Pioneers! O Pioneers!

Dr. Craig's post on Marxism has me thinking about various advertisements and the lack of critical thought exhibited by the general public.  In all of my thinking, one recent advertising campaign in particular came to mind.

Last year, Levi's jeans launched it's "Go Forth" advertising campaign.  The campaign was released with the hope of revitalizing sales, as the economic downturn had affected revenue.  The gist of the campaign is centered around the egalitarian sentiment that no matter what economic or ethnic background we are, the world is ours for the taking.  So essentially, put on Levi's jeans and realize your dreams are well within your grasp.  In addition to this rather vague egalitarian sentiment, there are a number of other ideals presented in the campaign.  The most interesting, and arguably infuriating, segment of the "Go Forth" campaign is a streaming commercial that was shown on television, accessible here..  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG8tqEUTlvs.

The commercial is played with the words from Walt Whitman's poem, "Pioneers! O Pioneers!" in the background.  It features the youth of America, referring to them as pioneers and calling on them - "go forth!" - to unite together in what can only be seen as some sort of revolutionary movement.  The beginning of the poem (which you can access here.. http://www.daypoems.net/poems/1969.html ), mentions the youth of America picking up weapons and preparing for battle, and eluding to there being no time to waste; action must be taken now.  Only a few seconds later is there mention of the rest of the world depending on an "us" - "all the rest on us depend."  In the video, "us" is presented as the youth of America, and indeed I think they are very much included, but the "us" that the rest of the world depends on is intended, here, to be the working class.

This may be more obvious if you have seen the rest of the ads in this campaign, which focus more on the working class of America. (I'm sure they showcase stuff like this on their website, for anyone who wants to take a peak)  In fact, Levi's has chosen a town in Pennsylvania that was hit particularly hard by the economic downturn as a site for a few of their "Go Forth" ads.  To show their "support" for the working class, Levi's has strategically placed billboards and other ads with "inspirational" slogans such as: "Ready to work," "Everybody's work is equally important," and my personal favorite "We are all workers."  Yeah, maybe they will substantially increase the pay of all the workers in their sweatshops, too.  Doubtful.  Levi's has successfully linked their brand of jeans with support for the working class.  I can't think of a better or more current example of the ruling class' exploitation of the working class for profit.  The recurring myth of the "American Dream" is more noticeable in these ads that are specific to the working class, though I do see some of this in the commercial as well.  The ruling class's implantation of the American Dream is just another way to exploit the working class, convincing them that if they only work hard, success will be theirs.  While the working class is hard at work struggling to reach the "American Dream," the ruling class is reeking the profits of their work.   

But, back to the commercial.  The irony here is that Walt Whitman's poem, at the time it was written, was about Manifest Destiny, the expansion of America, and the actual physical taking of land that was not ours to begin with.  But here in this ad campaign, it is presented as spurring a revolutionary movement.  The uniting of the youth of America, a rising up in battle, no time to waste...sound familiar?  It may be a leap, but I think that Levi's is presenting this poem about Manifest Destiny as a vehicle to associate their own brand of jeans with communist and revolutionary ideals.  One of the viewers of this particular showing of the ad on Youtube says, "I always get this feeling of wanting to do something great and revolutionary when i watch this, a rare triumph for modern advertising."  This commenter was not alone in that feeling.  Many of the other hundreds of comments said the very same thing. 

I think this differs slightly from Dr. Craig's example of the Communist Manifesto on display with hip, new jeans in the clothing store.  In Dr. Craig's example, ideas of revolution and radical change are appropriated by the ruling class to mystify and alter the perception of Marxist ideology so that it may work in favor of capitalism and in turn reproduce dominant ideology.  The example I'm proposing is a little more complex.  Although I do believe that the ruling class is appropriating revolutionary ideas in a way that makes the consumer associate buying Levi's jeans with taking part in this youthful/working class revolution, I think it is complicated by the fact that Whitman's poem was originally about Manifest Destiny, an ideal that was part of the dominant ideology.  It may be that the ruling class is trying to also mystify Manifest Destiny, possibly due to the brutal history of Americans viciously taking land that was not ours to begin with (a fact that is very often left out of poems such as Walt Whitman's), in order for "cool" ideas like Communism to be associated with these words.  Or maybe, and by the look of the comments under this video it very well could be the case, they were banking on the youth of America not realizing who the words in the background belonged to, let alone what they stood for. 

Regardless, in this example the ruling class has spun one or more narratives in a way that prevents the working class from realizing that they are being subjugated and brainwashed.  Yes, buy our jeans so that you may take part in this Marxist revolution, in which the youth and the working class will unite and rise up together.  No, by our jeans so that we can continue to make a profit through exploiting you, and in the process appropriate different oppositional ideas as a way to reproduce dominant ideology.  What a nice byproduct.

I guess you could call me a Marxist

When analyzing Stockhausen's statement, cultural socialization is a variable that needs to be considered.  Stockhausen is German, not American.  He is also a composer.  Already, he is in a context outside of American realist ideology.

Art may be defined as symbolic elements that are constructed, arranged and composed to affect human senses, emotions and rationale through activities, creations and modes of expression.  Art is also a displayed skill of mastery.  Stockhausen sees art as a skill of mastery, as composers practice, practice, practice to produce the most exquisite or alluring performance that has been the goal of their life.  For Stockhausen, the performance of September 11, 2001 was mastered within a single occurrence.  In his eyes, the magnitude of this single occurrence exemplifies what could be seen as mastery.  Because of his cultural context differences such as narratives and ideologies, his comment is seen as grotesque to Anthony Tommasini, who was born and raised in the United States of America.  Interestingly enough, Tommasini shares the musical capacity as Stockhausen; however his cultural context has been highly influenced and set by American jingoism.  Due to the branded value of the aesthetic image of 9/11, Tommasini expresses his sentimentally infused outrage of the event.

In this instance we could speculate that Stockhausen views the orchestration as apart from the superstructure; as really “art” outside the realm of American ideology.  We can allow ourselves to see “art” as relatively autonomous.  Because Tommasini is influenced by the American narratives of sentimentalism (created by the commemoration speech of Bush and his branded “War on Terrorism”) and because the New York Times is a media controlled by like minded individuals, the very idea of referring to the event of September 11, 2001 as “art” in the eyes of a composer is outside the sphere of recognizing it as anything but.

According to Tommasini, “art” is outside the realm of reality.  However, Tommasini’s reality is not Stockhausen’s reality, due to cultural socialization.  In defense of Stockhausen, Tommasini is flawed in attacking Stockhausen through explaining how he does not recognize “art” to be part of his reality.  To take the event of September 11, 2001 into another context and intellectual criterion is to go beyond the barriers of the instilled American propaganda.  Politically and cross-culturally, this image has promoted a controlled opposition, the war of our age: the Western World versus the Islamists.  By politically and aesthetically analyzing the event of September 11, 2001 as “art” is to go against the labeled promotion for the American team: if you’re not (all) with us, you are therefore a terrorist.

As a result, “terrorism” is a term that has been created by American narratives and propaganda.  The cultural anthropology is the root to discerning the terminology; “terrorism” becomes a politically charged term.  It becomes significant to indicate that the international community, or the United Nations, has been unable to agree on the definition of terrorism, suggesting the contingency of the term.  In lieu with this subject, the deconstructed and most plausible explanation for the term may be identified as the characteristics that compose the legitimate incentives of political groups.  The complication of this signification is the disrespect it may allude to family members and relatives of those who were killed in the event on September 11, 2001.

There is a separation between the “greatest work of art” that Stockhausen has understood as the event on September 11, 2001 and the Terrorist Attack of 9/11 that individuals subjected to the controlled media have come to know.  Clashes of political agenda and human-tied emotions have charged the 9/11 image to the American public.  The American realist ideology has managed to take an event that took the lives of 2,819 people and stir it with sentimental notions and conservative moral values through repetitive images of the World Trade Center towers throughout American media in order to validate a war that has now killed 104,595 civilians in Iraq.   Yes, expression of indignation at Stockhausen’s commentary is clearly called for. 

-Micha

The “War on Terrorism” has become its own hegemony.  The Bush Administration took advantage of its ability to manage what we hear and see in the media and used it to influence our perception of what took place and what needed to take place.  Phrases like, “It changed us forever” and “Good versus Evil” were on the cover of every newspaper and magazine for months to follow.  The aesthetic images taken at the WTC were seen over and over again on every news station and bill board across the country.  These are examples of the Administration's tactics used to control the flow of information that we have access to, in its effort to manipulate us into supporting the war.  

We were "rhetorically coerced" into believing that the war was necessary.  American ideology is clearly influenced by the politicial elitists that run our country.  Tommasini's reaction to Stockhausen's comment and his inability to see 9/11 as anything but an "attack" or "terrorist act" is a direct reflection of how his perception of 9/11 has been controlled by American Ideology. 

The influence of our government over our perceptions of events and ideas continues to exist today which is why it is important for us to develop skills in becoming critical thinkers.   The Marxist perspective encourages us to do just that.  Our current social culture discourages individuals from looking beyond what’s directly in front of them.   As described in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”, we need look beyond the shadows to find the true form of what is really in front of us.

- Jessica