Friday, 21 October 2016

15 WAYS TRAVELLING BRINGS OUT THE BEST IN YOU

Ø Because you are spending money on an experience and not a thing, travelling has to bring the best in you! The mementos of memories you take with you linger on for long while. Your one journey will foster innumerable trips down memory lane.


                                 Image result for collect memories not things
                           



Ø Travelling keeps you young at heart because of the countless unprecedented changes you are confronted with in the course of your journeys! You are always one up against the other if you’ve a traveler’s  soul.
                  
                    I need vitamin sea.



Ø Travelling helps you come to terms with your own self and the world around you. You gain a strong perception of your surrounding   environ.          
                                     

                                  Image result for the mountains are calling i must go


Ø Travelling will bring the best in you by making you appreciate the smallest things in life: changing a tyre of your car with a friend or sipping a cuppa of warm tea by the hotel window.
                            
                           Image result for starting today i need to appreciate whats gone..

             >A traveler is someone who is not only a tourist. He is an explorer.  
                 

                            Image result for be a traveler not a tourist quote
                             
                                  

           
                 >Travelling renews your faith because you do things you wouldn't have                              dared in  your routine life!


              Image result for catching the hand before a waterfall


Ø Travelling makes you learn that it’s the journey and  not the destination which is important.
                                 
                                     Image result for one day alice came to a fork in the road




Ø For those always on the go, it makes you miss home and realize that the journey to your hometown is also a fulfilling experience.

                    Image result for terribly tiny tales #home  
                           

         >Travelling humbles you, as you have experienced a world of opportunities,               and been familiar with the unknown.
                            
    
                                  Image result for travel makes one modest


Ø Because sitting where ever you are in one corner can never bring the best in you! You have to move it!

             
                                       Image result for on the move with a bag
                                            
                           


Ø It brings the best in you as you get rid of your fuss and make do with whatever your backpack holds, well, atleast for a few days.
                                     

                                                 Image result for worn out shoes hiking


      >Because travel is….Explore. Embrace. Learn. Live.
                                
                                                Image result for travel is explore embrace
                                                         

Ø Because travelling broadens your perspective of life. And gives you a never say die attitude.
                           

                                      Image result for travelling broadens perspective       



Ø   Not only are you weaving your own story by travelling, by getting to live life in a new way you are also inspired to create something new.       
 
                                   Image result for travelling inspires to create       


Ø  And lastly because a travelogue is almost like your resume! Everyone must have one!  
                                       
                                          Image result for travelogue'
                                   

Monday, 12 September 2016

Identity- K.J Adames

    Image result for Identity by K.J Adames

 ‘Identity’ is a short film made in May 2012 by K.J Adames  on the lack of self identity in the modern world. The deceptive anonymity of the modern world 
is the theme of this short film.
Image result for Identity by K.J Adames
It is an interesting trajectory of a school girl from wearing a mask and saying ‘Today I found the truth’ to the point where she unmasks herself and says ‘Today truth found me.’

The course of this awakening is novel as she goes through a class on Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Caves.’  The Allegory Of Caves is a story based on Plato’s philosophical tenet of the ‘world of appearances’ vs. the ‘world of forms.’ The men in Plato’s caves have never seen sunshine. Trapped in their seats by chains, they have been forever living in a world of dark shadows. In the film, everywhere there are students roaming about in masks of deception, at times taking of one mask to reveal another one beneath it …these are Plato’s caved men blinded of reality... Even an ad on the school billboard has a poster depicting a masked woman, the caption reading ‘This is beautiful.’ Just as one of Plato’s caved slaves was released from the ‘world of appearances’ and let out into the ‘world of forms’ so that he could return back to the cave as the ‘enlightened one’ to teach his fellow cave mates the truth, eventually this young girl takes off her mask, reveals her true identity and is able to break the bounds of the deceptive masked world and be her own self.

A Woman wants to be the Protagonist of her Own Life: Time we #ShareTheLoad...

Typing in the Google search engine ‘What women want’ would most definitely tell you what women don’t want! In the hope of drawing inspiration from a few good  write-ups, to understand not only what I but women as a collective whole, felt about themselves I typed the following words only to be disappointed to know that what women wanted out of life was synonymous to what women wanted in a man. Similarly in articles on what men wanted, their desires were equated with what they were looking for in a girl. I think there are both men and women like me who want to be liberated from this regressive one directional heteronormative approach of the always-already need to be in a romantic relationship. The entire thrust of a man completing a woman’s identity is retrogressive in the least and humiliating in the worst.
 And why should a woman be ‘behind’ a man’s success? His own hard work and sacrifice must be behind it. A woman wants to be ahead of a man’s success! This common English phrase of a woman being behind a man’s success not only fragments the identity of the man but the woman as well who is an individual having her own narrative of success. A woman does want to find her Mr. Right, (though it can be a Miss Right too). But one can’t assume that she is incomplete and can only be regarded as a whole once she is united with a man. A woman wants to be loved, to be respected and recognized for her own worth. She is complete in her own selfhood and has a spirit which cannot be constrained, except only by the teachings of her mother. Surely the intimate space between two lovers can be enabling, can make her agentive and realize her own self better. But that's not all we want folks! 

A woman, to me is an institution by her own right. She does not simply want to be equal to men as the feminist propaganda would have it. She simply wants to be herself. She has aspirations of breaking conventional gender norms set deep in the patriarchal setup, which are engendered by both men and women and effect  both the sexes alike. For instance the trope of the ideal woman being the perfect householder demarcates stringent gender roles within the house not only for the woman but the man too, who is considered to be effeminate if he does the dishes or washes the clothes.
There's an advertisement of Ariel washing powder https://youtu.be/xogBz71IHAo which celebrates the dauntless spirit of women as multitasking the home and the world, uncomplaining and unperturbed. The narrative of the advertisement reads a touching letter of a father to a dual worker daughter, apologizing to her for never lending a helping hand to her mother, thus re-instating stereotypes of the gendered division of labour which has turned his daughter’s household into a mirror image of his own. However he realizes that its not too late. After all, if he couldn’t become the ‘king of the kitchen’ he could atleast do the laundry. With an enthusiastic vibe of reform, the father makes amends for what he and her husband’s father had done, washing their hands off housework. Tracing the seeds of gendered division of labour in childhood days of ‘playing house’ where the little girl would always cook and her brother would read the newspaper, emulating the reality of their parents, is the most powerful, silent truths having left unspoken until this ad was made.
The winning streak: A comment by a viewer of the video: “After seeing this I started to help my mother.”

Image result for ariel share the load

Until the world becomes gender sensitive and men want to do the dishes, she would be forever burdened by the home and the world...   

Wednesday, 24 August 2016

What really felt like gold- True sportsmanship at 2016 Rio Olympics!



India's P.V Sindhu lift up Spain's Carolina Marina to her feet, even after having been beaten by her at the Women's Singles Final at Rio Olympics 2016! Though Sindhu brought silver home, this gesture gave us Indians a feel of a heart of gold! 

What really felt like gold- True sportsmanship at 2016 Rio Olympics!

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL - AUGUST 16:  Abbey D'Agostino of the United States (R) is assisted by Nikki Hamblin of New Zealand after a collision during the Women's 5000m Round 1 - Heat 2 on Day 11 of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games at the Olympic Stadium on August 16, 2016 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  (Photo by Ian Walton/Getty Images) *** BESTPIX *** Photo: Ian Walton

Abbey D'Agostino of the United States (R) is assisted by Nikki Hamblin of New Zealand after a collision during the Women's 5000m Round 1 - Heat 2 on Day 11 of the Rio 2016

My views on the Salman Khan 'Raped Women comment'

Salman Khan's recent observation of his work schedule making him feel like a 'raped woman' was no doubt made without much(sensible) thought on the actor's part, as is being vouched for by many of his supporters. His careless tongue had also made another strikingly misogynist remark in the very same interview. While this has been less reported about, it clearly shows that Khan's thoughts aren't carefully thought out and irresponsible at the best but crude, insensitive, sexist and patriarchal at the worst.
In the very same interview Khan had regarded women synonymous to vice. As reported by Vagabomb, he ranted, "Leave every second vice in your list-that is the mantra I follow. And I have left everything one by one. When it was between coffee and cigarettes, I quit coffee. Between cigarettes and drinks I quit the stick.  Between the drinks and women, I have chosen women.”

If women itself symbolizes vice then he could have very well meant that he felt like a 'woman' when he said that those wrestling rehearsals for Sultan made him feel like a 'raped woman'.. A woman, a raped woman, has been slighted by reducing her to an enfeebled being. Her trauma has been slighted. She has been slighted.
My thought on this interview in brief would be, retweeting singer Sona Mohapatra (
#SonaLIVE @sonamohapatra), "Women thrashed, people run over, wildlife massacred yet‪ #‎Hero of the nation..Unfair. India full of such supporters."

The Dark Rooms leading to the Dark Mind...

      

Lights Out

David F.Sandberg
Image result for Lights Out

When the lights are out, David F. Sandberg drags us into the darkest crevices of an apartment where an insomniac boy Martin stays with his mother Sophie…why can’t the boy get a good night’s sleep?  Because they’re not alone...  A monstrous apparition follows them to these dark corners, a blackened silhouette of a woman named Diane, an unearthly creature who had befriended Sophie since their days together in a mental asylum.What appears to be the darkest nooks and corners of their apartment, where her imaginary friend Diane thrives, owing to her skin being diseased and sensitive to light, is in reality the darkest niche of Sophie’s depression driven state, having lost her second husband and being detached from her elder daughter henceforth. As Sophie’s daughter Rebecca intervenes, she finds herself to be reliving the childhood bedtime nightmares with her brother. Burying deep down into Diane’s past, can Rebecca understand how to ward off her sinister presence in her family forever?


Wednesday, 27 July 2016

Identities brewed in a cup, both social and individual-


Image result for chatting over coffeeWhat is there in a cup of coffee that makes it feature in the most clichéd pick-up line ever, “Can we go out for a cup of coffee’? It doesn’t remain a beverage anymore. It acquires the significance of bonding over a cup of coffee where the simple act of drinking coffee escalates into a space for social interaction. The object takes on a symbolic value once it is incorporated in our daily lives in such a way that  we may possibly forget to call our dad at the end of a busy day, but we can’t do without a mug of coffee to begin our day with renewed strength.
Drinking and eating has always been an excuse to catch up with old pals. But the coffee as a stimulant, having the habit forming substance of the drug caffeine, urges one to ritualize and regularize such hang-outs, with the rich aroma of coffee beans wafting through the air.
 The famous sociologist C. Wright Mills writes “The sociological imagination requires us, above all, to ‘think ourselves away’ from the familiar routines of our daily lives in order to look at them anew.” (Mills,1970) To elaborate his argument he goes at length in reading the act of coffee drinking. The social aspects around holding a cup of coffee in hand, with friends, or alone are enormous. How it opens up a space for conversation to flow is but obvious. What makes it even more symbolic is how an individual holding this glass of beverage gets heavily class marked from the moment he takes it up. This is because coffee is a drink that links people in some of the wealthiest and impoverished parts of the world; it being consumed in heavy quantities in wealthy nations while being produced primarily in poor ones. So while we don’t give it a thought there is a stark difference between sipping a cup of tea and a coffee. Your order will surely project your status.
Along with this, whether you choose a latte or an espresso, decaffeinated coffee or organic coffee asserts your status and your personality. An espresso is sure to make your date on the other side of the table judge you as a purist, unadaptable to change and resenting much experimentation. A latte might make you fit into another personality type, modernity being a paradigm of labeling you and making you fit in a box. Placing an order at a Starbucks café will again make you quite different from someone who enjoys coffee in a plastic cup from the chaiwallahs at the shack in the neighbourhood.
Pouring yourself a mug of strong coffee? Ask yourself who it makes you while your brew’s still hot!


The Topknot ties: Gendering of identities


While the depiction of symbols/icons of the male figure  in comic strips, ads and most glaringly in public washrooms enjoy a certain anonymity by being a plane stick/blob of black or white, women have been ‘marked’ by certain adornments since times immemorial. The frock, the heels, the handbag and the ponytail caricatured in the symbols of female representation always remind women that they have to take on certain frivolities as significant extensions of their beings. Women can’t be that plain stick or blob of black, their gender identities being adorned by signifiers of deep seated sexuality. Since the time of the classics, for instance, in Rapunzel we see how long hair becomes a potent source of the woman’s existence and is used against her to punish her for establishing a relationship with a man. Locked up in a tower by the wicked Dame Gothel Rapunzel would let down her beautiful long golden hair to let in her mistress but she is furious when she gets to know that other than her she has been meeting a prince alike.  As a punishment her hair is chopped off; for expressing her sexuality she has to give away the tradition marker of female sexuality. Transcending to more recent times we witness how an entire hair-care industry revolves around the different hair straightening treatments African American women. These women painstakingly and patiently go by these cosmetic surgical procedures to conform to the stereotypically attractive manner in which women wear their hair in USA, as illustrated in Chris Rock’s Good Hair (2009).  All because they can’t have a smooth and silky ponytail like the white skinned American women, cursing their cropped, curly hair? Well…have we really transcended? While it may sound like an unnecessary exaggeration, in the sexist symbol of the ponytail is grounded the contemporary discourse on rape culture being instigated by the way a women adorns herself. What women do with their hair or their bodies is the topic of much deliberation, unlike in case of men because we have never been exempted from the external adornments in caricatured representations.
While men are braving the topknot look with great panache, what about the iconography of the male figure in literature, in comic strips, in the doors of washrooms? Has the male stick even come to wear a beard or a tie? Hardly.



Saturday, 2 July 2016

MODERN TIMES- A CRITIQUE OF CAPITALISM IN THE FIGURE OF THE TRAMP.


Modern Times, a story of industry, of individual enterprise, humanity crusading in the pursuit of the American dream is, in Marxian times, life envisioned as a “standing fight against the process of abstraction of human labour by capital.” (Chakrabarty, 2000;60-61) It is a tramp’s life in the face of unflinching odds, marked with the angst of hunger and the hope for freedom, the domination of time and the tyranny of the machines. It is a narrative of pitting forth the comforts of the confinement of prison life over the uncertainties of societal life; therein lying the tramp’s critique of capitalism.
Just at the beginning of the film, a shot of a herd of sheep fades into a crowd of men emerging out of the subway terminal onto the streets, rushing to the factories. The dissolving of differences through the appropriation of a worker’s will, energy and labour time dehumanizes their identities. However in that herd of white sheep there’s a black sheep representing the unconventional worker, our tramp Chaplin. Though he lives in the context of his times and is bounded by the ‘framework of bourgeois relations,’ the hands of the clock having a firm grasp over the proletariats, the tramp is hopeful of climbing up the social ladder to a home of one’s own with a hungry, orphan girl he loves. This hope of Chaplin sustains him and his companion till the very end, even when they are both unemployed and absconding from juvenile authorities. Though he satires the effects of industry and how it fails humanist concerns, the tramp ‘maintains a unifying theme of survival in the industrial, post-Depressionworld’.(Eggert,2008;http://www.deepfocusreview.com/reviews/moderntimes.asp ) Thus, in spite of one among the herd, Chaplin, the black sheep is not abstracted to being an interchangeable element in the ‘generalized other’ of the body of workers. In ignorance he defies the discipline, the synchronization of labour time and the entire process of ‘capital absorbing labour into itself as though it were by love possessed,’ to quote Marx. (Chakrabarty, 2000; 57)
With the onset of industrial revolution, machines got bigger and much more than one person was needed to work on it. An enhanced synchronization was needed to keep pace with the entire ‘motive force of production.’ A reading of Marx in Dipesh Chakrabarty’s ‘Two Histories of Capital’ echoes the same thing, “The machine produces the technical subordination of the worker to the uniform motions of the instruments of labour. It transfers the motive force of production from the human or the animal to the machine, from living to dead labor. This can only happen on two conditions: that the worker be first reduced to his or her biological, and therefore, abstract body, and that the movements of this abstract body be then broken up and individually designed into the very shape and movement of the machine.” (Chakrabarty,2000;57)The effect of tightening bolts on the boards moving continuously in conveyor belts of a particular section at the assembly line production, has Chaplin’s entire body jerking violently and his hands twitching to the movements of the wrench on the bolts. Even when he’s off work, he unknowingly projects his bodily resistence to the ‘technical subordination’ and   ‘uniform motions’ of the machinery. The pathos is comically heightened when he is unable to keep pace with the increasing speed of the assembly line. Driven mad by the monotony of the tightening bolts he leaps into the moving conveyor belt, his body gliding through a clockwork of gears, inside. His body effortlessly bending to fit every curvature, the imagery depicts him to have become a cog in the wheels of industry.
 But no more is he to remain a perfect fit there. Soon we witness his affected critique of being subjected to the habit of regularized work. As soon as he emerges on the factory floor, his madness sends him into a whimsical frolic, twisting his wrenches on everything in sight that resembles a bolt instead of tightening nuts and bolts at the line. He starts pulling knobs and levers causing massive explosions at the control center. A rebellion against discipline, machine and regimentation, he goes about squirting oil in the face of workers, celebrating spontaneous living. An ambulance arrives to carry him off to the asylum. In the above scenes is a parody on Fordism. Henry Ford had introduced the automated assembly line in 1914, the device that led to unprecedented increases in productivity, strengthening the efficiency of the industrial world. Later when other car makers began to catch up with Ford, there was a general speed up of the assembly lines and a tighter supervision of the workers who were unable to talk to each other while working or walk at will to the washroom. [1] In the film, when Chaplin takes a break to relieve himself followed by a puff, a huge screen lights up with the booming voice of the President, ordering him to get back to work.
A company offering a new device, a feeding machine which’ll feed workers while they work at the line, approaches the President of the Electro Steel Corporation with the promise that by cutting off on lunch hours the feeding machine will ensure increased productivity, guaranteeing to be ahead of competition. Charlie is chosen to be the subject of the machine’s demonstration. At first things go smoothly and one by one food is shoved into his mouth by a mechanical arm, interspersed by the actions of an automatic mouth wiper. However the machine goes haywire; soup is flung into the air, the cob of corn rotates wildly from one end to another under Charlie’s nose and while the engineer goes to work on the motor, the machine shoves two iron nuts in his mouth, the very bolts with which he works all day. The President disapproves of the feeding machine commenting that, “Its not practical.” But the question is… would it have been practical even if it had functioned as intended? In the interest of increased efficiency of production the activities of human beings are becoming more like machines, such that even the lunch hours have to be automated. ‘Moments’ Marx writes are ‘the elements of profit’ and this capitalist system ensures that not a single moment is wasted.(Conklin,2014; http://www.theperipherymag.com/modern-times/ ) Time is money, it is no longer ‘passed’ but ‘spent’ as E.P Thompson projects in his essay  on Time Discipline, tracing the trajectory from pre-capitalist times of ‘task orientation’ to the capitalist’s notion of ‘time thrift.’[2] No longer do work schedules determine the succession of ‘moments’… It is the employer’s time and the machine’s speed which controls labour time. But in the figure of the tramp even this notion of spent time is critiqued in the way he sneaks in his companion in the departmental store and indulges in the luxuries of the store on the first night there as night guard. He skates away to glory with his companion, exploring the different floors in his ‘labour time.’ When he is reminded of having to ‘punch the time clocks’ at the store he meets with a few men breaking in the store. They say they aren’t burglars but are simply looking to eat and drink something at the store. His duties at the store give way to night long drinking and reveling with these starving burglars, only to be sacked next morning.  

The American dream is like an elusive mirage Chaplin is crusading against. Its root cause is the hegemony of bourgeois relations making workers believe in the ‘formal freedom’ granted by the contract. Though till the very end he boosts his own morale and his companion’s saying, “Buck up, we’ll get along,” we see he has had to move out of several jobs and even the last one, a singer in a café, which had at last tapped his abilities to entertain and mimic society. But the capitalist times wouldn’t let him be himself for long. The tramp and his companion is in deep faith of better times but in the air hangs a sense of eternal escapades, in contrary to their yearning for a constancy, domestic bliss and a surety of never going hungry.




REFERENCES

1)      Stephens, Gregory. 2011. Biting back at the machine: Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times. senses of cinema. No: 60
2)      Eggert, Brian. 2008. Deep Focus Review: The Definitives- Modern Times(1936). http://www.deepfocusreview.com/reviews/moderntimes.asp
3)      Conklin, Philips.2014.  A Marxist Reading of Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times. http://www.theperipherymag.com/modern-times/
4)      K. Bramann, Jorn.2009. Marx: Capitalism and Alienation- Modern Times in Educating Rita and other Philosophical movies. U.S.A: Nightsun Books
5)      Chakrabarty, Dipesh.2009 Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical difference. U.K: Princeton University Press
6)      Thompson, E.P.  1967. Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism. OUP. No:38  



[1]  For further insight on the manner in which assembly line production alienated the worker from his work and his own self see Jorn K. Bramman’s ‘Marx: Capitalism and Alienation- Modern Times’ in Educating Rita and other Philosophical movies, 2009.
[2] For further insight see E.P Thompson’s Thompson’s “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism,”1967; pg 56-97

Friday, 1 July 2016

The Myth in Brand Archetypes: Harnessing the underlying structures of the mind, in building the symbolic capital of commodities

            “Part art, part science, “brand” is the difference between a bottle of soda and a bottle of Coke, the intangible yet visceral impact of a person’s subjective experience with the product-the personal memories and cultural associations that orbit around it.”(Howard-Spink and Merriam Levy, 2002; 1)
Researching on the ubiquitous emergence of the post-modern consumer’s strong brand associations and brand loyalty underlying global consumption patterns and even post-consumption behavior, I was caught unawares by the vast plethora of literature on brand management and brand strategy in mainstream market research, invoking the symbolic significance of commodities through the use of archetypal imagery or spokes characters. No longer is the Marxian dualism of use value and exchange value sufficient in understanding the veracity of the product in the market; the symbolic value embedded by way of the brand value is what sells. Means-end rationality has become more nuanced, to incorporate the symbolic and cultural meanings as asset. Not only is purchase based on the principle of rational action theory, it is also based on symbolic association with the product.  As R.N Jensen says, “It will be no longer enough to produce a useful product. A story or legend must be built into it; a story that embodies values beyond utility.” (Howard-Spink and Merriam Levy, 2002; 2) An archetype, defined in general, is a universally familiar character or situation that transcends time, place, culture, gender and age. In Jungian vocabulary an archetype is a form or image of collective nature which occur practically all over the earth as constituents of myths and at the same time as individual products of unconscious origin. Advertising, in specific, uses these archetypal imageries to market products. Symbolism, if harnessed wisely, can create powerful brand icons. It is not just that ancient mythological symbols have to be called upon to position the brand…“over time the brand itself takes on symbolic significance” because “the best archetypal brands are, first and foremost, archetypal products themselves, created to fulfill fundamental human needs.” For instance, take the premium soap bar brand Dove which has the symbol of the bird dove engraved on its surface. The dove as an archetype is universally acknowledged to be the harbinger of faith and harmony, as well as purity and innocence. This bar of soap, thus, transcends the basic meaning of physical cleanliness to embody innocence, purity and faith making the brand meaning of Dove consistent with the deep symbolic essence of cleansing. Archetypes, “reflect our inner realities and struggles,” and are many a times implicit or dormant in our consciousness, aroused by external events like watching a commercial advertisement of a car or a motorbike (tapping the ‘Explorer’ archetype common in the consciousness of teenagers) that might trigger our urge for adventure. The proved assertion that nostalgic phenomena (further dependant on nostalgic proneness and age) determines consumption preferences show the need of evoking an universal image, a symbol of ‘the good old days’ which can instantly forge consumer-brand associations.[1]   Leveraging the archetypal meaning does not simply mean attaching meaning to a product. To quote Pearson, “This phenomenon is not about ‘borrowing’ meaning in an ephemeral advertising campaign, but rather becoming a consistent and enduring expression of meaning-essentially becoming a brand icon.” It is to become that archetype in itself by tapping at the unconscious symbols dormant in human minds, fostering ‘the missing link between customer motivation and product sales.’ In the post-modern market monopolies are a rarity and more so, to legitimize monopoly. Supplies exceed demand. There is a wide range to choose from. So, what makes a brand worth our attention? In previous times “leveraging the archetypal meaning was a ‘bonus’ to effective marketing”, now it is a pre-requisite and hence must be built and managed skillfully to compete with other brands in the market. The challenge in the market today is that brands cannot simply be built on product differences. No matter how unique a technique was employed in creating a product, it will be quickly imitated or duplicated by competitors from the same product category.  The symbolic capital is what is now the real asset, the ‘symbolic’ meanings the brand hold or are imbued with must be managed as carefully and consistently as financial investments as they are a company’s primal assets. It is when it manages its archetypal meaning consistently, that it comes alive for the consumer, now able to identify with the product. “Identity that succeeds at striking an essential human chord affect the most fundamental economic measures of success” especially in post modern times when society, devoid of sacred stories, have nothing to provide our culture with shared meaning accept these brand narratives encrypted in the products we consume, taking on a ‘quasi-priestly’ role.    (Mark and Pearson, 2001; 4-45)   
Symbolic capital resides in the mastery of symbolic resources based on knowledge and recognition, such as “goodwill investment,” “brand loyalty,” and so on; as a power that functions as a form of credit, it presupposes the trust or belief of those upon whom it bears because they are disposed to grant it credence. (Bourdieu, 2005; 195)   This power of brand loyalty, functioning as a form of credit, is best visible in how consumers express their intimacy in tending to give nicknames to their favourite brands, just as they would address their friends or relatives, Coke for Coca-cola, Mac D or Mickey D for McDonald’s or Bud for Budweiser beer. This shows how strongly brand association shapes the financial capital or the economic capital of a brand.
Since ancient times many forms of capital have been recognized as important and have provided those endowed with it, the ‘habitus’ to perform.  Bourdieu’s concept of the ‘habitus’ briefly implies a system of unconscious schemes of thought and perception or dispositions which act as mediation between structures and practice.[2] The markets can be described as ‘multi-dimensional social spaces’ where there are different forms of capital (economic, social, cultural and symbolic capital) that serve to be the building principles of these social spaces. Marx would call economic capital as ‘productive capital’ while the other forms would be, in Marxian vocabulary, ‘fictive capital.’ Studying brand image and brand culture we see how the power of the fictive resonates with consumer culture, echoing Bourdieu who would say that it is ‘culture which sets the context for all entities to operate’... to Bourdieu “even economic capital which is usually treated as given is socially constructed and culturally validated.” (Vlasic, Langer and Kesic, 2012; 195-196) 
Apart from the archetypal image evoked, positive brand attitude can be called forth by the use of spokes-characters or mascots in advertisements. As Garretson and Niedrich affirm, several studies have been undertaken to document the excessive use of these characters in promotional campaigns and their symbolic role in promoting products. The specific role of spokes-character qualities in shaping brand attitude is what Garretson and Niedrich further build upon. “Spokes characters are not cartoons originally created for cartoon programs or movies (entertainment) but rather, created for the sole purpose of promoting a product or brand.” It is a popular way of branding children’s products, as colourful imaginary characters are bound to lure children. For instance the spokes-clown Ronald McDonald, the big red haired mascot of the biggest hamburger chain in the world, is used by McDonald’s to market its food to children and for that it came under severe criticism. Mc Donald’s, however, after a period of break, revived its spokes-clown, saying ‘Ronald is not a bad guy - he's about fun, he's a clown. So I'd ask all you to let your kids have fun too…He represents the magic and happiness of McDonald's.’ [3] Building fictive symbols by way of non celebrity, animated spokes-characters is not a typically modern phenomenon. Rather it is an age old practice of bringing forth positive imaginative or fictive associations with the brand through building a character which will be the representative character of the brand, imbuing it with a certain personality by building in it certain human like qualities. Thus the qualities of these characters inspire in us a trust like that of spokesperson trust. Since the spokes-character becomes the face of the brand, it has to be relevant to the functional use of the product, evoke in us nostalgia, a yearning for our childhood, and ensure brand expertise/knowledge to inspire positive brand attitude via character trust.[4]
“When a brand transcends the typical, the functional, and establishes a personality so strong that it can permeate collective consciousness, it is possible to move into iconic status.” (Roberts, Candice, 2010; 8)
 What does it mean to permeate the collective consciousness of society? Is the spokes-character or archetypal imagery, used as an universal, useful in resonating with consumer choice? Can branding at all be a cross-cultural universal technique, as international marketing asserts it to be?[5] Taking a cue from Theodor Adorno’s “The Culture Industry,” I say that the consumer consciousness is itself vacuous, being replaced by conformity. Such is the power of the dominant ideology of the ‘culture industry’ today, that these global branding techniques are bound to succeed. Why they are not contextually tuned to space and time is understood in the way big brands consume our identities, no matter where the consumer is located in space and time. They do succeed in the ploy not because they, as per the ethics of building brands through the power of archetypes, create products which themselves embody archetypal meaning but because they attach it with a higher order of symbols and images only to lure the consumer in a trap of conforming to the familiar. The spokes-character, popping up, in newspapers, television, online websites, follow us everywhere. With the expansion of the ‘mass media’ culture industry can market its goods more effectively.  As Adorno says, the word ‘mass’ is a deceptive tool to make us believe that mass culture, mass media, or in our reference,  brand culture is  a culture or media ‘aris(ing) spontaneously from the masses themselves.’ However the culture industry simply ‘fuses the old and the familiar into a new quality,’ fusing archetypal imagery or nostalgic driven spokes character into brand identity, so the ‘incessantly new which it offers up, remains the disguise for an eternal sameness.’ The products, which are believed to be customized for our consumption, reflecting our needs, are actually ‘manufactured more or less according to plan,’ determining the nature of our consumption to a great extent. [6]
 Holt(2004) says that “iconic brands provide extraordinary identity value because they address the collective anxieties and desires of the populace” (Roberts, Candice, 2010; 21-22)
Adorno, according to my reading of “The Culture Industry would say that the brands, universally, have great iconic, symbolic value only because ‘the world wants to be deceived,’ caught between ‘the prescribed fun supplied by the culture industry’ and the ‘doubt about its blessings.’ They embrace the products of the market out of an addiction, knowing their purpose, but feeling intolerant as soon as they ‘no longer (cling) to satisfactions which are none at all.’ We know how high the calorie count of a bottle of Coke is, yet we can’t resist a sip, and yet another…




[1]  For further elaboration look into Morris B.Holbrook’s “Nostalgia and Consumption Preferences: Some Emerging Patterns of consumer Tastes, 1993; pp 245-246
[2]  For further elaboration on Bourdieu’s concept of the habitus and its locus in the family, tangible in cultural forms of taboos, customs etc  see Mary S. Mander’s  “Bourdieu, the Sociology of Culture and Cultural Studies: A Critique,” 1987;pp 428-432
[3]  For further reference to this newsclip see  www.dailymail.co.uk
[4] For further insight on the effect of spokes-character on brand image and  how character trust mediates between brand experience on one hand  and character expertise, character relevance and character nostalgia on the other hand, see Judith A.Garretson and Ronald  W.Niedrich’s, “Spokes- Characters: Creating Character Trust and Positive Brand Attitudes,” 2004 ; pp 25-36
[5] ‘Beyond branding as a universal technique,”  a sub section in Julien Cayla and Eric J. Arnould’s “ A Cultural Approach to Branding in the Global Marketplace,” 2008; pp 87-89
[6] “Culture Industry Reconsidered” in Theodor Adorno’s “ The Culture Industry: Selected essays on mass culture,” 1991; pp 98-106