This Shampoo Will Get You Laid

Gramsci claimed that in order for hegemony to thrive it had to exist in an environment governed by symbols. The use of symbols, Lull claims, goads the audience to first “accept the dominant ideology as normal reality or common sense” (Lull 62). McChesney voices concern about the prevalence of advertising in his “The Age of Hyper Commercialism,” in such a symbolic environment as our own. Advertising agencies combat for space by placing street banners at Grammy awards, product placement in films and television (McChesney sites the spectacle of Seinfeld chomping down Junior Mints). So, why is it that symbolism is crucial to the perpetuation of advertising, and why does it work? Put plainly, why do we fall for it?

We can acknowledge that “pop culture is embedded in the social tradition of folklore and orality” (van Zoonen 7) and that, in the current age of semiotics, cultural influences can inform meaning. So perhaps, the style and appeal of pop cultural media is embedded in our folkloric predispositions. But, if we acknowledge that pop culture is embedded in folklore that doesn’t explain why symbols prevail in the ADVERTISING world. Agencies will use advertising as a means of distinguishing similar products and also to create demands, but why do cultures latch onto the “magical” quality of product endorsement? Why do these agencies capitalize on the “if you buy this product you will get laid all the time/become rich/never be sad/etc.” paradigm? How does this symbolic approach inform the perpetuation of hegemony? How might the identification tactics used by advertising agencies be seen a political? Here I am trying to spark a discourse on the style and content of advertisements and their role in hegemonic protocols.

Also, how does advertising function hegemonically in the global market? Street argues that the myth of globalization has overshadowed the fact that “multinational corporations… need to expand their product base” and simply appeal to a wider audience. He also argues that different cultures will ultimately have dissimilar experiences of the same ad. Those experiences rely heavily on the generic codes, formulaic conventions, and well defined ideological boundaries (Kellner 13) set up by, what Kidd might argue is, criminal activity. So does advertising ultimately hinder or fuel the process of globalization (if there is such thing to begin with)? In an economy where products become produced in greater quantity and with greater similarity might advertising eventually peter out? Become useless? Or will it always remain in the public eye? McChesney alludes to the downfall of advertising when there is intense competition for space and air time, and advertising becomes as he calls it “advertising on steroids.” Do you agree? If so why?