Aggression vs. assertion: a sex ad story
The history of advertising has been a hot and intense one right from the start, a history which has led us all to this moment in time, when every minute, we are bombarded by millions of colourful images and loud noises, all vying for our attention. As a result, it is no wonder that the human body has developed a type of defense mechanism, which allows it to cope with this assault: the art of shutting out. We subconsciously make associations – similar sounds and images must mean the same old ads we see everywhere, everyday, so we don’t need to see them again, do we?
And the result? Ads are becoming increasingly bold, with old values being replaced by new ones, to the point where the only “moral” limits are those of the designers’ imagination. The idea of using creative, out-of-the-box advertising techniques to appeal to an ever more apathetic audience seems completely reasonable. But is there a line separating original from offensive, or, if you will, assertive from aggressive, in a world where non-assertion is seen as automatic failure?
Let’s look at a sensitive subject: sex and human sexuality. After years of being a recurring theme in a multitude of advertising campaigns, you would believe that by now it has become impossible to avoid being aggressive and still make your campaign stand out from the crowd. Apparently Durex, one of the world’s largest condom manufacturers was of the same opinion: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/295804/20120209/durex-dark-humour-banned-superbowl-ad.htm. Sadly for the company, the ad got banned from the 2012 Superbowl, after being deemed too offensive. Thus, the aggressive approach, which fails to consider the viewers’ points of view and bets it all on gaining their attention, can end up being shut out from the start.
So is there an assertive way of promoting sexual elements? Well, where there’s a will, there’s a way. I for one think that Stonewall’s recent campaign, “Some people are gay, get over it”, ticks all the boxes: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/at_school/education_for_all/quick_links/education_resources/4007.asp. While both ads clearly express their points, Stonewall’s does so in a far less offensive manner: it does not attack the viewers’ senses or morality, it merely makes a statement. To my mind, that is what assertion is all about: standing up for yourself, without backing other against the wall. And why shouldn’t the same rules apply to advertising?
The ethical grey zone: influence and controversy
I’ve previously looked at how conflicts can get resolved through exercising power. But what about influence? It’s hard enough to define, but the results of it being used can always be felt, sometimes in controversial ways.
At least that’s what a recent USA contraception scandal brought to mind. Long story short: a (female) law student testified before a House committee in favor of health insurance plans covering the cost of contraception; as a result, she was called a “slut” by popular conservative radio talk-show host, Rush Limbaugh. The result? Controversy and media uproar, including public statements against Limbaugh’s gesture from president Obama and Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73549.html
Despite this, the fact remains that Limbaugh is extremely popular with Republican voters. A popularity which can easily translate into influence. Freedom of speech dictates that anyone is free to express their views, so there is no question of legality here. But, to my mind, this illustrates how using one’s influence can result in full-blown manipulation, which, let’s face it, major parts of the population are quite susceptible to.
… That brings me to my next example of influence where it doesn’t belong: religion. I have nothing against religious people, as long as they don’t have anything against me for not being religious. But after reading this gem: http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16117269, I can’t help but get angry.
While it is completely understandable to want to try every possible option when desperate times strike, it obviously takes a great deal of blind faith to decide on stopping the confirmed solution in favour of a hypothetical one. So, when using the massive influence that an established institution like the Church has accumulated over its supporters, should members of the clergy not be supervised in some way? And in the extreme cases where people actually suffer and die because of their beliefs, should the people who “sold” these notions to them not be held accountable? It is my strong opinion that they should.
Therefore, as hard as it is to exactly quantify it, I believe there are cases when a lot of influence can become too much influence. And, sadly, the world is full of such examples, from corporations to biased media to that one colleague you can’t stand but always act nice to, because of their standing within your social work environment. Go ahead and contradict me!
The little campers that couldn’t
The sanity of society is a balance of a thousand insanities. (RALPH WALDO EMERSON)
Conflict is more than an ethical issue; it can be seen as the driving force of our species. Whether it takes place between two parties, or between two different ideas within the same individual, conflict is a spark that either generates warmth or spawns destruction – it can bring forth underlying issues, create new solutions to old problems, as well as turn social environments into hostile ones.
Since every person is unique, it can be argued that there are as many ways of dealing with conflict as there are people. However, based on our determination in achieving our own goals and on our willingness to cooperate with others, we tend to fall into certain categories. These can range from highly competing to accommodating, to collaborating.
Or so they say… But think about it: is it really true that all these approaches can be effective, and it’s just about using the right one at the right time? I don’t think so. It seems to me that if history teaches us anything, it’s that those in power will always win in conflicts against those who lack power. Unless they do something really stupid and shoot themselves in the leg – but that rarely happens. Conflict resolution methods will only work in the rare cases in which the two parties come from equally powerful positions.
A recent example is the eviction of the Occupy London campers from outside St. Paul’s Cathedral. This was accompanied by the demolition of the “School of Ideas”, which the activists had inaugurated. http://www.london24.com/news/video_occupy_london_protesters_evicted_from_st_paul_s_cathedral_camp_1_1221771 The Occupy London movement, an ongoing protest against social inequality and corporate greed, had made this particular encampment its centre since October.
A valiant struggle to be sure, but when going against authority, especially in such a vocal manner, you are unlikely to win by being peaceful and full of wonderful ideas. To my mind, it’s general public apathy that led to this eviction. Had there been wider support for the activists, the authorities might have been more willing to show their collaborative side and try to meet the protesters halfway. Why? Because public support can translate into votes and votes can obviously translate into power. And at the end of the day, it’s power that solves conflicts, not carefully considered words…
What about you? What do you think?
Doing it for money – the ethics of torture
It might be because dee
p down we are all hypocrites, or it might be the fact that we tend to prefer sweet lies to the ugly reality of truth, but one thing is certain: as much as we like to believe we live in a civilized and moral society, gruesome acts of violence happen all around us, every day. And they happen because, one way or another, they can be justified.
A widespread and little thought about example is torture. Frowned upon as it may be, it still goes on almost everywhere, despite being a violation of basic human rights. Just think of the most notorious cases, those of the American-controlled prisons, such as Guantanamo. If the “war on terror” is a legitimate thing, does it justify applying torture methods to convicted felons (who have tried and maybe succeeded in harming others), if there is a chance of getting vital information from them, which might help protect innocents in the future? Or are human rights inviolable, no matter the circumstances?
In the Western, democratic world, we all agree that the acts of torture committed during the reigns of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or Muammar Gaddafi in Libya were horrendous and unacceptable. That was part of the reason why we “brought” democracy to their countries, right? But what about the torture of women in developed countries like The United Arab Emirates, or the mutilation of children by rebel forces in many African states? Are these any less infringing on our basic ideals, or is it just not worth the risk of jeopardizing economic interests by interfering to protect the innocent from torture? Apparently the end justifies the means and few feel the need to justify the end.
And speaking of the two bloodthirsty dictators (who happened to thirst for blood long before the USA and its allies finally “noticed”), many common people in their countries still hold them in high regards, despite what the propaganda might have us believe. Why? Because through their acts of torture they became feared, and through this fear, managed to maintain decades of political stability. So does this mean torture CAN be justified? Or does committing these acts alone earn them their fates?
In the end, each person sets their own moral values. What do yours say?
Occupied cities, percentages and apathy
On the 17th of September 2011 about 1000 people marched through the streets of New York in peaceful protest. Their demands? Economic justice, the separation of the political and financial systems, and the re-evaluation of taxation policies, among others.
Less than a month after this initial protest, on the 15th of October, under the slogan “We are the 99%”, similar movements mushroomed across the world in support of the original one. The UK has a few of its own, with the largest activist encampment established outside St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. They continue to this day.
So who is in the wrong here? Surely many can agree to the fact that there is a deep economic inequality across the world, with statistical evidence showing that a small minority controls the majority of resources, while billions live below the edge of poverty. There is little doubt that the protests have a strong moral backbone, at least in theory. Is this enough however? Should “doing the right thing” be sufficient to start a fundamental change of the system? And if so, out of the millions of us who are affected by these global issues, how is it that only thousands are camped outside St. Paul’s Cathedral?
The Occupy movements have been criticised for a number of reasons. Firstly, the solutions they suggested, which involved stronger government interference in the economy, were seen as anti-capitalist and socialist. But if a system fails, as many believe capitalism has, is it not natural to try to change it? Or is it better to move forward, toward complete economic independence from the state?
Furthermore, many right wing advocates have claimed that, while the vast majority of people suffer from the effects of the recession, they should take responsibility for their own well being, instead of blaming outside forces. Are they right? Or is it safe to assume that if external factors, created by banks and faulty regulations, turn the economic environment against the common people, they are no longer solely responsible for themselves?
Surprisingly perhaps, the 99% have received some support from the 1%, with high-income members of the public following the activists’ example and sharing their stories online, ending with the phrase: “I am the 1%, I stand with the 99%”.
But in the end, who is right and who is wrong? The movement that calls out for true democracy and says that the people should be above banks and greed-stricken corporations? Or their opponents, who claim that the current state of things, as faulted as it is, is still better than the others out there?
So far, the 99% themselves, the common people, have yet to take a decisive position regarding the Occupy movements. What I am asking is: where do you stand?
Would you still like fries with that label?
The 21st century is riddled with problems: from pollution and the worldwide unequal distribution of wealth, to wars, Lady Gaga and so on. Perhaps one of the worst of these, considering the constantly increasing number of people it affects, is obesity. Thought of as the blight of the developed world, the main cause of this condition is thought to be the modern human’s dietary habits, particularly the high intakes of sugar and salt. (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/)
Several questions therefore come to mind:
If people seem unable to regulate their diet to fit their lifestyles, should they be given the possibility to hurt themselves?
Or should food producers and suppliers be forced to clean up what they’re selling?
Just where does consumer freedom end and faulty self-government begin?
One way of looking at this is to say that customers must be kept informed of what exactly it is that they are eating. And what they should eat. Simply enforcing a standard, comprehensive manner of labelling food products would likely result in a healthier population in the long term. But while it can be argued that transparency and a free flow of information can save us all, how many of us actually stop and thoroughly read every food label at the supermarket? And with internet access almost a given in the countries where obesity is a problem, who’s to say we don’t already know these things, but choose to ignore them?
A different approach to the problem is to say that the companies who make tons of money from producing and distributing unhealthy food to the population are, in fact, the ones to blame. Make them clean up their act, only supply low-sugar, low-salt treats and in the majority of cases, obesity will disappear. All good, except for a little thing some might call economic freedom. After a long history of totalitarianism, few look kindly on state intervention in the private sector, and probably rightly so. And personal freedoms are also at stake. Who can honestly say they don’t treat themselves to some delicious, calorie-rich treat at least once in a while?
This being said, any thoughts?
