function of media are able to manipulate what kind of information is made accessible to the masses. Hence the key question that one should ask is who is manipulating the media. Enzenberger goes further to caution that the while the new media are egalitarian in structure – one which is nonlinear but with a feedback system between the producers and consumers – participation does not necessarily democracy. The consumers are given the opportunity to partake in an event or activity, but they are ultimately operating within the “control circuit where what is fed has already made complete allowance for the feedbacks” (p.266).
Chomsky and Herman claim that the mass media serves to inculcate individuals with the values and norms so that they can function within the larger society. Media, understood in this light, is similar to what Althusser coins ideological state apparatus (ISA). Inherent in such a system or institution is again a complex chain of power relations, where the powerful individuals or groups are able to impose their worldview upon the powerless masses (i.e. to spread propaganda). The inequality of wealth and power within such a system is underscored in Chomsky and Herman’s propaganda model, which comprises of five “filters”. These five filters work seamlessly behind the knowledge of the uncritical masses and serve to dictate the definition of situation, the frame of reference and the presentation of “worthy” news to be consumed unconditionally at the receiver end. Chomsky and Herman address how the media corporations are intimately linked to advertisers; the operation of the former is heavily dependent or subsidized by the latter (second filter). In economic sense, advertising helps reduce the cost of production or publication, which translates to more competitive prices to outdo rival companies. To secure advertisers, media corporations alter their content (aligned to the type of advertisements) to increase readership. As such, what is written and read is not value-free. In addition, the three filter of the propaganda model further suggest the selectivity of news and information via sourcing. Journalists aim to get hold of credible and accurate information at the lowest cost and shortest time, and such burdens are greatly eased with the establishment of “news organizations” of the governmental institutions and business corporations. These news organizations function primary is to gain privileged assess and to release news to the press. And because they are part of the institutions or corporations, the information is perceived as authoritative (as the ‘truth’). The uncritical acceptance of the information (by the journalists and hence public) help propagate the worldview of the sources, which more than often tries to paint of situation favorable to themselves. This is evident in the fifth filter where media creates a system of dichotomies between what and who deserves more or less media attention and what and who should be reported in positive or negative light.
#MUHAMMAD FAISAL BIN ZAINAL ABIDEN#
Elements of Adorno-Horheimer can be seen in Siegfriend Kracauer’s “Cult of Distraction: On Berlin’s Picture Palaces”.
The residents of Berlin, 4 million working class citizens, are not satisfied by their current social status. The culture of mass consumption, a concept by Stuart Ewen, has left them wanting more. They work harder and longer. But in doing so, they drain their physical and mental reserves. Distractions thus serve to provide instant gratification through what Adorno and Horkheimer term as the Culture Industry. The very same institutions that govern the these working class citizens lives also control their avenues for happiness, for a release from reality.
Ng Shi Yao
Captains of Consciousness: advertising and the social roots of the consumer culture
After reading the insightful article, it has changed my perspective on the how advertising is used prevalently in today’s world. Advertising is commonly understood as a ubiquitous tool used by companies to increase their market share among consumers.
As mentioned in the reading, modern advertising is seen as a direct response to the needs of the mass industrial capitalism market. Without advertising, even with the ‘increased wages and shorter working hours’, workers are unaware of the objects which they could spend their wages on. With the advent of new technologies such as mobile smartphones, as well as the rise of new mediums such as social media, advertisements now appear on more numerous platforms.
However, the idea behind advertising remains the same; they sought to manufacture a gain of security through the purchasing of group. This is done through advertising strategies; often focusing on the use of attractive models rather than the product to sell the product. These strategies work incredibly well as it creates a desire to become as ‘beautiful or good-looking’ as the subjects, thereby the creation of desires and habits. Similarly, we could draw links the Horkheimer’s statement that the culture industry, ‘promises sex but does not give us sex’. Mass culture modifies what we want and desire, often through instilling false consciousness in the consumers. Furthermore, despite being aware and reminded time and again that these purchased products do not bring about the effects as promised in the advertisement, we continue to allow ourselves to be exploited. This is similar to how mass culture makes it difficult of those to be exploited to
One of the most salient points in this week’s articles is that made by Siegfried Kracauer, on his article “Cult of Distraction: On Berlin’s Picture Places”. True to Karl Marx’s concept of the various degrees of alienation workers face within a capitalist society, it was commented that workers were overburdened to such an extent, that they were unable to progress their own way of living.
This ties in well with last week’s readings on the total domination of the culture industry by Adorno and Horkheimer. Although there is truth in that humans have agency and that the subsequent model does not hold true universally for everyone, we can look to Ewen and Enzenberger in order to further the narrative of how the working class is exploited.
Ewen argues that workers have been taught that consuming things is a “civilising” process, and it cannot be more true in today’s society, whereby every solution to our problems have been associated with a marketable product – Cholesterol Pills are touted to reduce high blood pressure, despite high cholesterol being a symptom, not a cause (free cholesterol being released in order to heal damaged blood vessels).
While new media has been touted to have the potential in allowing us to break free of this supposed exploitation, Enzenberger asserts that the ability to transmit and receive content only result in worsening the situation, and I am inclined to agree.
Today’s advertisers have caught up with the new variations of technologies – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are all utilised to reach a wider audience. With Enzenberger’s concept in mind, it is evident, once we visit these platforms for a moment, that his opinion holds true – new media has been used to further strengthen the thought that “consumption is the cure”.
For Enzenberger, the logic of media is defined in the shaping of consciousness. Interruptability is a condition for universality. Media is making possible mass participation as opposed to witnessing. Our engagement with media has become active but not necessarily democratic. For Enzenberger, media is all about manipulation. Participation is not necessarily emancipatory but can be enslaving. We think of participation as agency but it is not necessarily freeing.
For Chomsky and Herman, mass media serves to amuse, entertain, inform and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, codes that will integrate them into the institutional structure of larger society. It allows for massive inequality of wealth and power . Chomsky and Herman talks about 5 filters of the propaganda model in which the mass media is used to manipulate the audience.
Participation in media can be enslaving and shapes our consciousness. It creates desires. Not just the desire for consumption, but the desire for production. We are constantly obliged to reply to text messages and calls, check social media pages. A group of people sitting together but using their phones in silence is not an unusual sight. Our desire for production in social media – posting about our whereabouts and posting pictures on Instagram, further deepens and contributes to this sense of constant engagement. With increased virtual experience, what’s lost is personal and interpersonal experience. The irony is that in trying to capture memories (photos/videos), we miss out on truly embracing in the moment. For example, people record live concerts and try to store the music, the atmosphere and excitement. This is similar to Ong’s take on writing and how we rely on devices to remember things. Therefore participation in media affects human experience.
Rather than commenting on the supposed negativity of the manipulation effect of the media, I would like to make an observation and share some thoughts about living in a time where such commonplace practices are going to continue to proliferate for a long time to come.
I would argue that almost all thought that consume anyone of us today is informed in one way or another through the media. If your mother gave you some health advice, she probably got it off the newspaper. If you’re wondering why water is blue, you’ll probably try your hardest to think to that day in science class when the teacher was teaching something about refraction and white light and the sun’s rays and she learned that from all her years of learning science from her teacher. There is not much content which is original, spontaneous and not influenced by something else. We probably either heard it from someone or read or saw it from somewhere. Arguably, creators of ‘original’ content are using languages not of their ‘own’, techniques that are learned and ideas which are rooted in thought that is inspired by something else. I am not attempting to go all technical on the meaning of the word ‘original’ but rather, I lament on the fact that it scares me slightly that my thoughts are not all my own and the lack of agency that I have over them.
Take for example my non-consumption of Starbucks. I list off reasons such as their destruction of small businesses, their supposed practice of fair trade coffee production, their ridiculously overpriced drinks and not to mention, their ‘selling’ of a lifestyle that I am not keen to attach to myself. One may argue that hey, it’s just a drink. But I look beyond that and reject the branding that they project onto consumers. Sure, as an organisation they do a lot of good things as well such as supporting local talents, some CSR here and there but I say they’re not doing enough where it really matters. So I think that I have agency in making these decisions. In actuality, I have done some self-conscious non-consumption that has been informed to me by these very same advertising mojo. Either way, I have been affected by it and I am influenced by it and I make my decisions based on them. Now, that’s just frightening.
The readings which were presented for the week painted a perfect picture of Singapore in my opinion.
I was at Orchard Road with my friend from Canada quite some time back and she commented that Singaporeans have a strong habit of shopping. There are shopping malls built at almost all MRT stations and branded goods can be purchased easily nationwide. She highlighted to me that it is very interested to note the number of the same branded stores which could be found along Orchard Road. All these are the work of Capitalism. With more brands choosing to establish in Singapore, the locals are cultured to the “branded lifestyle” and such lifestyle would actually creep into other aspects of the society – the long hours spent on working to meet the material desire, at the expense of family time.
All of us would attest that the media is powerful in altering the perception of people. Advertisement is a tool used by marketers and often targets on individual’s self-consciousness, creating a false impression whereby buying a branded good would be reflective of one’s social status. On top of the advertisement used by the media, the media is also effective in propagating a political ideology. It portrays what the local government wants us to see – that family time is important in our social life as well. Yes, we would agree that increasing productivity would mean more resources, more money and time with our family. However, what Ewen brought up made sense too – increase in resources to contribute to the local economy which is heavily infested by the capitalist. Such a move could also be perceived as a “distraction” to divert our attention away from Capitalism and the underlying problem of inequality which we are experiencing in our society.
In the article “Cult Of Distraction: On Berlin’s Picture Palaces”, Kracauer explains media’s potential to distract the masses. Media’s power is further heightened when the transmitted message is received by the masses, creating a false consciousness.
Karl Marx famously predicted a revolution by the proletariats, and I feel that the distracting qualities of media is a huge factor as to why the supposed revolution did not take place. As media increasingly pervades societies and the same message is constantly fed to the masses, more and more people become distracted from their inferior material conditions as compared to capitalists. Instead, their focus is shifted onto the spectacle created by the media.
This is in line with Stuart Ewen’s idea that capitalists often utilise the culture industry to generate consumer desire. This consumer desire can be said to be a form of “distraction” that Kracauer suggested. The continued generation of distractions and consumption creates a feedback mechanism whereby the lives of the masses are geared towards fulfilling their desires by product consumption.
Herman and Chompsky explains how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social and political policies is ‘manufactured’ in the public mind due to this propaganda. Indeed, the five filters provided by Herman and Chompsky just reinforces how it is the cause of media biasness even in Sinporean context. Even though the US has countless examples of media institutions tweeking and manipulation media content to the masses, let us look closer to home. Singapore Media Development Authority is not an independent body of public media communications governed by a private community who strives for freedom of press. No, it is not surprising that the media serves the ends of a dominant elites. Tan Meng Dui(Audit committee) is the Ministry of Defence. Members of the Board of directors in this group include Hugh Lim(Ministry of culture, youth, community), Moliah Binte Hasim (Ministry of education) etc.
If these individuals, with ties to government institutions are a part of regulating and choosing what should be on print ads, newspapers, television, radio, then is the media really a spokesman for free speech and serve general community interests? Would certain topics and news be censored so as to protect specific interests of the dominant class in society? Media reorients our attention. It creates this social perception to the public that whistleblowers and ‘breaking’ news are made available for their consumption. However, the reality is the inequality of wealth and power has its effects on mass-media interests and choices. Then, News has its useful purpose for those controlling the interests of the media – the state and large corporations.
The gatekeeper function of mainstream media used to be a pride in journalism, indicating the objectivity and factual news reporting journalists have to adhere to. This objectivity is especially important because news is consumed by the masses. Contrary to the positive effects of gatekeeping, Herman and Chomsky proposed that the gatekeeping function of news media is not beneficial to the masses, but instead, works for the interest of bureaucratic organizations like the state and large, profit-driven corporations. This critical approach in perceiving media function aligns to the Frankfurt School.
As their argument focuses on traditional media, new media forms including online forums, blogs, online news and current affairs websites are not taken into account. Some socio-political news and current affairs websites for example, The Online Citizen, deliberately takes on an alternative view point to what they deem as state’s propaganda. Since traditional news media often echoes the viewpoint of the state due to the “bureaucratic affinity” shared with the state and corporations, and is reliant on the state as a result of regulation through official licensing, the relatively unregulated new media appears to be the media form “untainted” by state’s propaganda.
However, the new media has been increasingly regulated. In Singapore for instance, the government has implemented the new licensing regime application to online media. The online news licensing scheme requires online news sites “to comply within 24 hours to MDA’s directions to remove content that is found to be in breach of content standards.” This signifies a tougher stand taken by the state pertaining to regulating online news. Under MDA’s new licensing framework, Internet Content Providers also have to be registered, with political news websites having to sign an undertaking not to receive foreign funding under the Political Donations Act. Failure or refusal to abide by the state’s rule will result in cessation of the website, as what The Breakfast Network has shown. These attempts by the state to regulate the online media have resulted in considerably strong public backlash, especially from the online community.
Herman and Chomsky seems to hold a deterministic viewpoint that the masses will always be entrapped in the propaganda model offered by the media, state and large wealthy corporations through advertising and information shaping akin to the agenda setting function of the media.
Indeed, advertising has penetrated into our lives through our interactions with the media. This is regardless of the form of media. Be it on Facebook, Google or random websites, sponsored advertising are plastered on the virtual walls of our pages.
Yet, is there really no way out of this propaganda? Do we really have no agency in the face of the media and their bureaucratic affinity?
With the aid of technology, individual actors like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have acted as the whistleblower by revealing information that the states hope to conceal from the masses. Unfortunately, these whistleblowers have paid a heavy price for that. Both are currently seeking asylum from Ecuador and Russia respectively, suggesting a political tug-of-war at work as these two countries directly opposed the US government. Similarly, local independent film makers Lynn and James got into trouble with the authorities as a result of their interviews with bus drivers involved in the SMRT strike just because their interviews provided an alternative insight to the strike, contrary to the news reported in traditional media.
Herman and Chomsky´s The Propaganda Model published in 1988 in Manufacturing Content, echoes the Frankfurt School or in general the critical Marxist tradition. Focusing on the interplay between political power and economic power, they offer a critical perspective on the seemingly free information flow of communication channels (mass media). According to them, the mass media is in reality part of greater total framework influenced greatly by the dominant ideals of the dominant social classes. By comparing the liberal pluralist view with the critical Marxist view of the media they offer a critical view on our understanding of a free press. However, looking at the United States and their freedom of press, it becomes very much clear, that their critical stance may not be too pessimistic but realistic.
“Reporters without Borders” (RWB, http://en.rsf.org), a non-governmental organization, established in 1985, promoting “freedom of information and press”, released the annual “Press Freedom Index” (PFI). The report is describes as a “reference tool that is based on seven criteria: the level of abuses, the extent of pluralism, media independence, the environment and self-censorship, the legislative framework, transparency and infrastructure,” explained by Christophe Deloire, the secretary-general of Reporters Without Borders. Looking at the Index what sticks out is that the United States dropped by about 13 places to category 46. Their low rated of their freedom of press and information is mainly due to their harsh treatment of Whistleblowers, such as Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning, who was send to prison for 35 years. Manning played information regarding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to the website Wikileaks. The RWB website explains, the high prison sentence served warn those who may think of sharing information that they see as valuable to the public, which the world´s leading powers want to hide and keep secret.
The treatment of media informants shows how the rule of law comes into play when restricting the free flow of information.
Referring back to Herman and Chomsky, the PFI reveals that the freedom of press in the United States contradicts with a modern democracy, where, within the liberal-pluralist view, information can be shared freely and political information is accessible to the public. Here the focus is also on choice, which means that nothing should be hidden from the public but the citizen should be able to evolve a critical perspective on world politics.
The importance of the freedom of information exchange already became clear when reading Jürgen Habermas´s work on the “public sphere”: the place where individuals exchange information about politics, serving as a space free from political authority, where one can discuss openly. In The Structural Transformation of the Public sphere” (1991), he explains that with the growth of the printing press and the evolvement of mass media, a shift from the bourgeois public sphere to a modern mass society took place and the division between private individual and the state became blurry. Slowly but steadily, according to Habermas, the public sphere, has become more and more controlled by the state, who influence the media publishing industry. With the increase of control and loosening of freedom, the critical aspect of the public sphere got lost.
The critical information regarding the U.S. government, “the dominant social class”, cannot be tackled by the media or at least not with severe consequences. Then, the media looses its power to form a counter-weight to political power, desirable for a democracy. As explained by Herman and Chomsky, then, the ideology of the United States finds itself implicitly present in the media messages, citizens read and believe. This reveals a link between the political power and media power.
A takeaway from Stuart Ewen ‘s article would be his critique of the mass production culture. He highlights the evident shift away from traditional capitalism, whereby modern capitalism focuses mainly producing for the masses to consume. He touches on 2 points, one being, the physical production (whereby wage and labor power is involved) and the other being, social production (highlighting the rise of mass advertising).
Importantly, the rise in mass consumerism can be critically analyzed in terms of both physical and social productions.
Firstly, perspectives regarding physical productions have shown a transcendence of the worker from one’s mere status, to a consumer (whom has purchasing power). However he criticizes this presented “industrial democracy”, pointing out the underlying tensions of exploitations (in a different form) occurring. This being, the masses, whom have been turned consumers, are merely pawns for the larger scheme of capitalism, and the need for consumers to contribute to its continuation.
Secondly, the perpetuation of consumerism is encouraged by the growing industry of social production: mass advertising. A shift from traditional consumerism can be seen here, whereby “real needs” are replaced by “desired needs”. The creation of such “desires” is a focal point in the argument, whereby, there are hints of physical production being compared to such social creations (via advertising). The exploitative act here however differs, whereby it is being compared to the “spiritual side of trade”. Thus, indirectly, stating that “spirituality” here is being manipulated by these analysts, hoping to “control the consumption of a product”
The repetitive drudgery nature of the production process, is not only seen present in the physical production. Rather, advertising has pointed out that “universal notions” of people are developed with regards to how they respond. Ironically, advertising requiring creativity and individuality, is replaced by merely reaching for the “mass audience, via universal appeal” in hopes of being efficient.
The mass culture ingrained in this society, is one to be critical and aware of.
In Siegfried Kracauer’s “Cult of Distraction: On Belin’s Picture Palaces”, he addresses the Berlin’s picture palaces as a distraction. He talks about how the masses have become a homogenous cosmopolitan audience in which everyone has the same response. The masses who are working face tension everyday in their work and this causes them to crave for the need for enjoyment, relaxation which comes in the form of entertainment. Therefore, the addiction to distraction is so prominent in Berlin because the working masses face more stress and tension everyday compared to masses in other provinces.
The picture palaces in Kracauer’s view serves to satisfy the mass’s need for such form of entertainment and distraction. The design of the palace is such that the interior design’s sole purpose is to rivet the audience’s attention to the peripheral. It stimulates all the senses so well that there is no place for any contemplation. The masses do not have any time to even try to make sense of what they were experiencing at that moment. Kracauer argues that all these are pure externality that offers only surface value entertainment and do not contain any substantial value. Today, we see such distractions all around us from magazines, television programs and even movies as discussed last week where there is no room for any thinking as scenes are constantly changing, and there is no focus at all.
The picture palaces pulls the masses away from seeing the external damages of society and deflect the attention onto the private individuals. One example is the notion of high art where the Berlin audiences shun from these art events for the surface level entertainment of the stars, film and production values. All these cover ups and distractions are actually proofs of the disorder of society.
Stuart Ewen’s “Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture” delves into the rising use of productions lines and how it shaped consumerism. The push for higher wages and shorter working hours strategically turned workers into advertising boards, contributing to the consumer market because they get to spend money in their leisure time. The use of advertisement mobilized the masses’ instincts and made people more self-conscious of others and what they themselves possess. This succeeded as a result of people wanting to see themselves as the models in the advertisements. Advertisement manipulates and intensifies consumers’ needs and desires, making them yearn for products they didn’t necessarily require or want. Advertisement presents discontentment in their mode of life by posing problems, and try to sell the products as the solution. Through this mind manipulation, it triggers in individuals the need to consume the certain product to find satisfaction with their life, and as what Ewen mentioned, “Satisfied customers are not as profitable as discontented ones”.
Two fairly recent ads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHU6TkqWjs – Denham Psycho
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKKVQLDYYcw – Bud Light 2014 Super Bowl XLVII
The above two ads exemplify how in consuming a product, we are not merely consuming the product, but rather the lifestyle that comes along with it. In consuming the product, we are somehow empowered. In buying that pair of jeans, we immediately elevate our status. In drinking that bottle of beer, we feel like a superstar. In actual fact, very little emphasis is actually placed on the product itself — that same product we are supposed to consume.
Two fairly recent ads:
– Denham Psycho
– Bud Light 2014 Super Bowl XLVII
The above two ads exemplify how in consuming a product, we are not merely consuming the product, but rather the lifestyle that comes along with it. In consuming the product, we are somehow empowered. In buying that pair of jeans, we immediately elevate our status. In drinking that bottle of beer, we feel like a superstar. In actual fact, very little emphasis is actually placed on the product itself — that same product we are supposed to be consuming.
As Enzensberger talks about the manipulative aspects of media and where Stuart Ewen mentions that the use value of “prestige,” of “beauty,” of “acquisition,” of “self-adornment,” and of “play” were all placed in the service of advertising’s basic purpose, the Victoria Secret Fashion show came to my mind. The concept of the show is an extravaganza of glitz and glamour, formulated by idealism and a lifestyle that most of us would not be able to live. It is what Struart Ewen calls the “creation of a fancied need”, which was the imperative to the modern advertiser. With the advent of Youtube and cable television, such programmes are being broadcasted to the masses. It could a problem when female viewers internalise the images of the models and their insecurities start to manifest. The artificiality of the fashion show makes people dissatisfied with themselves but the reality is, the models that walk the runway on these fashion shows are doing it as a career and a huge amount of effort is being made to shape them into the way the look on the runway itself, furthermore, they are being paid to do it. The glamorisation of the elite lifestyle with the exhibition of expensive cars, top-class hotels and high-rollers within the segments of the show truly exacerbates the inequality between the social classes that exist within societies as well. People are fundamentally being manipulated by the advertising geniuses behind the production of the show. Viewers hardly look past the superficiality of the show because of the mesmerising effect of the show itself, people enter a “day-dream” when they watch these shows, letting emotions rather than rational thinking formulate their thoughts while being subjected to these sort of travesty. What Chompsky says about the interweaving of institutional structures into social behaviour can be seen in this case where Victoria Secret creates some sort of an imaginary world with each theme, through the various segments of the show, and it makes people want to be a part of it. Viewers might then start to dress like the models or walk like them or even try to impersonate them. As a result, they start buying Victoria Secret products and might end up going for plastic surgery, all of which stimulates the circular flow of income in the economy. In essence, the power of advertising as a stimulus for the capitalistic world today has largely succeeded because of the manipulation of consumers.
Reading Chomsky made me think about how insidious the effect of outside interests can be. I feel that out of all his filters, the part about advertising dollars is the one that is most true today. Advertisement has only continued to grow since his article. Worse, now they appear to supersede the media in importance. After all, subscribers and readers and viewers serve only to boost the ad dollars a medium can get. Looking at the example of print journalism today, readers do not matter to newspapers. Many newspapers have gone bankrupt not for lack of readers or content, but because of the lack of advertising dollars. In this way, the main audience of newspaper is not the public, but corporations.
Are there any example of free media today? Every media has to get funding from somewhere. If not from corporations, they will depend on the government, which only makes them susceptible to another form of influence. Digital media or social media has often been said to be the most democratic form of media, but Facebook depends just as much on advertisements as any traditional media. It is scary to think of a world where nothing is truly independent. Another question then, has to be raised. Were things any different in the past?
One of the points that stood out to me in the article, “Cult of Distraction: On Berlin’s Picture Places” by Siegfried Kracauer, was about how workers were “so overburdened.. that they (were) unable to realise their own way of life”. This brought to mind two things, one was Marx’s theory of alienation and exploitation in capitalist society and how workers are made to do repetitive jobs that are external to themselves in order to earn minimum wage. The other was the article by Horkheimer and Adorno previously, where the writers regarded the masses as passive consumers of the media, even though what is presented to them often undergoes several stages of editing that ultimately present a distorted perception of reality. So as a means of distraction from their real conditions, they treat “the world it reflects” as “the only one”. Additionally, according to James Carey, those in power use the media to promulgate certain ideologies, and in so doing, shape the lives of its consumers through instilling false consciousness thereby maintaining the state of class distinctions, .
I felt that this was also somewhat reflected in the article, “Constituents of a Theory of the Media” which describes the media industry as the “pacemaker for the social and economic development of societies in the late industrial age”. Thus by articulating specific ideologies through the manipulation of media, it will have the effect of shaping a society’s culture and way of life according to bourgeois views. Thus i found it interesting to see these links being drawn between the different readings.
Enzenberger asserts that electronic media has the potential to mobilize individuals, where mass participation is enabled and encouraged. However, such potentials, as Enzenberger argues, are intentionally suppressed. To be clear, electronic media has been organized as a medium for distribution as opposed to communication. Implicit in the above statement is the power relation – between those who produce/distribute and those who consume. To use the terms of Enzenberger, those in control of function of media are able to manipulate what kind of information is made accessible to the masses. Hence the key question that one should ask is who is manipulating the media. Enzenberger goes further to caution that the while the new media are egalitarian in structure – one which is nonlinear but with a feedback system between the producers and consumers – participation does not necessarily democracy. The consumers are given the opportunity to partake in an event or activity, but they are ultimately operating within the “control circuit where what is fed has already made complete allowance for the feedbacks” (p.266).
Chomsky and Herman claim that the mass media serves to inculcate individuals with the values and norms so that they can function within the larger society. Media, understood in this light, is similar to what Althusser coins ideological state apparatus (ISA). Inherent in such a system or institution is again a complex chain of power relations, where the powerful individuals or groups are able to impose their worldview upon the powerless masses (i.e. to spread propaganda). The inequality of wealth and power within such a system is underscored in Chomsky and Herman’s propaganda model, which comprises of five “filters”. These five filters work seamlessly behind the knowledge of the uncritical masses and serve to dictate the definition of situation, the frame of reference and the presentation of “worthy” news to be consumed unconditionally at the receiver end. Chomsky and Herman address how the media corporations are intimately linked to advertisers; the operation of the former is heavily dependent or subsidized by the latter (second filter). In economic sense, advertising helps reduce the cost of production or publication, which translates to more competitive prices to outdo rival companies. To secure advertisers, media corporations alter their content (aligned to the type of advertisements) to increase readership. As such, what is written and read is not value-free. In addition, the three filter of the propaganda model further suggest the selectivity of news and information via sourcing. Journalists aim to get hold of credible and accurate information at the lowest cost and shortest time, and such burdens are greatly eased with the establishment of “news organizations” of the governmental institutions and business corporations. These news organizations function primary is to gain privileged assess and to release news to the press. And because they are part of the institutions or corporations, the information is perceived as authoritative (as the ‘truth’). The uncritical acceptance of the information (by the journalists and hence public) help propagate the worldview of the sources, which more than often tries to paint of situation favorable to themselves. This is evident in the fifth filter where media creates a system of dichotomies between what and who deserves more or less media attention and what and who should be reported in positive or negative light.
Elements of Adorno-Horheimer can be seen in Siegfriend Kracauer’s “Cult of Distraction: On Berlin’s Picture Palaces”.
The residents of Berlin, 4 million working class citizens, are not satisfied by their current social status. The culture of mass consumption, a concept by Stuart Ewen, has left them wanting more. They work harder and longer. But in doing so, they drain their physical and mental reserves. Distractions thus serve to provide instant gratification through what Adorno and Horkheimer term as the Culture Industry. The very same institutions that govern the these working class citizens lives also control their avenues for happiness, for a release from reality.
Captains of Consciousness: advertising and the social roots of the consumer culture
After reading the insightful article, it has changed my perspective on the how advertising is used prevalently in today’s world. Advertising is commonly understood as a ubiquitous tool used by companies to increase their market share among consumers.
As mentioned in the reading, modern advertising is seen as a direct response to the needs of the mass industrial capitalism market. Without advertising, even with the ‘increased wages and shorter working hours’, workers are unaware of the objects which they could spend their wages on. With the advent of new technologies such as mobile smartphones, as well as the rise of new mediums such as social media, advertisements now appear on more numerous platforms.
However, the idea behind advertising remains the same; they sought to manufacture a gain of security through the purchasing of group. This is done through advertising strategies; often focusing on the use of attractive models rather than the product to sell the product. These strategies work incredibly well as it creates a desire to become as ‘beautiful or good-looking’ as the subjects, thereby the creation of desires and habits. Similarly, we could draw links the Horkheimer’s statement that the culture industry, ‘promises sex but does not give us sex’. Mass culture modifies what we want and desire, often through instilling false consciousness in the consumers. Furthermore, despite being aware and reminded time and again that these purchased products do not bring about the effects as promised in the advertisement, we continue to allow ourselves to be exploited. This is similar to how mass culture makes it difficult of those to be exploited to