CONSUMER CULTURE CAPITALISM AND ADVERTISING

YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE

Most intelligent people think they are not subject to or impacted by consumer and commercial advertising. Ads are pretty, silly; ads don’t fool me! No one wants to be duped or fooled into making unwittingly corporate driven decisions. And Advertising, as an industry, is happy to profit from this fool’s paradise. When is the last time you really examined the messages of popular culture? What does it mean to examine advertising claims critically? There are techniques of social propaganda and persuasion and our best defence against the driving forces at work in advertising is attention and awareness.

What does it mean to apply persuasive techniques? Because advertising uses every trick in the book. These are folks who have carefully studied and systematically apply critical judgment and behavioural research so as to understand the power of symbols and the process of meaning-making. To this end, there is a heavy reliance on non-discursive forms of communication & particularly on connotations and myth to transform pseudo-propositions into sound truth claims. The masters of FAKE frequently rely on affective techniques, i.e., to appeal to emotion rather than reason. Their uses of symbolic forms rely on presentational & non-discursive signs, in tandem with slanting language contexts & fallacious emotional appeals. For example, I offer ten techniques used by advertising to claim some kind of superiority. (How patriarchal and colonial!)

claiming superiority

Most consumer products are relatively similar; the PARITY among most consumer products, like soap, are only differentiated by advertising. Sure, one soap may smell differently, but the techniques of advertising can trick you into believing one is better than another. To create an illusion of superiority, all products try to claim superiority.

There are many names for these techniques of persuasion, deception and delusion.

Let’s take a closer look at some methods for persuading consumer publics into choosing one product over another.

EMOTIONAL TRANSFER BY ASSOCIATION

Advertising also relies on associative techniques of persuasion to convince consumers to spend their money. Often, an unconscious connection between the product and its means of signifying meaning is assumed to be transfer to consumers, impacting consumer behaviour. By setting up possible associations, consumers can experience positive sensations about a particular context and these positive feelings are transferred to you when you buy that product. Think of this as the emotional transfer that occurs between an advertised product and those who purchase it. What products or brands do you “associate” with? Are you a MAC or PC? When the entire persuasive force of an advertisement relies on emotional associations, the advertisement rarely says anything about the product directly. What might beer have to do with ‘good times’? What do cars have to do with female sexuality?

I recall feeling angry when watching #EatTogether; I didn’t want our consumer culture taking over my ‘dreams.’ Watch and identify the product or the thing for sale. I also encourage you to watch another advertisement from the same company to see how they position their place in the consumer market.

WATCH

“Food lovers unite“ (2019) [1:00].

Seven Techniques

Here, I share seven techniques. This time, I ask you to find the related examples.

NOW I KNOW MY ABCS

I bet you know what to do. I bet your brain has already begun.

I like these FONTS. Someone created a complete font set made entirely with logos.

What do each of the letters stand for or mean?

And here are more.

QUESTIONS

What happens in your head when you see games like these?

Are these letter games of global interest or strictly North American?

Who profits from your knowledge of the answers?

Who consumers what these letters stand for?

How much of your day is taken up with any of these ‘answers’?

INDIGENOUS WOMEN AND THE INDIAN ACT

To begin unpacking the current and historical socio-political situation in Canada for INDIGENOUS WOMEN, I urge you to review The Indian Act. Created by the federal government in 1876, The Indian Act is legislation that pertains to First Nations people. (Inuit and Métis do not fall under the Act.)

The Indian Act took away the rights of INDIGENOUS WOMEN with Indian Status if they married someone without status. The colonial idea of PATRIARCHY (men are leaders; men are heads of households) denies INDIGENOUS WOMEN the right to possess land and marital property. A widow could possess land under the reserve system. However, she could not inherit her husband’s personal property—everything, including the family house, legally went to his children.

Government agents modified the Act in 1884 to allow estates to be willed to a wife if an agent determined she was of “good moral character.” This particular amendment remained in the Indian Act until 1951. And to this day, men still hold exclusive property rights. Such legal ideas have far-reaching implications for the lives and safety of INDIGENOUS WOMEN.

1985. Bill C-31 modified the Indian Act to align with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. An amendment allows women who “married out” and those who lost their Indian Status by other means to apply for the restoration of their status and rights. Bill C-31 also allows their children to apply for registration as Status Indians. The Act no longer requires (or allows) INDIGENOUS WOMEN to follow their husbands into or out of status.

Through “reinstated” status and a growing birthrate, the 1985 modification to the Indian Act saw the number of registered Indigenous people more than doubled, from approximately 360,000 (in 1985) to more than 778,000 (in 2007).

However, while the amendment addressed discrimination against INDIGENOUS WOMEN, the unintended consequences create more significant problems. By placing these women and their children on First Nations band membership lists, the government stretched already limited lands and funds that now must serve more people. The scarcity and inadequacy of resources and supports cause resentment toward these people by First Nations members. The backlash against these changes is still being realized.

Bill C-31 created two categories of Indian registration that have had consequences on the number of people entitled to Status Rights. The first, known as sub-section 6(1), applies when both parents are or were allowed to register. The second, known as sub-section 6(2), applies when one parent is entitled to registration under 6(1). After two generations of intermarriage with non-status partners, children are no longer eligible for status. This is known as the “Second-Generation Cut-Off” rule. The amendment, therefore, significantly limits the ability to transfer status to one’s children.

INDIGENOUS WOMEN HEROS

Many Indigenous peoples have brought cases against the Indian Act to Canadian courts. Let’s review and celebrate the courageous efforts of some INDIGENOUS WOMEN HEROS.

JEANNETTE CORBIERE LAVELL | YVONNE BÉDARD SANDRA LOVELACE NICHOLAS | SHARON MCIVOR

1971. Yvonne Bedard took the federal government to court after losing her rights as a Status Indian because of a marriage to a Non-Status man. Her lawsuit challenged section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act, concerning the rights of Status Indian women in Canada.

1971. Jeannette Corbiere Lavell filed a lawsuit against the federal government after receiving a legal notice that she had lost her status. Contending the Indian Act violated the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights by discriminating on the basis of sex.

1971. A York County Court judge concluded Jeannette Corbiere Lavell’s equality under the law had not been deprived. The Bill of Rights afforded her the same protections as other non-status women. Unsatisfied, she petitioned and won her case in the Federal Court of Appeals. The judges outlined that the Indian Act did not afford equality to Indigenous women and recommended that the Indian Act be repealed for failing to adhere to the laws established in the Bill of Rights.

However, these INDIGENOUS WOMEN met with resistance from within their Indigenous communities. The National Indian Brotherhood (now the Assembly of First Nations) argued against women who challenged the law as selfish and anti-Indian. For the Brotherhood, these INDIGENOUS WOMEN fought against the very law (the Indian Act) that guaranteed the right of Indigenous self-determination.

1973. These two claimants pressed on to the Supreme Court of Canada, concerning gender discrimination in the Indian Act.

August 1973. The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s ruling in a controversial and much-questioned decision, stating that the Bill of Rights did not invalidate the Indian Act. Nevertheless, these legal battles inspired future litigation regarding women’s rights and the Indian Act. INDIGENOUS WOMEN continued to fight by bringing this issue to the fore.

1981. Sandra Lovelace Nicholas, a ​Wolastoqiyik​ (Maliseet) woman, attracted international attention with her court case against the federal government. She raised concerns with the UN Human Rights Committee, who ruled that gendered status provisions in the Indian Act were contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

1982. These INDIGENOUS WOMEN directly contributed to section 35 of the Constitution Act, which was further amended in 1983 to guarantee that Aboriginal and treaty rights are equally accessible to men and women under the law.

By 1985, INDIGENOUS WOMEN’s efforts guided the parliamentary assent of Bill C-31, which repealed section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act to bring this element of legal code into accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

JEANNETTE CORBIERE LAVELL | YVONNE BÉDARD SANDRA LOVELACE NICHOLAS | SHARON MCIVOR

SEX/GENDER DISCRIMINATION & INDIGENOUS WOMEN

2007. Sharon McIvor v. Canada. Sharon McIvor regained status rights after the passing of Bill C-31 in 1985. However, she could not pass on those rights to her descendants in the same way as a man. The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that section 6 did, in fact, deny McIvor’s equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The British Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that the Indian Act discriminated against the descendants of Indigenous women who married non-Indigenous men.

2011. In response to Sharon McIvor v. Canada, the federal government introduced new legislation (Bill C-3) to counter gender discrimination in the Indian Act.

2015. Stéphane Descheneaux v. Canada. Stéphane Descheneaux, an Odanak man, was unable to pass on his Indian status to his three daughters because his First Nations descent came from his grandmother. She lost her status when she married a non-Indigenous man. A Québec Superior Court judge found that subtle forms of sexual discrimination persisted under the Indian Act and comprehensively ordered the government to reform the law.

2017. Canadian Parliament passed Bill S-3, an Act to eliminate sex-based inequities in Indian registration. The courageous work of Sharon McIvor and Stéphane Descheneaux underscore sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act. This discrimination directly violates Indigenous women’s equality rights as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights law.

Bill S-3 designates the date September 4, 1951, when the Indian register came into effect. After that date, children of status-fathers and non-status mothers can obtain status and pass it to their offspring. Before that date, the children of status women who married non-status men cannot receive status. The legislation is intended to eliminate long-standing discrimination against Indigenous women. The goal is for Indigenous women and their descendants to the same status rights as their male counterparts. The government has now promised to amend this provision. Still, it remains intact for now, and no specific deadline has been set for its change. This means that for Indigenous women and their descendants, full equality is, once again, postponed.

For details, see openparliament.ca for a full historical overview.

QUESTIONS

Why did this consideration of INTERSECTIONALITY include INDIGENOUS WOMEN?

Describe differences & similarities between FEMINISM and INTERSECTIONAL approaches?

How do legal frameworks and judicial policies impact people differently?

As a form of protest and resistance, is FEMINISM inclusive or exclusive?

STORYBOARDS

Draw out five boxes and start to keep track of details; what will the audience SEE? What will the audience HEAR? What ACTIONS can you describe? What specific details can you include that help tell the story?  From these small parts, my story is already taking shape.

You don’t need to draw pictures. Remember, you cannot do this wrong. The point of the storyboard in your creative process is to help you vision your digital story and to make some decisions about what gets included, and what gets left out.

Your storyboard helps you imagine your audience and how they might begin to perceive your ideas. Make sure you appeal to an audiences’ sense of sight and hearing. Telling us it smells like a hospital gives no information.

Don’t forget to give your work a title. You still have lots of time to change your mind. Don’t be afraid of trying something out.

After this storyboard is something you are happy with, it’s time to really refine your script. Leave out all unnecessary information. In 150 seconds, there isn’t a lot of time for improvisation. Improvisations, for example, between you and a friend, can help you determine the right way to say something or provide new ideas.

Try to have a working script with dialogue. Your script only includes direction for what the audience can see and hear. As you review and practice your script, recall some of the earlier ideas about storytelling.

Does your script have an intentional point of view or are there too many characters in your story? If you are suggesting multiple scenarios or ideas, you may be detracting from your best idea. Stay focused.

Your script accounts for your introductory titles and has some kind of hook to pique your audience’s interest; does this hook connect to a dramatic question or problem? If not, you may have written a draft without enough drama. Ask others for their input and listen carefully. Thank anyone who listens without reactions. Every step in this process requires symbolic thought and its representative responses.

If your introduction has a strong dramatic hook, does your entire script stir an emotional connection for your audiences? In other words, is your story suitable relatable? How might you check and recheck your script before you prepare the next step?

Finally, as writers, we must learn to edit work for economy and clarity; 150 seconds is not a lot of time. Stay on message while eliminating all unnecessary words. Remember the power of a dramatic pause.

If you are completely happy with your script, it’s time to prepare a list of the shots you want to capture with your camera. Of course, any video camera will be fine. Almost all smart phones have video capture as will most laptops. If you cannot find any access to a video camera, you can still tell a story with still images.

As long as you are still able to edit these images along a timeline in an editing program, you can create a script and digital story that is compelling and interesting while meeting all the requirements.

If you continue to experience difficulties, please let us know. You may be surprised by our acceptance and willingness to help.

Funny, when I was an undergraduate, video cameras were the size of dinosaurs and we struggled to make a two minute “card show” made from five still images. With some ingenuity and creativity, you’ll be able to make anything work.

THE TECHNOLOGY OF STORYTELLING

In 6,000 years of storytelling people have gone from depicting a bison hunt on cave walls to deploying Shakespeare on Facebook walls. The art of storytelling has remained unchanged, the story lines are largely recycled, but the media that humans use to relay tales has evolved with pure, consistent novelty. Joe Sabia, celebrated iPad storyteller, demonstrates how new technology has enlivened the art of narrative.

“TEDTalks: Joe Sabia—The Technology of Storytelling.” (3:47).