W109SS08

The readings covered in class have provided an outlook on how mass consumption has evolved throughout American society after World War I. Each reading shows how the American population have been exposed to a reoccurring theme of manipulation by appealing to their needs and desires. Experimentation with controlling the mind became an essential tool for big businesses when it came down to selling their products to the masses.
One thing that I noticed was that the tactics described in the reading materials in order to used to sell products to the masses contributed to the blurring between the necessity of certain products to survive and a want of a product to fulfill the desire owning a luxury. This also lead to an increase change in the way of thinking. Their was a claim that mass consumption created individualism for people because they had a variety of choices, but I believe that the people began to think in a collective manner for the reason that they had many choices and valued expensive products as a sign of prestige, and so to be like everyone else people would buy a certain product.

Philip Cushmen states that “Credit is only necessary when the individual’s wish to buy outstrips his or her capital. Individuals do not wish to buy if they do not perceive a need for a product. But with an empty self people always need” (20). This sentiment reflects the increasing credit crunch in our society. People are buying more of what they cannot afford and as a consequence are piling up mounds of debt. This process is not only bad for the individual but it is bad for the economy as a whole. More and more families are purchasing homes with low or no down payments and do not have the income of the fiscal responsibility to pay off their mortgages with the interest rates.
This practice of no points down on home loans and the ubiquitous sub-prime lending practices have crashed the housing market with countless foreclosures. The consumer society is urging individuals to follow the “American dream” of owning a huge house, but most cannot afford the homes they have. The Fed’s decrease of interest rates will not help those who have mounds of debt because they have no hope of ever repaying. It hurts those who were responsible and saved their money by diminishing returns on investments. The consumer society of the housing market hurts those who fall victim to the incessant want and need of unaffordable homes and those who tried to be reasonable and save their money.

Edward Bernays is crowned as the man who initiated the idea of mass-brainwashing, or as he coined the term for the title of his book, Propaganda. He justifies altering the entirety of United States lifestyle in the 20th century by making arguments of capitalism: in his book, he states that there must be “a way to make free competition function with reasonable smoothness” (12). I believe this statement is ingenious; Marketing and advertising embrace that very idea and induce competition. In that sentence alone, Bernays went from being a philosopher to an influential icon. By endorsing “free competition,” the introduction of propaganda was a certainty, and therefore his ideas and words were equivalent to the United States mint.

I find it alarming that Edward Bernays claims that, "We're governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of" (9). This is disconcerting, for Bernays suggests that we are ruled and influenced by an oligarchical cabal of individuals who pursue their own introverted agendas. This directly contradicts my perceptions in that the individual citizen has some, albeit, limited power and that we possess some faculties of choice . To claim that people are merely drones who follow premeditated trends seems a bit too underrating. Perhaps to some degree it is true. People have been influenced and brain-washed for as long as we have existed. Yet, the concept that I find hardest to grasp is that this manipulation occurs on such a large scale.

Then Philip Cushman's assault on the current notion of the "self" raised several interesting points. The idea that the "self" is subject to culture, as there in no universal standard of being. The idea that is especially intriguing, is that this current "self" is the result of ultraconservative, Victorian movements of the 19th century. While the statement is bold , and may hold some merit, I seriously doubt that it is prudent to hold the mores of the Victorian era as responsible for the current consumerism of our era in order to satisfy our "empty self." Which brings up another good point. What exactly is the "empty self" and can it be applied so liberally and universally like other aspects of Cushman's argument?

People are largely defined in our culture by what they purchase. Subcultures are often little more than subscribing to a different set of consumer goods - different clothes, different music, different cars. Maybe you have tight jeans and wear chains or maybe instead you drive a truck and wear a jersey. Friends often are those who subscibe to the same consumer mindset as you, cementing in these product identities and giving rise to the corporate-sponsored subcultures. The drive to accomplish something groundbreaking and important seems to be diminishing amongst the majority of the population. What defines the individual in today's society? What avenues does one have other than product purchases to create an identity, a self?

The so called 'life-style solution' effectively turns our attention to the unconscious manipulation of the simple public opinion and consumer desire through the mass media. The new social and technological complexities have allowed consumer society to be inadvertently controlled by the advertisement world through ads that criticize mediocrity while glorifying an impossible standard of beauty. Today's society, the 'empty' postwar era of lost souls, seems to constantly and unconsciously yield to the coercive guidance of the mass media, thus issuing an immediate remedy for a 'glorious, problem-free life.'
Philip Cushman regards this type of alteration of traditional culture as "a pseudo-culture that promises and instant illusory cure, a 'transformation'" (21). This fuels the idea that consumer society is in constant need of material possessions to have the 'experience' of an ideal lifestyle, thus, generating the notion that a fulfilling life is entirely consumable and attainable by the means of purchasing that lifestyle.

Edward Benays has been known through centuries as the mastermind behind propaganda. He became famous for understanding the minds of the crowds and manipulating them to believe that their desires should overshadow their needs. Through the concept of propaganda, corporations and others investing in it, are able to persuade the thoughts and opinions of the public. Propaganda shapes the consumer society to invest more on superficial things, with the idea of making them seem more appealing in society. This mass manipulation has consequences, which are not always beneficial to the consumer, such as credit debt because people are maxing out their resources to comply with propaganda.
Along with this idea of propaganda comes Cushman’s theory of the “empty self”. Cushman believes that the “empty self” is an outcome of the consumer society in which we live in today. Consumers find the need to fill this void by purchasing unnecessary products or engulfing the lives of celebrities. As Cushman states, “ One of the wealthiest nations on earth is also one of the emptiest.” (24) which is true when you realize how much importance an individual places on how he/she is perceived by others in society.

It is very interesting to learn about all of the forces that influence the public mind. Some of these forces can overtly affect us on a day-to-day basis but can be difficult to avoid. I feel that way everytime I pick up a tabloid magazine to catch the latest celebrity gossip or, better yet, when I refer to a celebrity by their first name. It is as if I think that because I hear and read so much about their lives that I know them on a personal level, which is a pretty frightening thought. This obsession with celebrities or these "ideal figures" just reinforces Cushman's idea that our culture values the "continual consumption of nonessential and quickly obsolete items and experiences" (16). There is really no greater value for someone to know what happens in a celebrity's life, but yet somehow it tends to make people believe that it fills a certain void.
Another scary thought is that many people know that buying into these tabloids and other such magazines are pointless, however sometimes we just cannot help ourselves. We should know better but have been surrounded by such a superficial reality all our lives. Once one has been raised within such a consumer-driven society, I feel like it is difficult to change the dynamic and priorities of that entire society.

We live in a society that relies on mass media in order to receive current news and facts about the things we should be aware of. Most people today would agree that in our country the mass media is mostly concerned with making money; a majority of which comes from advertising. Television advertisements persuade their target audience to buy their products, use their services, and try their ideas; all of which contributes to the “propaganda that exists on all sides of us, changing our mental pictures of the world” (Bernays, p. 26). As a whole, we have put our trust in the media as an authority to give us news, education, and entertainment. I think that the media connects the world to certain members of humanity which reproduces the self-image of our society, now an image of emptiness.

The media has a strong social and cultural impact on society. The influence on media in our society today has a great influence in the changes, attitudes, and beliefs of cultures. I feel that as our world grows we are becoming what we consume. We have an obsession of consuming goods that are no longer a necessity but rather a “toy for play,” a luxury, in other words, something we don’t need.

The materials covered in class have been both intriguing and alarming. In first two readings, Bernays claims that "we are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of,"(9). Bernays describes a small group of elites whom he calls "invisible governors" who control our behavior and thoughts through the use of propaganda. Furthermore, in the movie watched in class, Bernays conducts an experiment and comes to the conclusion that people make an emotional connection to a material product -even if the truth behind the advertising of the product is irrational.Cushman makes a similar point about advertising. He claims that it is a small group of psychotherapists and head advertisers that shape our identity as a mass and control our thoughts and actions. He goes on to assert that the modern self is empty and must try to compensate with consumer items that are advertised to the public.
While the two articles and movie are not exactly parallel, I thought it was particularly interesting that both Bernays and Cushman firmly believed that our choices and reasons for purchasing products are controlled by a small elite. I am not sure if I believe Cushman's theory of the empty self as a "product of the times" (17). However, Bernays use of advertising through celebrities and product placement is incredible. Although the idea appears obvious and too easy to see through; it clearly has an effect and has been proven to work! His experiment of cigarettes marketed towards women as "freedom torches" is a prime example. Examples of the same phenomena can be seen in adolescent and young females today; one example being the overly large sweater trend that the Olsen twins appear to have set. All of the articles and movies have been thought provoking and even unsettling.

During Edward Bernays life, society changed immensely, in part because of him. During the Victorian era, as discussed by Philip Cushman, people were “secular, rational, subjective, divided, sexually conflicted” and “viewed the world as objectifiable and quantitative” (Course Reader page 18). The people of this period were quiet and did not buy things because they seemed ‘cool’ or because they felt the product would fill them up. In this period, they did not feel they were empty, thus they did not have any ‘emptiness’ to fill. Consumers only purchased items that were necessary because they thought rationally. Even those in the upper echelons of society did not purchase items that were unnecessary or had useless frills. In the early nineteenth century, Edward Bernays began to advertise in ways to appeal to consumers irrational thoughts. Things that appealed to people’s irrational thoughts are often unnecessary items that do not last for long periods of time. People began to consume large amounts of useless items because they were convinced by Bernays that the products would complete their lives. After World War II, this type of consuming became the focus of the United States economy.

According to Edward Bernay, "Small groups of persons can, and do, make the rest of us think what they please about a given subject" (Propaganda, 31). Because of the the power of advertising, as revolutionized after World War I, the minds and wallets of the population are completely controlled by powerful multinational corporations. Yet, we rarely take the time to contemplate who is behind the advertisements that drive our desire to consume and how much power they actually hold. As seen by Nazi Germany and general trends of our consumer society, the power of propoganda, either used positively or negatively, can completely reshape the beliefs and actions of a society. With all of this power lying in the hands of a chosen few executives and advertisers, we, as a society, put our lives, our bank accounts, and our happiness, into the hands of a nameless, faceless group of people. And despite the power these individuals hold over us, and their ability to do as much wrong as they can do good, we cannot break free from their rule because we, as members of a consumption-centered society, have become completely dependent and reliant on the influence of the mass media and advertising. Now, we can't help but wonder, if it weren't for advertising, would we be able to actually determine what we want or desire, or, if advertiing were to disappear, would we be even more lost and without direction as to how to satisfy ourselves?

It is a play on our desires that fuels the advertising industry to motivate us into purchasing goods that we do not really need. In the book Propaganda by Edward Bernay he says “propaganda does exist on all sides of us, and it does change our mental pictures of the world”. This is true for today’s consumer society. Everywhere you look there is the push for the purchase of goods, from television, radio, product placement and celebrity endorsement consumerism is everywhere. This constant over stimulation of products aids in advertising enforcing the advertising messages presented.
It is our desires that motivate us to buy products that we do not need. In the documentary “Century of Self” they emphasized that in the early days of propaganda it was a shift from needs to desires that made a huge impact in advertising and created a new outlook on ways to persuade consumers. The advertising executives actually have the ability to shape our desires and make us believe that we need products because they are in style. It is this ability that makes advertising so effective, because they are able to manipulate our desires so effectively; we begin to think that our desires are our needs. This transformation is crucial, because it is what dives consumerism.

Cushman writes that "lifestyle has become a product that sells itself, and the individual has become a consumer who seeks, desperately, to buy" (22). This statement struck a chord within me, as just earlier today I was watching a reality TV show called Real Housewives of New York City. As the title suggests, the show simply follows the lives of wealthy families in New York, paying particular attention to the wives/mothers. What's the point of watching a show like this? Or any shows of the like? As my roommate once said, it's the closest we can get to "seeing how the other half lives". But there has to be more to this claim.

Cushman and Bernays raise what I believe to be complementary viewpoints regarding the overly eager and almost hungry nature of the masses with respect to the lifestyles of others. Cushman refers to us as "empty" and "sick", because we repeatedly go to great lengths to get that sweater the model or woman on TV was wearing during the fifth episode of season two so that we can temporarily feel "full". The truth is, however, that we are insatiable not by choice. The "invisible governors" that Bernays refers to are to blame for our incurable materialistic disease. What's worse, it seems as if the issue is not that we simply want the life of the model-- we want the life of the model because we feel that our own is no longer good enough.

It is frightening to think of the power that propaganda has demonstrated upon modern society. Bernays presents propaganda as the tool in which a leader can create public acceptance for a particular belief, and states that “virtually no important undertaking is now carried on without it” (10). Humans are social beings, and as our interactions with others and society as a whole certainly remain a factor in the shaping of our identities, we consequently tend to formulate our definitions of self in relation to others. Cushman’s article presents the argument that individuals of our time have come to rely on continuous “consumption of nonessential and quickly obsolete” tangibles to fill a void that has developed within the selves of our society (17). He employs the advertising and self-improvement industries as evidence of the consumer society that drives our nation’s economy. Both articles present evidence that the individual has lost a great deal of power in the formation of lifestyle choices and personal values.
The texts have caused me to contemplate which aspects of personal identity an individual still maintains the power to define for oneself. I think that Cushman presents a very convincing argument regarding the context of culture in the definition of the self, and I believe that each era encounters various struggles in the ability to create identity with regards to the influences of powerful ideals and leaders that prevail across different time periods. To understand the reasons behind the current success of propaganda and society’s ability to convince the consumer that he or she is always “empty”, advancements in the communication sphere are mentioned and are likely an imperative element in these kinds of influences. The economic hardships of the consumer society are already beginning to reveal themselves, and are likely to worsen, proving that such manipulation of the public mind comes at a great cost.

Info I will use for my paper: Consumer decisions are based on emotions rather than rational information. For instance, someone would probably be more willing to buy a trendy toothpaste that Angelina Jolie promotes rather than a toothpaste that a scientific staff confirmed prevents certain diseases. Ad agencies prey on this weakness and appeal to the emotional side by getting Angelina Jolie to promote something irrelevant like toothpaste or half naked ladies to promote alcohol. But what does Angelina Jolie know about toothpaste? And why would someone choose Sky Vodka just because a half naked lady is holding the bottle?

People choose their apparel carefully to represent who they are. This leads to stereotypes that may or may not be true. However, some of these characteristics bond people together. For instance, a guy in an Abercrombie and Fitch t-shirt with cargo shorts and flip flops seems like an ordinary, laid-back guy. He probably knows a few chords to songs, esp. ones by Jack Johnson. He is probably a decent surfer as well and gets pretty decent grades. Someone who smokes might be labeled as a "smoker." This acts as a brand name to distinguish the person from non-smokers. She probably has a care-free attitude, cusses frequently and perhaps has dabbled in some illicit drugs. No matter if these stereotypes hold together or not, some could be true. Chances are, if our A&F man meets another A&F man, they will probably have a lot in common. Same with fellow smokers. Though stereotypes formed by consumption may seem trite, they hold some validity and may come in handy when trying to make new friends. Humans naturally stereotype- but this can act as a shortcut sometimes... I'm not sure if that makes as much sense to anyone other than myself but it is late..

After reading Bernay’s article on propaganda I have come to agree and disagree with some of his points. I fully recognize that “ a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smooth functioning society” (Bernay 1). In order for large masses of people to work together and accomplish things such as a steady economy, a safe environment and a place of freedoms propaganda will be involved. When there is a large number of people who all have the same equal vote propaganda is needed to reach out and expresses views and opinions on certain issues. Without propaganda the ideas to gain support would not exist. For example the Go Green campaign currently in progress it is not a negative thing it is to better out society. Yet it still needs propaganda to convince our society to join in. They need Go Green advertisements to show the public what there idea is. Often times the word propaganda has a negative connotation that makes us think about Nazi Germany and World War Two. I’d like to argue with all those who feel propaganda is a negative word. I feel it is a positive word in many scenarios. Propaganda is used to have people join groups to fight HIV, to fight global warming, to raise money for cancer and many other great causes. Propaganda allows for issues to be show to the public in many ways such as television, radio, newspaper, songs, internet. I think without all of these sources many important messages would be lost. For the most part I feel propaganda is a voicing of a some kind of message and not a brain washing tactic as some view it.

I find the art of mind control extremely amazing. Individually, we are exposed to so many stimulus throughout the day - pushing us one way and pulling us another. Yet, we still find a way to make decisions. These are explained in raw context by Edward Bernays who, even with an underlying negative tone, manages to dissect and explain the human process of being controlled in its most simple form.
The material we have studied thus far has just gone to show us that as human beings we are not the ones really in control - as much as we would like to think so. Our individualistic traits are really wants that are advertised to us, ones that we think will make us individuals. However, there is always a reason we bought into the trend. So, is what we have studied a trend in this class - the viewpoint of all the students. Is there room to debate Bernays and Cushman into saying that we are individuals? It seems everyone in 109SS now has the same viewpoint - we are governed by an invisible hand, we are brainwashed to desire what we want. Our opinions molded by literature and theory once again; everyones doing it.

In consumer society, people live in contact with propaganda everywhere and propaganda has a crucial power to control the masses. One of Funk and Wagnalls’ Dictionary definitions states that propaganda needs “public support” to function (p 8). However, since propaganda itself is originally created to convince the masses to achieve its main ideas or ultimate purposes, it actually controls the masses without the support. Since the masses follow with propaganda’s main purposes, each individual of the masses adopts its current trend and characteristic as their own and as a result, the society becomes homogeneous. This propaganda convinces people to retard themselves by being imitative of others or majority’s favor. Consequently, propaganda destroys the uniqueness of individuals that which is totally immoral and must change for the better.

If we are to consider a prominent trend throughout human civilization, then it is important to note that humanity has never been especially adept at handling technological innovations with a maturity that benefits the species over some kind of elite. As a society, we can prolong erections but can only answer cancer with radiation, our anti-depressants could facilitate buffets while the majority of the world dies without AIDS medication or even an adequate supply of condoms, food can be genetically engineered but the world cannot be fed, the war after the war to end all wars met peace with an atomic bomb.

Bernays could sell consumerism but not the League of Nations, and this is telling because consumerism in a society is not an inherently bad thing, but, as the readings suggest, an exploitation of misery met with opportunism and dogmatic shift from one set of virtues—perceived integrity and self-sustainability—to another—instant gratification. The benefit this has for an “invisible elite,” which invokes trends to push its unnecessary fruits on an unsuspecting but willing majority, is fostered by said willingness. Mainly, people choose consumerism with the hopes of being assimilated and therefore being better able to communicate with others, to erode feelings of isolation, to “win friends and influence people.” The invisible elite may be greedy and manipulative, but this does not disengage the notion that we have evolved as a consumer society because we as a society chose superficial answers to problems that products could have never answered for us. In effect, we took the placebo. As Homer Simpson says, “It takes two to lie: one to lie and one to be lied to.”

Considering the current state of our governments’ relations with private corporations, the outsourcing of social needs such as health care, the prison system, financial aid for students, and war-time services, it is difficult to deny that we as a society have crossed an ethical line between corporate interests and the government, an elite of its own, and that the people have granted tacit consent under the pretense of cuter clothes, bigger cars, and a chance at sex appeal. We might call our current system of catering to consumerism Fasco-Capitalism and remember the lessons of the past. In a farewell address, George Washington warned of the entangling political alliances which would yield to world wars and foster a two-party political system. Eisenhower, in another farewell address, warned of a military industrial complex which would shift power to corporations whose necessity to stay in production would change our governments interests and require a new opiate for the new masses.

The consumer society, from its Machiavellian father, to its continued study in current times of economic worry, has had ore influence on our lives than most any other issueand has led to much controversy such as the "Progress Paradox", to its affects on the environment, to capitalistic evangelism, and to criticisms of moral depravity in business and in culture. Bernay introduced everal milestones for modern advertising and consumerism and is accreditied for introducing business and politics to the praxis of propaganda and consumerism. His ideas on propaganda have had major influences on the criticisms and defenses of the consumer society, as well as Hitler's propaganda on National Socialism (Nazism). Of such criticisms of the consumer society, the idea of a moral depravity and sub-conscious "emptiness" is included.

Even before the age of sixteen teens have enough things to define who they are. Clothes, iPods, and other material things determine who they are and how high they can rise on the social ladder of popularity. But when the age sixteen hits, they have something entirely new to worry about: getting a car. Their decision affects how people view them and creates their label for the next however many years until they start the process over again and get a new car. But this judgment isn’t reserved only for new drivers. Men and women across the nation are also labeled by what they drive, whether it is an SUV, truck, sports car, hybrid, or any other type of car. Because of this, people have started to label themselves by what they drive and the car has become a way to represent yourself.

I’ve been thinking about whether it would be possible for us – that is, common citizens – to break out of the consumer culture. If we say that the consumer culture was designed around making people give their money to organizations, then we might think about studying rebellions against this culture. The only one I can think of right now that is even moderately successful is the computer open source movement, which has had great success creating free software that matches or beats its commercial rivals in terms of performance. Even they don’t have the goal of fighting the consumer culture; their goal is to fight against what they consider the releasing of bad software in the service of a bottom line, which is only one aspect of the consumer culture. Finding organizations that are fighting against the consumer culture may take some time.

I’ve also been thinking about the use of word choice to convince people to buy certain things, and there’s one pattern that I remember seeing. A credit card is actually a kind of instant loan; you get money from the credit card company and you pay interest if you don’t give it back. However, I’ve never actually heard anybody refer to credit card money as a loan; neither the companies or those who talk about the dangers of credit cards. The first organization I can understand, but why doesn’t the second do so? People understand loans, and understand that you must be prepared to pay back loans. Associating credit cards with loans would be helpful in teaching people to be cautious with them. What other kind of words are in common use (or not-so-common use) here?

In the article Propaganda written by Bernays, he states that the “invisible governors…pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world. I believe that this is true because society is highly influenced by people we do not even know. Society, now of days, has a tendency to follow the crowd and agree with the cultural norms and around them. Many of us are influenced not only by these “invisible governors” but also by their propaganda. In the article, Why the Self is Empty, Cushman explains that people often have and “express inner emptiness in many ways.” I believe by having this inner emptiness, people are influenced to try and deliberately go along and agree with all sides all propaganda, such as advertisements, just to fill in their need of emptiness.

The attitudes of personal consumption in western society have changed dramatically since the beginning of the twentieth century. This collective attitude has changed from one of necessity to desire. Before the twentieth century, people had fairly limited capital which forced them to buy only what they needed to survive. With advances in mass industry that came after both world wars, higher levels of disposable income, and freely available credit, westerners now buy what they desire along with their necessities.

This new pattern of consumption led many producers to fear that people would soon have everything they wanted and stop consuming altogether, affectively leading to a collapse in their industry. They sought out new ways to encourage continuous spending. Among these new methods were new forms of advertisement that sought not to show necessity, but rather fashion and status. By associating a product with a celebrity, good feeling, or status symbol, companies sought to encourage continued spending. This new method of advertisement is not intended to appeal to a consumer’s logic for needs, but instead attempts to make them feel an improved sense of self through identification of what a product represents to society.

The readings for the class addressed various aspects of the consumerism trend that has been dominating our society since the end of the Second World War. At the root of consumerism is the shift from purchasing necessities to purchasing items that are not necessarily practical for day to day lives but those that make the individual feel better in one way or another. This shift has also lead to a new phenomenon when individual’s identity has largely become dependent on his possessions. This trend seems only natural because since individuals buy items that appeal to them in some way other than their practical aspects, by looking at those items people can tell quite a bit about one another.

At the root of consumerism lies advertisement or propaganda as some choose to label it. The readings highlight advertisements’ extraordinary ability to sway masses. Advertisements take away the individuals’ self-esteem and offer it back to him at the price of the product. They make people question their lives by trying to convince them that they could only be happy if they purchase a particular item. It is quite a cruel practice, in my opinion.

The materials in class thus far have chronicled the emergence of advertising to the masses through emphasis on wants and desires rather than needs. I think that Bernays and Cushman have made accurate observations of human behavior but it is curious as to how or why this behavior occurs. What are the psychological mechanisms behind the motivations to buy something unnecessary. I think that multiple mechanisms are at work to make advertising/propaganda to the public effective. For example, a theory in evolutionary psychology suggests that people attend to cues that imply that a person has ample resources (this could be a potential mate or alliance). The cues can change depending on culture and time, but still point to resources. One instance of this in Western culture is the changing view on tans. In the past having a tan was associated with labor and therefore being poor, so it was preferable to have fair skin to show that you could afford not to work. However, in today's society it is preferable to have a tan because it indicates that you have enough time and money to take vacations and get tan rather than work. If this theory is accurate, perhaps the excess in which people buy may be an attempt to show that they have resources. This may also be heightened by the fact that our society can be very status driven. Another potential mechanism that allows advertisement to work is the theory in cognitive psychology which suggests that people expect to be told the truth. Studies show that it takes people longer to process negative statements and are susceptible to fallacies. Many advertisements play off people's inherent trust (yes, just because you see on TV doesn't make it true, but if people expect truth it will be harder for them to process a false advertisement or fallacy). I think this subject needs a more scientific psychological approach, especially if people want to know how not to be susceptible to advertising.

The readings in class have encouraged me to begin thinking about if I am really "empty". I think that to a certain extent, we are all "empty" in the sense that we do fall into the trap of the invisible government that Bernays talks about at one point of time or another. I have to admit that I do enjoy buying designer clothing and accesories because I like to look presentable in different settings. What I still need to figure out is why I feel that I need to wear designer clothing to "fit in". I guess that is the life-style that I am purchasing, the life-style of a typical college student. So I guess I am somewhat empty but I don't really care because I agree with Bernays that we need the invisible government to help maintain conformity and order.

The articles along with the documentary argue against the outwardly projected democratic freedom of our nation. Americans, since the early 1900's have been subjected to a storm of manipulation dressed up in advertising and psychotherapy, propagated by two of Freud's kin. I believe that these movements, acting side by side, provided the coercive powers needed to congeal a diasporic population of immigrants into a unified democratic nation.

I am also very interested in the justification behind our species need to be controlled; That humans are intrinsically malevolent beings, as evidenced in WWII with Nazi Germany. However, in the Century of Self, it was reported that 49% of ALL WWII evacuee's suffered form PTSD. My question is, if humans are supposedly evil creatures then why did half our of evil compatriots find themselves unable to cope with their basic natures?
If we are programmed to kill, then what evolutionary purpose does PTSD hold?

The little poem below pretty much explains my perception of Bernays as portrayed in class...

Edward Bernays
he pierced through the bewildered herds'
collective skull
translating subconscious needs
with the help of
his Uncle Freud's manifesto
Because of him, our primal drives
became profitable,
malleable, but foremost to
Bernay's parlay into history books,
lies in his money driven
mass manipulation
continuing to produce successive generations
of faithful consumers
consumed with the belief
that these tangible goods which Bernays force fed us
would actually, as advertised,
sustain us.

It seems like everyone tries so hard to be unique and different that they buy into anything the media says. We live in a society where we allow a “blind government” think for us and make our decisions according to what they believe is in our best interest. This issue may not be evident at first but if we were to compare ourselves to another country then it might be very obvious. Take a collectivist society for example like China or Pakistan; this kind of society focuses on common goals and equality among everybody. We know they will not buy into individuality. Glancing back at the society we live in, everyone is spending a fortune trying to look a certain way that stands out from the rest.
Why does our society try so much to be different or look different then? It’s not always a bad thing to be different; after all we do live in a diverse country. We can’t help but look different from every person since we all come from different ethnic backgrounds but I think that big corporate companies have taken this diversity and turned it into a billion dollar industry. It’s no longer about being different because of culture but instead it’s being different from the brand of clothing we wear and the cars we drive. We are labeled according to the way we dress and the people we associate with reflect that as well. We are willing to pay a lot of money or even suffer health consequences in the future to be the person commercials depict the models to be

What I think Bernays is trying to covey to use is that propaganda is so powerful now days that our minds are washed with stupid ideas that the government gives to us. Our identities in society are becoming based on the products that we buy. Based on the readings I have realized that I personally fall into this category of buying name brand products. It’s a bad habit that my generation has acquired. Especially, growing up in a superficial place like California, you are taught at a young age that you’re not cool if you don’t have the same clothes that everyone else has. I’m not saying that I categorize myself based on the products that I consume but it is definitely an identity that people give me. Which then goes into the Cushman readings, people feel empty because everyone is being categorized into certain social groups and not as the individuals that they are, this causes many people to become insecure and fall into depression. Once we all realized what propaganda is doing to us and the society I believe we wont serotype others based on their consumption, which will lead to less people feeling like they don’t belong.

Our identities as “consumers” are hidden from us. Consumerism has become the predominant way of life so that we take it for granted and it is no longer visible to us. We never stop to think that things used to be different. We are bombarded with advertisements from the time we are born so that we come to think of the consumer identity as the norm. We become desensitized to the advertising industry and therefore unaware that we are being manipulated. We do not consider it strange for people to have three SUVs, to own a $150 pair of shoes, to pay over a $1000 dollars for a purse because it says Gucci on it. We may even feel respect for these people because they own these ridiculously expensive, nonessential items.

What we often forget is that the consumer society is a fairly recent development in American history. We are not born with the innate desire to buy an excessive amount of unneeded goods. We have been MOLDED into a society obsessed with products. This did not happen by accident. There was intention behind this shift. A small group of business elite, hidden from the public, employed psychological techniques and manipulation to turn the rational American into an irrational consumer. Edward Bernays was among this group. He came to the decision that humans are stupid and irrational. He pointed to the behavior exhibited in both world wars as justification for his beliefs. In 1929 he used manipulative techniques to erase the taboo on women smoking in public, therefore opening up the other half of the market to the American Tobacco Company. Bernays paid a group of rich debutantes to dramatically light up cigarettes during the New York City parade. He then paid newspapers to publish stories stating that these women were suffragettes lighting up “torches of freedom.” This act not only made smoking acceptable for women, but also made those who did not smoke appear unsupportive of women’s rights. The impact of this one symbol was powerful and widespread. Bernays realized how much potential lied in the concept of expressing one’s identity or beliefs with a product.

Overtime these techniques were developed and perfected. Today, with technology and huge developments in the field of psychology, the advertising industry has been able to sell products that no one would ever have thought to buy 100 years ago. I find it depressing that corporations are so quick to use manipulative techniques to get us to hand over our money. I don’t agree with Bernays that one can look to human behavior during war as justification for manipulation. I believe that the purpose of the field of psychology should be to better human society and to improve the quality of life for everyone, not just the heads of powerful corporations. I share the belief of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that human beings DO have the ability to think rationally when presented with factual, unbiased information. This can be furthered by providing everyone with access to education. I think the advertising industry should be forced to take responsibility for its actions. More research needs to be done about the harmful effects of consumer society on people’s mental health. When psychological experiments result in new understanding about human behavior, we must proceed with a strong sense of ethics. Discoveries about behavior should be used to benefit humanity rather than to profit from it.

In our consumer society, the majority of advertisements are done using the media. However, one less obvious, but very effective method of advertising is done by the consumers themselves. Whenever a consumer uses a certain product, they are already a walking billboard that is advertising for the product. Of course, different products can already been seen on the media, however, it is so much better when you can see it in real life, or “in action”. This type of real life advertisement is much more appealing to consumer; due to the fact that it could create much more imagination then it does for the billboards and commercials. Many have seen the BMW commercials, which show roaring engines driving through open fields. Of course, the commercials are carefully thought out by advertisers, which are designed to create desire; however, some of those advertisements are very unreal, which might not stimulate consumer’s desires. But when consumer see someone driving a BMW on the freeway, there’s always the thought of “I wish I have a BMW.”

The topic of consumerism is extremely important and necessary to discuss because we have to constantly deal with it on a daily basis. We live in a society in which we unfortunately have to depend on businesses and corporations in order to attain the necessary resources for survival. At the same time, we are constantly being pressured to change, adjust, and ‘improve’ our selves and our lives hence constantly encountering the false notion that we are otherwise not ‘good enough’. Not until one begins to question and think about the structure of society and of the various forces that affect our lives do we realize that every value and idea our society promotes benefits some at the expense of most. Therefore, in this paper I will analyze the readings and films we’ve discussed in class so far to explore the effects consumerism has on society.

The last century has seen a change in the economic and social character of America. Edward Bernays spearheaded the use of propaganda to sell goods that people don’t need. He was the first person to apply his uncle’s theories of psychology to business: he developed a public relations firm that operated on the principle that people make decisions based on things other than just facts and information. He was the first person to realize capitalize on the idea you could sell a product by playing into what people want rather than just what they need.

This idea, which was revolutionary at the time, seems quite obvious now. Advertisers have long realized now that people do now rely on reason to make purchases. For example, car ownership is not simply based on which car is the best. Manufacturers such as Hyundai continually post advertisements which boast their superior ratings from automobile experts; however, in these commercials they concede that they are outsold by competing cars with more cup holders. In the last few years, there has been a lot of public attention to gas mileage and reducing emissions. Although it may not be economically reasonable to buy a fuel efficient, hybrid Prius—the money you will save on gas does not reach the extra money you pay for a hybrid—their huge success in the market has led other car companies to follow suit. This purchase is based more on people’s emotions and desire to do something good for the environment than on reason and economics.

Even the Sports Utility Vehicles have had to change their marketing strategy to meet the demands of consumers who want to feel good about their purchases. In a new Chevy ad, a little girl asks her dad to drop her off around the corner because she doesn’t want to be seen in an SUV when all of her friends’ parents drive hybrids. This cuts directly to the root of the matter. People want to feel good about the car they drive—the dad goes on to explain that they own a hybrid SUV, so it’s okay; even though their car still gets worse gas mileage than a non-hybrid Toyota corolla, the dad and his daughter can feel better about themselves because they paid top dollar for a hybrid. American car companies, who have suffered tremendously due in part to out-dated fuel efficiency standards, have begun running misleading ads touting their newest creations—cars that run on hydrogen, emit only water, or run on electricity for 100 miles—that are still in the development stages and probably won’t be available for sale for at least 5 more years.

The one thing I can take from what we have learned the past few weeks is that advertising is directly tied in with propaganda. As consumers, we are the targeted crowd, vulnerable and often helpless in following the mob that chooses to follow the propaganda. An example is the new Apple Computer wave. If people start buying Macs, many others will follow behind. If people start following it. Their advertisements propose a new, hip, fresh, and "cool" community. If you buy their product according to their advertising/propaganda, you will be part of this cool community. The interesting thing about this however, is that it works for Apple. And if you are able to control the masses, or at least a good part of it, you gain power over the people's consumption habits, essentially making a more successful business. A product, good or bad, is nothing without good advertising. Advertising needs to be put out there with propaganda like structures. Successfully doing so makes the sale of the product, not the actual product itself. This shows why advertising is like propaganda and carries such a powerful notion to it because it has the power to sway and influence people's lives.

I want to first start off by saying that Edward Bernays is my hero because he unlocked society’s infinite desire to buy things that they don’t need. Although Bernays is somewhat associated with negative ideas such as brain control, I still believe that the new propaganda is not necessarily bad for society. Many think that propaganda is all bad because they relate it to the Nazis during the Second World War. Nowadays, people use propaganda to serve a countless number of causes. On one hand, propaganda dictates the way we should look, what products to use, and what we should eat. On the other hand, there are organizations that use propaganda to inform us about cigarettes, global warming, and the repercussions of hate crimes.

I feel that it is inevitable to avoid the consumer society. This is because the new propaganda is found in almost every aspect of the media. I have P. Diddy telling me how to “maintain my sexy” by using ProActive and at the same time I’m constantly reminded how old school I am because I don’t have an iPhone. With the increase in technology, there is an increase in ways to spread propaganda. I can’t even look at Tila Tequila’s Myspace page without running into 20 different advertisements. Whether we like it or not, the consumer society is here to stay.

In the consumer society we live in today, the main practice of business advertising is to make the human population think that buying their product is necessary to live in the world. With certain clothes items, such as Nike's Air Jordan line of shoes, items are made extremely cheap and then sold at high prices. This is caused by an extremely high demand for this product. Oftentimes, certain products, like the Jordans, benefit from their high prices as those purchasing these shoes are doing it for show rather than just the simple, rational fact of needing a new pair of shoes. These expensive, but very cool shoes are like jewelry in a way that people wear them solely to show off their expensive accessories.

Our society has dug out a wonderful little ditch in which our identities as a person, a member of society, and a human being are defined by who we give our money to and who we choose to advertise for. Bernays, being the clever fuck that he is, realized this at the right time and chose to manipulate the masses through meticulously executed scheming. As a member of society in Bernay's time and today, most things boil down to a single subtle ultimatum: consume or be consumed.

The democratic society that we live in today was constructed out of the capitalistic ideals of our country's Founding Fathers. However, modern capitalism is remarkably different from the type that characterized even our more recent past. New methods for manipulating the free market have had both intentional and unforeseen consequences for our current society. Advertising and propaganda, for example, have come to dominate the way in which people today acquire products and form ideas. Moreover, while the American public has been the primary driving force behind its growth and success, it has at the same time also become increasingly skeptical and critical of its methods and effects. The arguments of critics like Philip Cushman are typical of an increasing number of individuals who view capitalism in a predominantly negative light. Before we accept such ways of thinking, though, I believe that we should first consider capitalism and its effects on our society in a more comprehensive context. This is not to say that I am ignorant of its negative aspects, though. Modern capitalism, like all elements that shape our culture, has both beneficial and destructive qualities which should be accounted for and judged with consideration to everything else. It's naive to think of such a complex issue in terms of being either "good" or "bad", there are always going to be shades of grey.

In the consumer society we live today propaganda is key to the development of democracy. In "Propaganda," Edward Bernays argues, "We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high spot the outstanding issues that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions" (p.11) Bernays suggest that the manipulation of habits of the masses is crucial to our democracy. We are indirectly governed by the invisible, the stake of our life and our country depends on us the "consumers." Therefore, I will argue that natural resources such as water have transcended from being a necessity to a commodity, for example bottled water. The bottle or logo may vary, however the awakening reality is; the consumption of bottled water from the consumer society exacerbates the management of recycling rates.

The society reflects the people who are living in and thus the cultures, trends, philosophies, and every aspect of our lives. As pointed out from the readings, today we are living in a so called consuming society, and we who are living in the society are largely represented by this trend of the society. From both Bernay’s and Cushman’s articles, the propaganda and the formulation or the emergence of the empty selfness after the war are the key facts of creating such society, and I found it quite frightening to see how our minds and thoughts are controlled or governed by the hidden force of our society when we think that we are actually in control of our own mindsets, as seen in Benay’s article, "We are governed...largely by men we have never heard of.". It is not surprising to see when we look around ourselves how we are largely influenced by the mass media or the propaganda. It is often the case how importantly we come to think upon when choosing the products their names, or brands, the name values, and how we think little of the necessity of what we buy or consume, and people tend to consume not necessarily because they need but rather because they want and seek to fulfill their enjoyment and pleasure by continually filling up the desires, which are fundamentally created by the society. It is quite ironic to see in today’s society where the individualism is so greatly concerned and emphasized how people have become so influential to the society. I think it is not the people who represent the time but it is the society that represents, and the “consuming society” shows well enough how we are living in such an era where the society defines the people.

You’ve heard people saying “I’m just being myself.” A person who says this might think that he is unique individual that is not even similar to other people in this world. But what if he is exactly the same as the person listening to him as he says this? What if he is a projector that is merely showing images the society has provided for him? Philip Cushman believed the self is a social construct and argued that “the material objects we create, the ideas we hold, and the actions we take are the consequences of “products” of the social construction of each particular era”. People’s minds are certainly influenced by the society they are living in and thus contemporary people share same thoughts and mentality. After World War II, people felt absence and meaninglessness and wanted to fill up themselves by consuming goods and experiences. People always felt that they needed something and did not hesitate to make purchase with credit. Many industries fed on this “empty self” and used propaganda to propel the consumers’ need to fill up themselves.

The idea that "you can be anything you want," thought it preserves something of the older idea of the career open to talents, has come to mean that identities can be adopted and discarded like a change of costume. Ideally, choices of friends, lovers, and careers should all be subject to immdeiate cancellation: such is the open-ended, experimental conception of the good life upheld by the propaganda of commodities, which surrounds the consumer with images of unlimited possibility.

Identity is something used to stay with you for the rest of your life. However, as our consumer society grow, identity could have easily be change with the help of different products. By changing your identity or appearances, the people surrounding with you and the environment would also changes. For example, a person can grow up in a very poor family, in which the choice of clothings, accessories, hobbies and habits are very limited. He might not be able to express himself very well. His friends might come from background similar to him. However, if that same person wins the Lottery and becomes a millionaire; all of a sudden he will be able to use different products to make himself noticeable. He hobbies might change, and even his friends could change.

We are lead to believe that this is a nation of freedom and democracy. We are given the
opportunity to express ourselves and elect our leaders but are these “freedoms”, really
what they presume to be or are they just illusions used to manipulate the functioning of
society. This question came to mind when reading Chapter 1 of Bernays’ Propaganda. He
clearly suggests that “we are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our
ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” We, the consumers, the society,
are merely a heard of sheep and those men “we have never heard of” are the shepherds
leading us into submission. As a result, our population has become superficial and
one-dimensional. The way we dress, how we speak, the things we eat, what cars we drive,
and even our morals are manipulated through advertisements and the media in order to
satisfy the contrived ways of a consumerist culture.

We are lead to believe that this is a nation of freedom and democracy. We are given the opportunity to express ourselves and elect our leaders but are these “freedoms”, really what they presume to be or are they just illusions used to manipulate the functioning of society. This question came to mind when reading Chapter 1 of Bernays’ Propaganda. He clearly suggests that “we are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” We, the consumers,the society,are merely a heard of sheep and those men “we have never heard of” are the shepherds leading us into submission. As a result, our population has become superficial and one-dimensional. The way we dress, how we speak, the things we eat, what cars we drive,and even our morals are manipulated through advertisements and the media in order to satisfy the contrived ways of a consumerist culture.