We started from the very general frame of what globalization/neo-colonialism/neo-liberalism looks like today in a practical sense. The parts of the working definition pointed to the complications of how the interpretation and consumption of texts by consumers is heavily influenced by their social location.
John Fiske's "Act Globally, Think Locally" puts forth that "representation is control" and that to control the perception of the past (effectively through erasure, omission or abstraction) is to limit the work that can be done to change the future. Moving into ideas about dominant hegemony, or the political/economic/cultural power (often times overlapping) used by dominant groups over target groups, the class discussed how complicated representation politics becomes when what was once a radical push for autonomy and fair (see: complex) representation, becomes part of the dominant ideology through "safe" (see: limited) symbolic representation as a sort of concession or exception to the rule that keeps the status quo in place.
Here is a lifestyle commercial, as there is no one physical product being pushed here overtly, for Nike. It seems to portray a diverse range of sports training and athletes pushing to overcome their physical limits and effectively train "better" than their competition. It uses a song with a driving snyth and drum beat talking about "demands" that seem to me to suggest that these athletes "demand" excellence and hard work.
What makes this commercial complicated for me is that the song is "List of Demands (reparations)" by artist Saul Williams. The lyrics ( http://www.lyricstime.com/saul-williams-list-of-demands-reparations-lyrics.html )seem to be about overcoming the ills of social a system that works actively against one to keep one from living as free a life as possible, and even the title alludes to a want of reparations, or fair compensation for social injustice.
Nike seems to be using the radical nature of this song to individualize a specific kind of struggle to sell shoes, an interesting tactic given that they have come under fire time and time again for exploiting their workers that manufacture the shoes and sporting goods of the company.
What are your thoughts on how this weeks readings apply to this complicated utilizing of social justice texts for "safe" consumption? What positive gains in the realm of representation does this commercial reflect? How does putting an individual versus a collective or group to the face of struggles change our perception of struggles? Who' s narratives are left out and how does affect the casual consumer that may not know about Nike's human rights violations? What other companies have engaged in this branding doublespeak? How does a commercial like this serve the dominant hegemony?
Nike is definitely responsible for some human rights abuses, with their imperialization in Asian countries like Indonesia and the manner in which they use child labor. This is something that one would never know just by watching their commercials. John Fiske believes power is never exerted only technologically, but always discursively as well. With cool Nike commercials like these the immoral practices of Nike are hidden while the only image presented is of the model users of their products. As far as the song goes, I do not think that the use of it in this commercial is racist. Many songs written by African-Americans about oppression find their way into the modern popular music realm. This is because a lot of songs written by slaves or African-Americans during reconstruction were adapted to form the style of music Blues. The styles of legendary Black pioneers of Blues like Robert Johnson, were adapted by modern artists like Eric Clapton, and some even find their way into rock music. Some songs we may not even know were written about oppression in the past by African-Americans.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matthew about Nike. Nike are expensive shoes to U.S consumer, but cheaper labor to Asian countries. Child labor is an abusive process because the child wouldn't enjoy the life of being a child instead they are taken upon adulthood roles. Commercials of Nike make it seems like Nike is the best product, but in reality the material is sold for cheap. They put these famous role models especially athletes to show off Nike. I wonder if they will ever make commercials recognizing the people who make the product. Of course not. Well I don't think that the song represent a racist act. I believe that they chose that song because it's a popular song that people listen to and it will catch their attention. Also I think the song can catch a lot of eyes from the African American American community because of the culture that lies behind it. The companies that engage in this doubletake are mostly all shoe and sport appeal products.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure the creators of the ad took the meaning of the lyrics into consideration, or anything beyond an energetic sound and the face value of the lyrics of the first two versus, which can be applied to the individualist/determined athlete theme they're going for. I think rather than utilizing social justice texts, they're ignoring that part and utilizing the musical elements. It seems like those who are more familiar with the lyrics of the song would be more inclined to not appreciate their appropriation of it. I could be totally wrong, though, Nike did put out that sad puppy-face Tiger Woods ad that I don't think too many people can say they LIKE, but it got people talking. So who knows what the ad execs are thinking about. They wouldn't be the first to use a politically charged song to encourage consumption.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to who's narratives are being left out? Of course the person who does the labor story will never be told. It is all about who has the money and if you dont have money you dont matter especially in third world countries.So is Nike wrong for the in humane working conditions their employees work in and under? Yes, but it how this world has been operatin in order to keep the rich and the poor, poor .
ReplyDeleteAccording to Molina-Guzman's article on Ugly Betty, the international popularity and portability of these programs and ads (such as Nike) are "appealing to the production of universally lines that captivate multiple audiences regardless of age, gender, race, nationality,and language" (119-120). Therefore, I agree with Bola in saying that the person who does the labor into making this mainstream is left out. In some cases, they are particular groups of individuals whereas in other cases, its the consumer-us. We, as people of many varieties and identities, are subjects that are being manipulated according to our vulnerabilty and the need to line-up with what is socially acceptable (and POPULAR) as far as race, language, age, and gender goes. The narratives of those who work in the Nike factories to produce these items for sale are being commodified and excluded because they are only the starting points, according to Marxist theory, that do not have any source of use value until their culture (based on poverty levels and financial need due to other oppressive factors) is the audience and their way of life is being reenacted through ads, television programs, and other media forms as well. Therefore, putting one individual seems to represent just a certain person. However, my knowledge of cultural studies allows me to see that these are the chosen ones for the sake of conforming to and disregarding the mainstream norms.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I quite understand the blog posting and how it relates to the readings, it could just be me.
ReplyDeleteI as well feel that the music used in the nike commercial was used for its upbeat nature and motivating sounds. I do think that in general when talking about nike, the unrepresented groups are those who actually create the shoes in those Asian countries.
I do think however that that the quote "representation is power" works well when thinking about nike and its consumer base. When looking at nike, I really can't think of any cultural or ethnic group that doesn't consume nike shoes. Maybe this video and the shoes they make speaks to this.
I completely love Bola's response. I do agree NIKE has a horrible labor system in Asia and their advertisements definitely make it seem like NIKE helps you be better and kind of created better opportunities for you because you have such an amazing pair of shoes that were made by a child who gets paid a misery and works under horrible conditions for a living, but NIKE will never put that any where for people to see. So on top of there are already a group of invisible people in this story of the NIKE shoe even when people do hear about it they still buy from NIKE and as Bola said the rich just get richer and the poorer continue to spiral down.
ReplyDelete