This post will be based off of Jennifer Pozner’s interview of Jean Kilbourne, first run here: http://www.salon.com/2001/01/30/kilbourne/
Jean Kilbourne, advertisement critic, gave an interview to Jennifer Pozner for her piece “You’re Soaking in It” in which she sets out to prove that advertising has a profoundly negative impact on society, particularly in regard to women, through subconscious and harmful messages that the advertisers send. Kilbourne targets an audience of women, particularly Mothers Who Think, the readers of Salon.com where the interview initially ran. She hopes that, by the end, the women are riled up enough by her argument to push for change.
One of the first claims Kilbourne makes is that, once advertisers focused on women, they co-opted feminism and the women’s movement, significantly minimizing the accomplishments of the female gender. She makes the point that advertisers were not above using a “trivializing slogan” such as “’You’ve come a long way, baby’” or “’Find your voice’” to sell cigarettes, though she uses hyperbolic, inflammatory language by saying that these ads were leading to the “enslavement” of women by equating it to women’s “liberation.” It seems like a bit of a jump, but perhaps she has a point. However, is the feminist movement something that advertisers cannot appropriate? Do they have less of a right to its exploitation than anyone else? She preaches about “endless ads that turned the women’s movement into the quest for a women’s product,” for the support of which she only offers a rhetorical question suggesting that advertisements create problems for the product to solve. But the question only states, “Was there ever such a thing as static cling before there were fabric softeners and sprays?” This does not speak to advertisements at all, really. It simply addresses the fact that products that have entered the market because a need was found and filled, then assumes that this is inherently negative because the product was essentially targeted toward a female buyer.
She also claims advertising exploits the need for interpersonal relationships, what she labels “’relationship marketing.’” Though this is a human need, she suggests that advertisements and society at large associate this need with women – apparently men don’t need other people. She goes on to argue that advertisements send the distinct message that relationships, particularly if you are a woman, are unreliable. For this claim, she discusses how ads show a man’s reluctance to make a commitment and reinforces violent behavior. She throws around strong diction such as words like “callousness” and “reluctantly” when speaking of how ads portray a man’s unwillingness to establish a relationship and makes the alarming statement that these ads “normalize the abnormal.” Much of her argument relies on a female reader’s indignation, tugging at her fears about men, which she conveniently blames on advertising rather than the history of male-female relationships. Married women with families especially, as the target audience for this piece, do not want to hear that their husbands, as men, are being told it is perfectly acceptable to be cold and not commit to the relationship. She uses the same tactics here that she claims the advertisements are – targeting women’s insecurities about their relationships by saying that it is encouraged by society in a subconscious way.
Moving to the assertion that advertisements say, essentially, the product makes the person, Kilbourne makes more sweeping generalizations. She says that advertisements tell the public that only attractive people are loved, but how do they tell us this? Because attractive people are used in advertisements? She asserts that overweight people are poorer and less likely to be hired, but where did this information come from? Is it really accurate? Especially nowadays, it seems less relevant in light of campaigns that celebrate diverse forms and body shapes including Dove’s real beauty campaign or the #EffYourBeautyStandards movement started by plus-size model Tess Holliday.
In an effort to provoke the audience, Kilbourne asserts that advertisers and corporations suggest that turning off the television or simple, honest conversations are enough to shield children from an advertisement parents deem harmful. Kilbourne takes the opportunity to maybe exaggerate through the use of a metaphor, comparing advertisements to toxic air that children are forced to breathe in and cannot avoid. She uses this last ploy to assert to these mothers that their children are being constantly harmed and the only viable solution is to turn against advertising, which is a reflection of our “toxic cultural environment.” She is trying to exploit a mother’s need to protect her child, another advertising tactic, according to Jib Fowles, who defined the fifteen appeals that advertisements use to target their consumers (link below). Is her assertion that this power advertisements have over us is not one we can overcome correct? Bringing up her daughter and her maternal fears, which address Fowles’s need to nurture, has an effective sway over the audience, which is one of mothers. Is she, in your opinion, correct to worry about her daughter growing up in such an environment? If so, do you have any advice for her, seeing as you have already gone through the stage her daughter is in already?
Kilbourne incorporates into her argument the fundamental needs of human beings that advertisements utilize and she herself is not above exploiting, despite her criticism of advertising. These needs include, but are not limited to, the need for affiliation, as Fowles calls it, or the need to love and be loved, as Kilbourne dubs it. How can she rail against the use of methods she uses as well?
While I agree on the importance of discussing women in advertising, I disagree with Kilbourne’s method of argument. At this point in time, seeing as this article was published in 2001, is Kilbourne’s argument still relevant and her conclusion still accurate, or must we reevaluate?
Jib Fowles and the 15 Appeals: http://producer.csi.edu/cdraney/archive-courses/spring05/cld_102_spring05/e-texts/15-basic-appeals.pdf
Feminism and Women's Bodies 