Interesting article, but I don’t know if I agree with it. The constant appeals to “rational homo economicus” also make me actively want to disagree with it because I fucking hate economics. In my opinion ads don’t prey on our “rational decisions” (which aren’t that rational if we’re being collectively tricked into them…), but instead our memory, by getting it stuck in our head and thinking of it when we have to think of what brands to purchase. So it isn’t association, it’s just the result of repetition creating memory.
Extra thoughts: I don’t know if I agree with the whole concept that basically all oppression is rational or based on rational self interest. Certainly, a lot of it is, but a lot of it is also completely irrational too, and to imply it’s somehow rational would be obscenely offensive to the targets of that prejudice. Are those who (internally, not performatively) experience disgust at seeing gay people “rational”? Are the knee-jerk ableist, lookist, shitty reactions many of us notice in our minds but fight off “rational”? I certainly hope I’m not alone in this…
It seems to me that culture values are very malleable, though our brains by themselves might not be. And by proxy we can be manipulated into so-called “irrational” (though in all actuality so-called rational behavior according to the social norms we internalized) when we internalize these social norms over years of interaction and teaching. People aren’t “brainwashed” into loving capitalism, then, but rather they simply grew up in a society that instills the values of “independence, freedom, and responsibility” in them, giving them goals that align with capital over time. Though this doesn’t mean they’re a lost cause- Cultural values are vague and malleable, so “freedom” can be redefined into basically anything, and even base values can change drastically with exposure to new ideas. I would not be surprised if it is effectively a combination of Pavlovian conditioning and the rational behavior this author seems to believe in. The act of conforming for fitting in and not being alone, eventually internalized as you convince yourself it’s what you actually want to do.
I disagree with your opinion about ads being about memory and pure repetition - many of them are trying to be memorable, but we can tell with most ads that the company is trying to create a brand image more than a purely-memorable experience. Your argument is not very far removed from the “emotional inception” argument that the author makes a good case against wrt bedsheets and gas.
I also don’t think it has to rely on tricking anyone. If you see an ad that ties X product to relaxation, you don’t need to think “other people will be tricked by this into associating X product with relaxation” to want to buy it to signal that you’re a chill person. All you need to think is “other people will understand that I mean to associate myself with the message of relaxation when I buy this”.
I think Roderic Day was correct to add this essay to his otherwise-about-communism site because it shows yet another area in society where we assume people are acting irrationally when really they’re just following their interests - the narrative of irrationality being used to deny the support many people have had for their own communist governments. He has a couple good essays on “brainwashing”, and this was filed under the tag that he also put on those.
deleted by creator
From the essay
brands carve out a relatively narrow slice of brand-identity space and occupy it for decades. And the cultural imprinting model explains why. Brands need to be relatively stable and put on a consistent “face” because they’re used by consumers to send social messages, and if the brand makes too many different associations, (1) it dilutes the message that any one person might want to send, and (2) it makes people uncomfortable about associating themselves with a brand that jumps all over the place, firing different brand messages like a loose cannon.
I feel like the reputation of driving a Tesla, before and after
turned his own image rightward, is an example of this. What used to be a conspicuous symbol of environmentalism and social conscience became a symbol of tech-bro hype and half-assery instead, almost overnight.deleted by creator
To respond to your extra thoughts -
You’re hitting the mark on there being issues with referring to any social problems as “rational”. What would be best for everyone in the long run would be the abolition of all bigotry: even the most privileged people in the world would likely live happier lives if society was truly rationally-structured. So it is not rational for anyone, in the long run, to act bigoted.
I do think though that there’s an incentive to defend one’s social and economic position which manifests itself in an irrational emotion that serves a “rational” purpose: keeping yourself, at least temporarily, ahead of others. While it may be insulting to say that X bigotry is rational, I think it’s just plainly true that most, e.g. racists, are racist because they benefit from racism, rather than because racist ideas have been maliciously imposed onto their psyche. Even those with a nebulous material connection to racism can benefit psychologically from indulging the feeling that they’re better than those other people.
I think when people say that people who uphold oppressions are rational, they’re using shorthand for “oppressions are often perpetuated by people who benefit from their existence.” They don’t meant to say that they’re good.
Similarly, the broader values we inherit from capitalist society serve in a sense to justify our economic system and our hegemony. We think of our country as uniquely “free,” full of “independent” people, because that lubricates our existence within a society based on fierce competition. It justifies the individualizing nature of capitalist competition and hierarchical relations, and it also invents a criteria on which we can decide other nations aren’t worthy of our cooperation.
As much as we’re repetitively advertised to to accept capitalist values, I think a greater amount of our acceptance of them comes from our (“rational”) desire to fit in with our societal structure; our desire to not feel guilt when we benefit from the oppressions enabled by a society built on competition at all levels.
