Back to Branding Cattle

I recently learned about Edward Bernays and how he changed the way advertising is done. The basis for his work was that of his uncle, Sigmund Freud. In case you are unaware, here are a couple facts: Bernays instigated the field of 'public relations' (around the time of the first world war) and later wrote a book called The Engineering of Consent. Similar to how the weaponization of racism by the Republican Party in the mid-1960's represented a fundamental change in politics, so did the introduction of propaganda at home alter everyday life. Rather than advertising a product on its merits (or outright lying), Bernays used techniques to manipulate consumers in subtle and gross ways. Rather than a factual, rational basis for buying a product, the intent was to introduce an emotional, non-conscious desire for something (or what the object represented: freedom, power, etc.). A common example is hiring attractive women to smoke cigarettes in public so as to reduce social stigma in order to sell cigarettes to the other half of the population. It is commonplace for "celebrities" to endorse a product in order to lure customers, with the most recent version being social media "influencers". The very label is indicative of the crass nature of the field, and a blatant (if unheeded) warning to individuals about what they are consuming. In recent years, there has been much made of 'building brands', discussions of what a 'brand' means, and how 'branding' builds customer loyalty. This can be seen in advertising slogans and campaigns going back decades, telling us we are part of something when we make the choice to buy one product over another (sodas or cars). All of this is actually just refinements on the original use of psychological discoveries to lure consumers and keep them "loyal", which is to say "spending their money with us instead of elsewhere". This is the basic concept of advertising: to turn individuals into consumers (a commodity to be drained of capital).

 

Now we return to the subject hinted at above, since this all seems to me related to the idea of "race". This notion of "race" was initially used to differentiate groups of people based on appearance and eventually to justify slavery. The seductive excuse of 'superior' and 'inferior' races, for instance: ones which possessed inherent traits that determined whether they were capable of reason or not. For a quick explanation of this, I highly recommend this TED talk. To this day, the discussion of race bears the mark of this origin; just by using the term, we are framing our conversation around an imaginary, outmoded idea of differences which do not truly exist. While advertising and "race" may not seem immediately related, allow me to conjecture a link. Bernays' version of ads are about utilizing psychological understanding in order to manipulate consumers and drive behaviors. The explicit goal is to collect more money; the underlying goal is to trap consumers in a system whereby their primary drives are used to steer them into choices, in other words: to exert control. Can the same be said for the concept of "race", or its concomitant, racism? Whereas advertising is a relatively straightforward process, the weaponization of "race" seems less so. I will rely on former U.S. president Lyndon Johnson, who most clearly expressed it thus: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." Again, while he is overtly speaking in terms of 'emptying pockets' of money, unpacking it reveals the real motive is power. He is speaking of the utilization of "race" as a means to drive citizens to give up their independence of thought, freedoms, and even rights in order to prevent some prophesied calamity due to an other "race". Again, this can be seen in history; one recognizable example would be the trope (at least in the U.S.) which sexualizes "black" men and creates a primal fear in "white" men about loss of status and potency. You likely know the name of Emmett Till, who is but one of many innocents who lost their life to this insidious lie. So there is no confusion: I am not excusing racism or racist behavior, only seeking to understand how it works; understanding something allows for change to that thing.

 

To resume this exploration of how "race" is used to control individuals, we must understand that while the idea is to place some group "superior" to another, neither is free as long as the structure of "race" exists. Just as the above trope illustrates, any supposed "superiority" must be jealously and closely guarded. This means that the "superior" group is trapped in a fight (with an imaginary foe, played out with real persons) and cannot have an unguarded moment, lest some sign of the falsity of their narrative be found out. After all, what would it mean for Johnson's "lowest white man" if they were just the same as that "best colored man"? Because we are looking at this through a (non-professional) psychological lens, we can recognize that these motivations can play out without conscious thought or direction. In fact, the strategy of racism, and subsequent control of racists, does not require any particular cohesion. Just inculcate a fear and hatred of some group, and let those motivators work on people; the results are stunningly predictable. This is terrible enough, but-as mentioned above-what is worse is that no one is free of this system as long as the concept of "race" holds sway. The greater risk is that a construct becomes an overwhelming force within society-something one can either work for, or against, but cannot ignore or escape.

An Expanded Letter To Gun Sellers

My father, uncles, brothers, and myself have all served in the armed forces. Outside of combat, there is no need or use for most guns. Even then only highly-trained and supervised individuals should be using these dangerous tools. Having assault weapons and high-capacity ammo clips available to anyone else is irresponsible profiteering at best and could be considered aiding terrorists in many ways. The moral thing is to stop all sales of anything other than single-shot, manual-action-bolt rifles used for hunting and legal sports. Simply hiding behind excuses of "there's no law against it" is cowardice and doesn't make a bit of difference to those shot and killed. What would be meaningful is to lead the way by demonstrating that human lives mean more than profits.

That is a message sent to legislative representatives, gun stores, and other retailers. Since I have a bit more space and leeway here, I thought I would expand on it. First, I trust that you know "assault weapon" here refers to automatic and semiautomatic firearms. These fire multiple rounds per second and, in order to maximise their potential damage, call for large "clips" of ammunition. The specification made above for a "manual-action-bolt" would force users to eject the shell and reload the chamber themselves for each shot. I recognise this goes beyond the calls for gun licensing and mandatory background checks, which seem to be the most strenuous and abundant of late. However, I acknowledge that all of these are just precautions to slow things down which offer the illusion of protection. I'm far more interested in solutions that address actual problems than messing about with superficial glossing-over or with appearing to do something. I'd much rather just do what needs done. I am going farther because I feel the only real protection is not having a threat at all.

Guns are a danger that we manufacture. Literally.

If we stop making them and destroy the ones that exist, that actually eliminates the threat. Yes, that is "extreme" and I'm comfortable with the notion. My point really is that all firearms are obsolete, the notion that we would need to shoot each other is a barbaric relic of our past. Of course, facing this requires that we address many other facets of our society such as socioeconomic inequality, ecologically-sustainable and equitable resource management, and the prison-industrial complex. Not popular this, as it's far too comfortable not to even acknowledge them. However, there is no single answer that will eliminate our societal ills. If we are going to make a difference, we need to get serious about how we take on these subjects and accept the hard work that making improvements entails. It's high time we did so.

Today I called my senator, here's what I said.

I'm calling to urge my senator to stop this healthcare travesty. We need real reform, not more compromise. I know that it's people like myself who end up dying and suffering over proposals like this one. For too long, necessary steps have been blocked by the vested interests who have grown rich off the labor of common, hard-working folks. At the same time these same individuals continuously promise us more than they ever deliver: in workplace safety, in food safety, in living wages, affordable housing-any housing!-yes, healthcare, or automobile safety, and on and on. More compromise in this case means more illness, more unnecessary pain and anguish, more death for people like myself. Our only offense is that we are forced by this system to work more than is needed to get less than is deserved. How can you honestly tell someone with two or three jobs that we don't deserve to have healthcare? That we are unworthy, just because we weren't born with a certain skin color or the "right background"? This, as with so many other things in our country, is a problem we are too long in finding an ethical, decent solution for. Instead we are forced to listen to more talk and excuses about "economic interests", about how "businesses can't survive", or "it's unfair to insurance companies". These entities are not alive, they don't matter when measured against the death of a mother or father whose disease was not treated in time, of one more child who goes hungry to pay the insurance, or one more brother or sister who slides into poverty under mounting medical bills. It's time to stop this insane practice of "we can't", it's time to say not only "we should", or even, "we can". It's time to say, "we will."

More Unedited Ranting

I recently sent this off to my representatives in the nation's capitol in hopes of illuminating and influencing them somewhat on the issue of energy:

I would very much like to offer some information along with my opinion about a couple issues surrounding this topic. First, let me acknowledge that I was alerted to the possibility of using coal-to-liquid-fuel (GTL) technology by MoveOn.org, and was surprised that this is open for discussion. I can only hope that it signals a change in direction that something of this nature is being considered. Secondly, I have recently read Joshua Tickell's book "Biodiesel America" and if you haven't read it or taken advantage of his knowledge and insight in some manner, I strongly urge you to do so. He has succinctly very well laid out information and choices, as well as evaluations of many fuel sources. Next, I very much believe that we have taken too many haphazard steps in securing sustainable, clean sources for energy and fuels. Consequently, we find ourselves in quite a bind and seeking more desperately than if we had begun a serious, earnest quest for alternatives sooner. Hopefully we have learned from this and will take the time to evaluate the possibilities and outcomes of the options we have at this time. It is clear that a number of these are untenable, that we need more than they have to offer. To whit, BioDiesel, GTL, and Ethanol are all fuels we can use and control which, with proper oversight, can be ours into the future. Likewise, Biomass, Geothermal, Wind, Solar, and Hydro power sources can be used in conjunction with each other to meet our needs. I list these specifically so that it is clear that I am referring to our renewable, sustainable resources. Finally, we need to diversify and decentralize our grid both to make it more reliable and less subject to failure (through attack or overuse), as well as to keep consumers closer and more involved in the regulation and production of our own energy.

Another unedited Rant: a message I sent to my Representatives

Whether we agree with this war or not, it has consumed too much of our valuable resources, not leastly including personnel. This is certainly not just an "election issue"-no matter how tired we became of it being pounded on by the candidates last Fall. Our nation cannot continue to bully its way through this complex issue, or just throw money (that we don't have, by the way) at it. Since this really is about the money, I'd like to take a moment to mention how truly absurd our military budget is-which is around 6 times larger than those of the next 5 largest military spenders combined, I believe? Yet we haven't enough money to continue to fund necessary programs for our own citizens. A nation is a collection of individuals working toward the betterment of all-not just a few elitists who think they deserve it. We regular citizens are the nation, the ones the government is meant to serve, and the ones who are meant to decide what our government does. I don't feel I need to remind you of these facts, I am confident in your perspective and motivation, yet maybe some of your colleagues have lost sight of this. The money funneled to the war is not going to the children in need in our own cities, or the women who are in danger every day, or those who just need a little help; our money is being spent to put more of our fellow citizens in danger-unprepared, unprotected, and needlessly into battle with an enemy our nation created. I say that we did this because I have had time enough (and the wherewithal) to read some of our country's real history. It is a fact that we have bases, both declared and secret, around the globe which were established to protect interests determined, also in secret, by our leaders for our 'benefit'. We are receiving the benefits of those decisions now: the attacks and killing in retaliation for our uninvited occupation of numerous other countries, our destructive interference in other governments' workings, our contributions to terrorists and terrorism, our spying and harrassing of individuals, our refusal to admit involvement and collusion or to be held accountable, etc. We should never have started spreading, and certainly should not continue to spread, this empire of hypocrisy. It can be no surprise to us that these people, who have suffered from our actions-or at least with the apparent approval of disregard-would wish the least form of redress: vengence. We have time, I hope, to offer these people an alternative to destructive recompence, but we cannot do this by continuing to trespass and meddle, to establish oppressive bases, and support tyrannical regimes. After all, it is our example they are following. We have shown them for too long how to terrorize, it is past time that we show them how to live peacefully and coexist.

Unedited Rant: the message I sent to my Representatives through MoveOn.org

I've been paying attention to both sides of this argument and can only say that this is obviously just a ploy to eliminate yet another part of the security net we have in this country for people that need assistance. The true purpose of being a "united" nation is that we care for one another- especially in tough times-and this administration is intent on destroying our ability to do that, as previous ones have as well. Further, it is not just the ability to shelter our weak, weary, poor, huddled masses, but taking away the will to do so by making it into an oppositional race to see who will survive: "us, or them". We cannot claim to be a civilized, higher-order society if we fail to provide for the basic needs of those in the society. No one is perfect, and no one can do it all, or all alone; this is the basis for clinging together, the origin of culture and social interaction. We have an obligation to do these things, and that obligation is all the more imperative when we are really caring for our own welfare. All "social programs" do this, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, and Social Security one of the few that is direct. We are paying for our "own" retirement already, we don't need to have a 'personal fund' to do it, my money pays for those who raised my fellow co-contributors, and we are raising the workers of tomorrow who will 'pay' for us. Money is not important, only people are important, the system works as it sits now. Please engage these ridiculous allegations now before people begin to believe the rhetoric, and help stop yet another mistake in the making by this administration! Thank you for your time.