Advertising is a, “motivated discourse that is geared towards disseminating a seductive regime of social Truths in order to encourage consumption” (Earl 13). In other words, it is an active and conscious process of spreading preconceived notions and stereotypes in the goal of attaining money. It is unfortunate that advertising may come at the expense of a people and their culture as it is in the case of many indigenous peoples.
Similar to the examples found in Emma Earl’s article, with a simple search, I was able to find a trailer advertising the movie Blue Crush. It opens up with a scene of the big surf Hawaii has to offer. Here a girl offers support to her friend, “Eh, no worries.” In my opinion, her intonation fails to capture the true local essence. Further into the trailer, locals are depicted as hostile and territorial, portraying to the audience that this may be normal behavior. It saddens me when the media chooses to use these types of generalizations to create the big blockbuster hit.
The media uses these stereotypes again and again, such as those found in this short clip of Bro ‘Town. This clip attempts to make light of the history and pressures the indigenous people of New Zealand have faced. In particular, the boy is shown to be incapable of speaking the phrase, “Bloody thieving colonialists.” This seems to be a reference to the poor mental ability of Maori children.
A question I would like to leave you all with is, when does it become acceptable to subvert people and culture in the quest for the almighty dollar?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In response to your question, I personally think a culture that is deep in tradition should never subvert it's people and culture just to make a quick dollar. If the people strongly believe that a culture can strive on it's own, it's people will fight hard to survive.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in a desperate society, the people may succumb to selling themselves out for a quick buck. An example could come from the reading about how Coca-Cola used celebrities and professional sports teams like the All Blacks to sell their product. New Zealand is beginning to sell itself out in order to boost their economy. Though this may help, the traditional Maori culture slowly fades away.
"Advertising is a motivated discourse that is geared towards disseminating a seductive regime of social Truths in order to encourage consumption (Earl 13)" like CWKDIAS states is the best quote to summarize this article. However, I don't agree completely with his/her notion that advertising is merely a "goal of attaining money". Advertising is a way to properly place your product and to have the product connect with your audience. Granted in the article; Earl discusses the subliminal manipulation of advertising, but no positive points were mentioned. Here in Hawaii, there has been a major push to quit smoking and many effective public service announcements (PSA) have recently aired to connect with the viewers of Hawaii. Though PSA's don't have the monetary pool of the giga-corporations, the message of the PSA will only work if it connects with its audience.
ReplyDeleteTo answer CWKDIAS's question, we live in a free market economy. Unless you choose to live in a self-sustaining community that is detached from a modern technology, you will be a target of consumerism and advertising.
I feel that this concept is a classical case of something that we all can conceptualize. That is, Hollywood takes a story, or a piece of history, and makes it into something it is not. It happens all the time and it is unfortunate, but there is really not much we can do.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that might be possible is to make your own feature film. I attend the screening of No. 2 by Toa Frasier. It was a remarkable film. I feel that Toa, really captured the true island feel in his film. It felt as if that I was watching a normal day for these people. Toa did not sugarcoat anything in his film. By that I mean the actors in the film, spoke as if the lived in New Zealand and some of the terminology used in the film were completely foreign to me. I also felt that some of the humor could only be funny to someone who has lived in the pacific for a while. I believe that Toa Fraiser was not trying to popularize the culture of the pacific, but rather to show it for what it is. Since he is from that area, I feel that he genuinely portrayed the culture. I also strongly feel that this film might reach out to people of the pacific in a different way than that of someone who has only lived on the mainland. All in all. it was a good film and I recommend seeing it. I would actually like to watch it again, even though I watched it last Friday!
I've noticed that advertising in general is pushed upon the younger age groups in most populations. Here in the United States our culture is a blend of brands such as Coca-Cola and Nike. These are the "cool" things to have. I can see the way that the invasion of these labels into the New Zealand population can take away from their culture. I can also see that these brands put different groups of people into common stereotypes, which other populations readily accept as true. In my opinion there shouldn't be any degree to which these labels or brands, or big companies can overthrow a culture in order to gain financially.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very common issue that troubles many societies and cultures, especially in the pacific. 'Selling out' ones culture is something that is often used as a last resort, when a country feels like their economic conditions may create big problems, or if the country simply wants to be able to become more wealthy. Hawaii has definitely succumbed to these pressures, and in places like new zealand, where there is a relatively low population density and not the most stable economy, advertising their culture may seem like the prime option. THis is definitely not the best option because along with this comes issues of the loss of culture and the emergence of a hybrid culture that includes some traditional characteristics, but also many qualities that are simply for show. Also, language is often times simplified in this process, which has a very negative impact on the preservation of traditional speaking.
ReplyDeleteWhen does it become acceptable to subvert people and culture in the quest for the almighty dollar? Well I think that its never acceptable to subvert people and culture in the quest for money. But in today's society its happening a lot. It's just part of nature for the media. The media has no limits because of free of speech and they know how to take advantage of that. All that they care about is making revenue no matter what price it may come to a culture and its people. I find this bothersome because its like they are litter getting paid to falsely depict things. That's why I want to see the movie "Barbarian Princess." I want to see how they depict the princess and Hawaii in the early days. Just by the title, they already have a negative connotation of the princess. I believe that the media will never stop this bad habit.
ReplyDeleteIn response to cwkdias’ question, I do not believe that it is acceptable to take advantage of a group of people and/or their culture just to make money. Unfortunately however, this manipulation and prostitution of people and culture occurs more often than not in today’s money driven society. In Earl’s article, she examines the methods big companies, like Coca-Cola and Vodafone, employ to boost their sales and increase their appeal to New Zealand’s youth. She also discusses how these companies create advertisements that highlight New Zealand’s distinctive multicultural population in order to stimulate a sense of unity in those who watch them. It is shocking to see the low levels some corporations sink to in order to increase their sales. It is my hope that all companies will strive to resist the use of inappropriate advertising tactics as a get rich quick scheme.
ReplyDeleteBy adding these seemingly multicultural aspects of commercialism into the Maori lifestyle, it only creates a sense of preconceived assumptions based upon what the corporations are trying to sell. These advertisements are appealing to the general public and showing them what they'd like to see. By shaping their commercials, they are gaining the interest mainly of the Pakeha and youth in society. In the article it stated, "Under the pretense of multiculturalism, however, advertising commodifies Maori and Pacific Island youth in collusion with dominant cultural ideals of white, middle-class masculinity and invites the viewer to occupy a subject position that accepts the assumptions and practices that the advertising discourse prescribes." (Earl 13). I do not believe that corporations should shape their commercials around certain society, such as Aotearoa because it creates a sense of unreliability and untruth.
ReplyDeleteIn one way I agree on your statement that "advertising may come at the expense of a people and their culture as it is in the case of many indigenous peoples" but I think it's a little unfair to place all the blame on media alone. It's simply a business strategy. But we should ask ourselves why the idea of indigenous people as uncivilized and savage-like sells. Did Hollywood simply make up these impressions, or did it stem out of some truth? I can’t deny that I’ve never been a little annoyed when I come across an ignorant tourist. I mean, do indigenous peoples’ actions give others a reason for their stereotypical beliefs? Maybe the director of “Blue Crush” came for a visit to Hawaii and it just so happened that his/her experiences with the local people were “hostile and territorial.” And if it’s an unjustified impression, then the people who buy into it are ignorant or choose to be ignorant. People who live in a society that hold them at a high position on the social ladder don't really understand or don't want to understand how condescending it is to the people below them on the ladder that they are being portrayed discriminately.
ReplyDeleteEither way, I’m not saying it’s an excuse for discrimination. It’s never okay to “subvert people and culture in the quest for the almighty dollar.” It’s ethically wrong for the media to discriminate by using incorrect notions of indigenous peoples' identity and applying those notions to destroy their reputation in order to appeal to a wide audience of people who don't know any better. But can we really blame the media for feeding on this and making money out of it at the same time? Dan makes a good point. We should worry about educating people so that they can have a better understanding of the importance of different cultures. And when they finally understand and stop buying into this media strategy, maybe there won't be this problem of discrimination of indigenous people in advertisements anymore.
It's nice to see so many comments on a blog posting!
ReplyDeleteLet's take a look at who's doing the subverting, and who's being targeted. Multinationals with no tie to the people or land are the ones doing the subverting, as far as they're concerned the area is another market to exploit, and they'll do so by any means in order to make another dollar. They have no connection to what's going on - if it were their families being targeted by these companies, their attitude might change regarding such tactics.
Not that local ethnic groups are immune to criticism in regards to doing such spots for multinationals, but given the choice between reaching a broader audience and making more money or possibly going out of business, is it more important to stay alive or "die on your feet than live on your knees?" It's a value judgment that one must make for themselves, especially when one decides to take an stance out of the mainstream.
Advertising is all around us whether we recognize it or not. It’s crazy how far advertisers will go to try and manipulate their target audience just for the consumption and money. In this article, Emma Earl states that “advertising is motivated discourse that is geared towards disseminating a seductive regime of social Truths in order to encourage consumption” (Earl 13). Media corporations are providing a false picture of how Polynesian youth really are. They try to grasp the targeted audience even though knowing that their taking away from the native culture. It saddens me knowing that media encourages mostly negative stereotyping just to increase their consumption. Hopefully in the future advertisers will steer away from subverting people and their culture and focus more on positive advertising.
ReplyDeleteIt's never acceptable to subvert people and culture in the quest for the almighty dollar. However, this happens 24/7/365 in America. Even though some stereotypes may have some degree of truth to them, it doesn't make it acceptable for the media to exploit these stereotypes and push it as "truth" to the masses. Therefore, the people need to push back and show the media that what they are portraying is not acceptable. Also, Polynesians should be aware of the stereotypes that exist and should avoid the perpetuation of those stereotypes so that the media cannot continue to use it as a source of fuel.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, some people will still be willing to "sell out" in favor of the almighty dollar, because at the end of the day, they care more about making money than the negative portrayal of their ethnicity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question, I do not think it is ever acceptable to subvert people and culture in the quest for money because it creates a negative impact on the society; most importantly targets Aotearoa New Zealand, Maori, and Pacific Island youth. Some of these advertisements depict a false representation of how Polynesian youth really are and limits their discovery in finding their identity. As stated in the article, “advertising’s drive to secure mass audience appeal, however, potentially compromises any opportunities to articulate the intricacies of Polynesian youth identity. In striving to be popular, advertising addresses the preconceptions of its target audience; it inevitably operates within the constraints of what is appropriate to speak to ‘the inner coolness’ (Quart, 2003, p. xv) of its ideal consumers,” (Earl 5). The media’s primary goal is to capture the attention of youth because these young adults tend to focus on what is really so called “in” and “cool.” As a result, the Polynesian youth start to drive away from their indigenous culture and are also not able to fully establish his or her identity.
ReplyDeleteThe comment above caught my attention. I agree with most people said it is unacceptable to subvert people and culture because of money. But the society is cruel. Money is not neccecisty in the world. But without it, we can not survive. From my perspective, I think what people in the Pacific need to do is trying to boost their economy by different means. At the same time, it is imperative to conduct ethinic identity education to the children. Let them know who they are even though they are living in the "melting pot" and encourage them to preserve their identity as a Pacific Islander. We can not blame people who are willing to sell out their culture and identity, because when there is noting to sell to boost the economy. People can only sell what they have to survive.
ReplyDeleteSome stereotypes shown in movies are meant to be funny but only if you understand that stereotypes are not true at all. People who watch these movies and see these depictions of different ethnic stereotypes have to understand that these stereotypes are just shown for laughs and not meant to hurt others. In that trailer of Blue Crush, the antagonists are locals who are portrayed to be violent, but one of the girls from the protagonists seems to be a friendly. I’m sure that people from the mainland who watch this movie are not going to think the locals are hostile and territorial as depicted in the movie. But rather as more friendly and loving people as portrayed in other Hollywood movies that show Hawaii as a beautiful place.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I think it is acceptable to subvert people and culture to attract people towards it. For example, in Hawaii, we need all the publicity we can get because our economy is built mostly upon tourism. When people come here for themselves rather than experience it through another’s perception from a movie, I’m sure they will have their own perception of Hawaii rather than someone else’s.