Happy Friday!
This week we had two readings from Sternheimer as well as animated lectures from Annie Leonard.
The first Sternheimer chapter this week focused on consumption and materialism, topics that tie in very well with Leonards lectures. I found it interesting that Sternheimer (2013) wrote that “Children continue to be the focus of our fears of hyperconsumption, especially when it appears that children’s consumer knowledge is greater than that of their parents” (p. 247). She subverts this idea by questioning the spending of parents and asking if it is because of their brand name consciousness that makes their children aware of consumerism and brands. I also found it interesting that companies see success based on brand awareness and market shares rather than actual sales (p.260). This definitely has made me question a lot of the ads I’ve seen recently since I now know they are not necessarily after my wallet but after my brain. In this section, Sternheimer also mentioned how companies/brands “…target fashion-forward young people and bloggers who they think will influence their peers” (p. 259). This immediately made me think of YouTube, especially the beauty “guru” community. YouTube recently instated a rule saying that if someone is promoting a product in their video it must clearly be labeled as an ad in the title. However, it is still apparent that companies are paying attention to different creators demographics by the products they are basically advertising or giving away in their video (i.e. curling irons, makeup palettes, stylish water bottles). A few pages later, Sternheimer mentions a teacher who placed ads on their tests in order to have money for more supplies to make tests (p. 263). This instantly made me think of the ad creep advertising strategy we discussed in class!
Anyways, this chapter went along very nicely with Leonard’s lectures. Her focus was mainly on what problems are created by our consumerist society and that we need to work as a society to consume less and place less value on consumption. I actually watched “The Story of Stuff” (Leonard, 2007) in a class last semester, but was not aware of the follow up “The Story of Solutions”(Leonard, 2013). I agreed with many of the points she made in the solutions video, like that we should focus on better rather than more and that we should be internalizing costs. However, I think some of her ideas were a little unrealistic. While I wish people were willing to come together as a community to change the world, that’s just not the kind of world we live in. I think if there was a way that an individual could make more impact acting alone, then her ideas would be a little more realistic. I definitely, definitely agree with her idea of sharing in the solutions film. Hand me downs, thrift stores, libraries, eBay etc. are all great alternatives (and sometimes less costly) than going out and buying new books and clothes. Plus, you never know what odd clothing piece you’ll find at the Salvation Army (I’m thinking some totally outrageous 80s and 90s windbreakers…). I do find the results of our consumerism uncomforting and they make for a very bleak future, but I think the solution(s) need to be more accommodating to the types of people that are able to make changes. What did you think? Is Leonard asking for something nearly impossible or is are her goals realistic?
The last thing I want to discuss is the final Sternheimer chapter. This section was a very nice summary of the points the author has made in nearly every chapter; focusing on poverty, inequality, and placing unfair blame on the media. I liked that she summarized the way the media places blame and what the reality is (i.e. violence due to living in violent communities, not playing video games; limited sex ed is the cause of teen pregnancy rates, not reality television shows on the topic) (p. 278-279). Sternheimer also discussed lessons we can learn from pop culture, such as looking at the way issues like violence, racism, and homophobia are represented (p. 284). This was nicely tied back to media literacy and that we should focus on how and why things are produced, analyzing the media rather than fearing it (p. 284). To me, this is media literacy at its most basic: taking something we fear and learning to look critically at it rather than turn away from it. Did you have any thoughts on the final chapter?
