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

The Words that died in My Lips



In the throes of death are the words I had
 in pensive thought weaved in my dreams,
Cascading in dreams of togetherness, they seem to merge in the effervescent mirth of vacant dreams.
With the expectation of expression
With a fervour to situate your world and mine
To move your senses
To create and critique you
To love and unlove you
To bury your dreams…in resurrection of such awful truths which lie buried in my self…
I create.

The words but start clamouring in the face of death,
Working upon the brink of my mouth,
curving it in awkward silence.
They sing a deliberate low hum against the stern firm edges of my lips,
Refusing to give in to your love.
What once was cascading in dreams of togetherness is left to feel small and faint in your humble greatness…
And I find myself looking beyond my broken reverie of words to find new words in you…