On ads
by Mischa Gelman
(printed 10/20/99)

"Kids get what they want"

 Or so we're now being told by vehicle commercials, which have been
running several months.
 There are several obvious responses to such an ad, but my own reaction
was "They do?"  What parent gives in to their child's every demand?  How
many Pitt students had parents who were unable to just say no?  I'd
imagine not very many.  Families may well tend towards spoiling kids, but
it is a bad sign when there are no limits, thus placing the child in the
driver's seat.
 Permissiveness, so calmly accepted by the advertisers, is not the proper
way to raise children.  Social scientists identify it as causing problem
behaviors, just like authoritarian parenting styles do, something that
should be plain as day to most anyone.  Why advertisers want to encourage
such negative parenting methods I have no idea.
 The root problem here is a rejection of self-denial.  To restrain
yourself, to show discipline, to ignore our impulses - these
characteristics separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom and should
obviously be encouraged rather than discouraged.  We simply need look at
our great historical role models for confirmation of the importance of
self-denial.  Gandhi denied himself all kinds of things, going so far as
to attempt to ward off fame and distinction.  Harriet Tubman put the needs
of others above her own.  Dorothy Day took a vow of abstinence that she
maintained for decades.  Dr. King put his life on the line, willingly
sacrificing his whole self for the greater good.  Do we make role models
out of those who give in to their every whim?  Of course not.  As Mario
Cuomo aptly put it, "your life doesn't mean a darn thing unless you
believe in something more than your own life."  That is the kind of lesson
we must truly teach to future generations.
 Any attempt to teach such values will be undermined though by rampant
commercialism.  Most advertisements do not as blatantly hock the libertine
lifestyle as the one I've focused on, but it is the heart of them all.
When a child (or adult) gets numerous subtle pushes towards a spend,
spend, spend approach, how can we expect them to adequately ignore all
that and do what's right rather than what feels good.  Writer Brian Swimme
informs us that "before entering in any real way into our religious
ceremonies, a child will have soaked in 30,000 advertisements."  Neil
Postman and Steve Powers tell us American children see on average around
650,000 commercials.  All those pitches towards materialism and
libertinism are difficult to counter, especially as parents spend more
time at work and less at home.
 The aim of such ads obviously is to create desire for products people
would not otherwise endeavor to purchase.  Jonathan Rowe wonders, "If it
takes a $200 billion advertising industry to maintain what economists
quaintly call "demand," then perhaps that demand isn't as urgent as
conventional theory posits. Perhaps it's not even demand in any sane
meaning of the word."  But what is the harm of artificial demand?  The
cumulative effect is the problem - such tactics create a consumerist
society that is told it needs so many products, told they should give in
to their urges, to the point where people spend more than they have, as
evidenced by a negative savings rate nationally and year after year of
large numbers spending themselves into bankruptcy.
 This artificial demand has led to large expenditures on things people
hardly need - for instance, hair dye (where people spend money for the
privilege of putting chemicals in their hair, often to make it look
worse), Beanie Babies and brand-name sneakers - and worse, things that are
detrimental to our physical, moral and mental well-being such as alcohol,
Paulie Shore movies and television (studies show children's brains are
less active when watching TV than when sleeping).  Would folks be so
inclined to buy into such goods (or more accurately, bads) if they didn't
have so many admen pushing them?  Obviously no. 
 What of those who say this is merely the result of people exercising
their free will?  The response to such a question is this - how free are
people when they are under so many influences trying to pull them to and
fro, to the point where they are motivated by the ad and not by their
original wishes?  If the companies were selling things people truly
wanted, we wouldn't need a plethora of ads to buy them (hence the water
company doesn't need to advertise, while Revlon does).  Ads not only make
us deny our self-denial and get what we want, but they also change those
wants to match what they want us to want.  Such influences should not be
blindly accepted.
 
 Mischa Gelman offers a counterpitch - Materialism: Don't Buy It.
 He can be reached for comments at megst19+@pitt.edu