Week 5: The State, Social Services, Global Effects, & Social Change

6/27/2012

Below are three images of advertisements that promote social change in one way or another. Select only one of the photos below to analyze, and using a specific sociological perspective of choice (i.e., functionalist, interactionist, conflict, feminist, etc.), analyze the advertisement based on your understanding of the perspectives discussed in the Schaefer text. Please remember to identify the image you selected and make sure to be as detailed as possible in your analysis (i.e., using your sociological perspective, describe the advertisement and what kind of message(s) those descriptions and images are conveying).

Your response should be posted below via the "Add Comment" link below. Please also make sure to include your name and email address as prompted (Note: your email address will not be published online). Each student is expected to "reply" to at least two comments posted by his/her peers by the following Sunday (July 8, 2012).

Image 1: One of the images from the United Colors of Benetton "Unhate" campaign, stating the company's support for the Unhate Foundation. Image of President Obama (U.S.A.) and President Chavez (Venezuela) locking lips.

Image 2: One of the images from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaign. Image of singer Natalia Imbruglia and "Topsy" (the rabbit).

Image 3: One of the images from Greenpeace's anti-whaling campaign. The ad reads: "The first harpoon strikes, and the whale starts to bleed, or pour, rather, what could fill a domestic swimming pool. Not dead yet? The whaler missed? A second harpoon is fired, or a rifle. It’s a brutal case of trial and error. Winched aboard, stripped bare, the mammal’s valuable blubber and fatty tissue is stored, and the teeth for souvenirs the rest, the 10-metre spine, the dregs – are discarded overboard, all this, is in the name of tradition." Image of woman in traditional Japanese dress with a red silhouette of a whale painted on her lips.

This blog assignment is due: Saturday, July 7, 2012, 11:59 p.m., EST

47 Comments

Rich D.

7/2/2012 01:29:35 am

I chose Image2. As an interactionist, I am seeing how this image attempts to connect with its audience. Firstly the image has a predominately white tone. White can be used to show purity. Secondly the model's eyes are pericing, both in the openness that the outward radiance in the eye-lashes produce, as well as the stare. The rabbit's ears (one ear way down), and eyes (oval shape tapered towards ears) have an empathetic inducing feeling to them. The model being naked is meant to show that she did not use the rabbits fur to have clothes for herself. In the text, the word "him" has been highlighted. This draws your attention the the humanizing element of the text. This gets you to empathize with the rabbit further by relating it to you. The goal of this ad is to make the individual feel empathy for the rabbit, as well as guilt in that they have not stood-up against animal cruelty.

erik riley

7/3/2012 09:46:33 am

I like the way you related the rabbit in the picture to the women holding him. The image definately is aimed at trying to make you feel guilty about not doing anything to stop animal cruelty. I didn't even consider the fact that the rabbit was white and relating that to its purity.

abby asante

7/5/2012 05:53:31 pm

I definitely agree with the whole purity thing, because I do believe that the color white is often times associated with innocence and purity. So I do believe that was purposely done to make everyone looking at this add to not only feel bad, but to also want to support the cause.

Keeley Mahoney

7/8/2012 02:18:09 am

Same here. When I looked at the add all I saw was an adorable bunny to be sure, but not really thinking about the color of his fur. I agree with your description of the model's eyes but I'm not sure if it's meant to make you feel guilty or just uncomfortable. Personally when I looked at her eyes I was taken aback at her piercing stare and felt a little uncomfortable under the gaze, but not guilty.

Thomas

7/8/2012 05:07:18 am

Wow, Rich, thats some deep thoughts there. Just curious, do you truly believe everything you described or are you just taking your best stab at the metaphors involved. It seems as if you wrote that ad yourself. Nice insight!

Yana

7/2/2012 01:32:47 am

The PETA/Rabbit Ad (from Conflict/Feminist perspective):

This ad is part of PETA's bigger ad campaign that has celebrities pose naked with some sort of headline that says: "I'd rather be naked than wear fur." It's interesting that PETA uses only uses celebrities (both skinny women and muscular men, but most often women) (and often celebrities that wouldn't otherwise pose naked because this is "for a good cause").

A feminist conflict theorist might say that even though it's for a positive cause, using women's bodies to create hype for the cause perpetuates the objectification of women. And only using celebrities (who are almost always very skinny) further skews all men and women's ideas of who is beautiful naked.

Don't know if I personally agree with all that, but definitely much of it.

erik riley

7/3/2012 09:56:41 am

I agree with you on the fact that they only use good looking skinny celebrities for their campaign and that it makes you question the company putting these ads out. But, I believe that they are just playing into the fact that more people will pay attention if they see a celebrity on the front and definately will take a second look if they happen to be naked as well. If thats what it takes to get someones attention towards animal cruelty well then they've done the job they set out to do.

abby asante

7/5/2012 06:52:35 pm

But Eric, why is it okay to exploit the nudity of these celebs to get their point across, is it not a double standard to exploit one thing just to bring attention to the other? Why do people take a second look because of the nudity? and is PETA really getting their point across, or are people just admiring the nudity? I'm just saying, its just something to think about.

Ryan J

7/8/2012 04:10:32 am

But you can't ignore her point about it perpetuating a stigma that the media has given women. Does she really have to be naked? It's almost like PETA sold themselves out to the mass media's expectations. I personally question that, being a person who had higher standards for PETA. I don't know, I just thought they could have been more original than having a pretty naked woman hold a bunny. Pretty sure you can find a naked model holding some type of animal for no cause at all besides to sell a product like Dolce and Gabana.

Ryan J

7/8/2012 04:04:30 am

I find it interesting that PETA is willing to use sex appeal/womens bodies in order to get across another message. Doesn't that take away from their message?

celine weladji

7/2/2012 11:45:15 am

i chose image 1. by loocking at that advertisement, as a functionalist who believe that social change must contribute to society`s stability and modest adjustements must be made to accomodate social change. someone must adapt in a new situation or assimilate to a new culture specialy when you are new in that place, and you want thing to work better for you. the kiss between the two presidents show that the president of the United State is assimilating their culture, he is showing that he is there for peace, and he respect their culture. as there is a said who state that where you go to Rome do as the Romains do.

Erik Riley

7/3/2012 09:49:03 am

I agree with you on the fact that an indivdual in a new place should assimilate to the people around him or her. Not saying they should completely change themselves but attempt to assimiliate as a sign of respect. I've seen and heard of our President doing this quite often all over the world on many different occasions.

Yodit

7/5/2012 12:49:00 am

Celine, you observed this image on the positive side, but I perceived this image from the negative side. First of all, when I see this image, immediately the word “Gay” comes in my mind. For this reason, I observed it from the conflict perspective. I wonder why the media advertise this way. It is related with the president Obama idea; he supported the gay marriage, this opinion as a government created adverse reaction from others. Then the mass media reflected this situation.

chim

7/6/2012 08:58:23 am

i agree with you celine, as they say when you are in Rome do what Romans do. the picture shows that one has to assimilate to any situation. the kissing of the two president shows that every one has the right to do what you want to do and also be what you want to be.

Erik Riley

7/3/2012 09:41:56 am

For my image choice I chose image number 1. I decided the best route to attack this image was from the Conflict perspective. The conflict perspective focuses on the fact that the media is a gate keeper, and they monitor what gets put out as well as constructing reality the way they wish for you to see it. In image number 1 President Obama is seen kissing President Chavez on the lips infront of a huge audience, now I'm not sure whether or not it's a custom where President Chavez is from for two men to kiss when greeting one another but the media completely turned this into a gay rights form of campaign. Granted the President has been heard saying that he is for gay rights and marriage but I don't believe he and President Chavez kissing should be spun to be for gay rights like the media is portraying it in the picture. They're constructing reality and exploiting it all over the news.

chim

7/6/2012 12:34:58 pm

as we know, america has a freedom speech. the media are taking this add the wrong way but if you look from thier point of view, they are trying to make money out of it. the more people read and hear what the media are saying, the more they make money. and also its part of intertainment. i dont agree with you that the media are taking it too far. its part of business, social interaction and intertainment.

Dagim

7/7/2012 12:26:50 pm

I agree with your idea Erik. Because media has a power to exploit what they get from any source and meet their own demand.

Thomas

7/3/2012 11:27:12 am

In this particular blog, I chose to explain image number three from an interactionist perspective. As seen in the image it is a picture of a geisha whose lipstick appears as if it is dripping and is actually blood. In the corner it says,"tradition kills. Stop whaling" comhparing the tradtion of geishas with the tradtion of the japanese hunting whales. First off, I'm sure that this was some type of westernized propaganda. Secondly, as a intereactionist would point out, depending on what is important on a day to day interaction with people inside a community or society depends on what is acceptable. For example, in America it is common for us to mutliate chickens and cows, but when it comes to whales, we are sensitive. Just because western culture does not thrive off of eating whale, then it is presumed unjustified. However, in Japan it is a big part of thier culture to dine on whale. Interactionist would suggest that the norm for a certain culture predicts what is considered acceptable.
(South Park has a good episode on this)
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s13e11-whale-whores

Yodit

7/5/2012 02:08:17 am

Thomas, I saw part of South Park episode. It shows Japanese’ tradition destroys all dolphins. This culture difference made people to fight. That was misunderstanding that people couldn’t consider others. So then, the interactionist perspective may help in this aspect as Schaefer. R notes, “Interactionists are especially interested in shared understandings of everyday behavior” (p. 143).However, regarding traditions, sometimes things will be difficult to understand.

abby asante

7/5/2012 06:39:30 pm

Yodit, I agree with you in that it is always easy for an outsider looking into a culture that is completely different from theirs to point out what they think is right or wrong, but it all comes down to cultural relativity, and like you said when it comes to tradition sometimes things are difficult to understand especially as an outsider.

Mariama sandy

7/6/2012 01:03:09 pm

Once again, because of your explanation, i understand now why would an interacctionist view it like that. We have to realize that the western world does what good for the western world but other countries and nation has to do what's good for them and if hunting whale is part of their tradition, who are we to judge them or tell them what to do in their country. Nobody comes over to western world and dictate to them so we should stay out of other other nations business.

Irene Washington

7/7/2012 10:52:55 am

Though I strongly believe that EVERYONE is entitled to practice their religion, culture, and faiths however they choose, I must say a line should be drawn at some point in time. Killing an animal for sacrificial/traditional purpose to me is not only inhumane, but a global environmental concern. If this tradition continues, eventually whales would be on the endangered species
(or mammal) list. Then what??

Keeley Mahoney

7/8/2012 02:25:27 am

I agree with Irene- a line must be drawn. I'm not saying people shouldn't practice their religion/culture/faiths, I think that there should be stricter regulations on whaling so that they don't end up as endangered species or worse completely extinct. Plus, the more whales that are killed and removed from their ecosystem the more that their ecosystem is affected- if you take out a natural predator then you help create an unbalance within an ecosystem that could have negative consequences

tmerella

7/8/2012 11:19:40 am

I also agree with the points you brought up. I actually had a conversation with a Korean co-worker of mine the other day, about how the Western Society only interprets things through their own personal views/interpretations, and are very subjective. I believe that is one of their major flaws. We talked about how through a western point of view China is a threat, and if you really look at China's culture, they are less likely to be a threat, and the Western society only thinks this way because if they were in China's shoes, they would be a threat to other places, due to their western way of handling things.

Yana

7/9/2012 04:48:03 am

Thomas, that's a really good point about how we pick and choose which animals we eat and which we don't (because they are "cute"). But Irene and Keeley bring up good points that whales are more at risk of becoming extinct than cows, for example.

It reminds me of how when many Americans think of a burger made from cow they think "yum!", but when they think of a burger made from dog they think "how disgusting, what is wrong with people!"--but, like you Thomas said, this is all because norms dictate what is acceptable (even if it's not rational).

Yodit

7/3/2012 05:08:19 pm

Conflict theorists dispute that mass media sustain the advantage of specific group rather than promoting social harmony. Even though the image of President Obama and President Chavez seems to show friendship, the main message is that President Obama’s stand for gays’ marriage is criticizing by opponents, and the mass media is reflecting the situation or looks like supporting the criticism For this reason conflict theorists argue that the mass media should balance the service.

Mariama Sandy

7/6/2012 12:48:36 pm

For some reason i didnt even think about the whole Obama and gay thing when i saw it, i just thought about the whole racist thing and diffent countries coming together. But you really shine light on the whole thing and i am little more clear about it.

Keeley Mahoney

7/5/2012 10:49:19 am

I'm choosing to do the first image. Based on evolutionary theory and new social movement, President Obama and President Chavez kissing with "UNHATE" in the upper left hand corner is promoting acceptance and equality for all. Evolutionary theory states that society is viewed as moving in a definite direction. I see us as moving in a direction of change for the better in terms of tolerance and acceptance. Out of this theory I feel New Social Movements applies because it is a case of addressing values and social identities. A very strong value held by certain people is that if two men kiss then they must be gay and that being gay is wrong and evil and possibly even a sin. Some people still may feel that way about interracial couples as well. From that strongly held value hate can be directed at those who do not share the same opinion. Also, seeing two people of the same sex kissing will a lot of the time place the social identity of being gay on the people, even if that may not be the case. By showing this picture of President Obama and President Chavez kissing, the United Colors of Benetton are sending the message that even if two men kiss, even if two people from different races kiss, judgements should not automatically be placed on them and that hate should not spring from those judgements.

dagim

7/8/2012 01:37:23 pm

ok keeley, as you said us going in direction of Change what the 1st image is showing? is that about social change can we say us is going direction to change just by looking single advertizement?

Chihro Minning

7/5/2012 12:14:13 pm

My choice is image 2.
Looking at this particular campaign ad of PETA, feminists would point out why they use a bare skinned woman as a symbol. It may be true that the majority of people would get positive impressions from this ad such as pureness, beauty, and innocence. Yet, this may raise the problem of perpetuating an inequality of gender issue.
I just searched for PETA ads using Google, and many ads with partially nude models came up surprisingly.
Even though PETA's core concept might be about living simply and not wearing fur which explains the nudity in the ads, conflict perspective would criticize that the regular use of nudity might not be acceptable for everyone.

celine

7/6/2012 05:13:27 am

is thruth that the concept of nudity is not acceptable for me because i believe that a women should not expose her body. a woman body should be something very special that should be keep far from unecessary eye

abby asante

7/5/2012 06:26:07 pm

My choice of the images is image2, and I looked at this image from a feminist point of view. while I do agree with PETA's whole concept of being against the cruelty of animals, i feel like they can get their point across just fine without exploiting women. Looking at this add, yes I do see the innocence and the purity of the rabbit, but at the same time it also sends the wrong message looking at the woman. It is not okay to exploit animals for our own personal gains, but it is okay to exploit the over sexuality of a woman to get that point accross. Why is that okay?

tmerella

7/8/2012 11:07:25 am

It is okay to exploit the over sexuality of a women, than to harm animals because, animals are more important than us, we are just women who's body's were made to be exploited. JOKING. But I totally I agree, and think it is funny that they would promote the exploitation of women, and strongly fight against harm to animals. They obviously couldn’t figure out a more creative way to get there point across.

Yana

7/9/2012 04:51:45 am

I felt the same way when writing my blog post about this picture but I've been thinking since then--maybe the ads aren't exactly EXPLOITING women? Maybe the idea is to show that women/the female body is beautiful as it is, even without fancy things on it? I'm sure this is how PETA would defend their ads--I guess they just got lost along the way when they only hired skinny ladies instead of attempting to share the message that all body types are beautiful.

Irene Washington

7/6/2012 12:14:30 am

My option is image no.1 from a interactionist perspective. This image of two Presidents from different countries kissing promotes love of each other regardless of race, religion, and one's sexual orientation. These two top officials are making a big public, nonverbal statement in hopes of urging the entire world to follow suite in ending hate and discrimination. Words are easily spewed out of everyone's mouth, but when actions are placed behind those words people seem to pay closer attention, especially if the message is being conveyed by high ranking authority figures. Though they may have different views on how to rule a country, they have one common goal. If these men are able to put their ego's and differences aside to promote global equality and unity, it should be easy for the rest of the world to do the same.

Though this image may be considered more controversial to have two top officials kissing, I look at it the same way I did when he was holding hands with

Irene Washington

7/6/2012 12:17:39 am

I apologize, but please disregard the very last, incomplete sentence. I thought I deleted it before submitting. ;-) Thanks!

celine

7/6/2012 04:52:57 am

i agree with you on that point because people seems to copie more what high ranking authority figures do even if it does not make any sens than copie the thruth from someone who is in the lower social classe. let us pray that one day people of the earth will realise that there is not need to fight against each other.

Chim

7/6/2012 11:29:12 am

i choose to do number 1. according to interactinist perspective, the picture shows the two presidents kissing. according to my understanding the kissing shows interaction between two people of different cultures, norms, and race. just like some states in the America, people of the same sex can able to marry or have a relationship. it also shows freedom to be who you want to be and be with whoever you want to be with. the add also shows social interaction between people of different countries.

Mariama Sandy

7/6/2012 12:43:34 pm

I choose the second picture. I guess that i'm more interested in it because i understand a feminist perspective more. First of all the fact that the woman is white and naked holding a white furry rabit, a feminist would say that the woman is not portrayed a good way. Again another sexist advertisement. She doesn't have to be naked to pass the message on, there so many other ways to do that. I think the advert is basically stating that if people go ahead and wear fur at the end of the day the animal would be naked as she is, and we all know that's a no go area. Secondly why does the rabbit have to be an opposite sex of the lady, again they always use opposite sex to get the point across.

Irene Washington

7/7/2012 10:31:55 am

From the theoretical perspective that you are speaking from I would agree with your response. However, from my own personal view I think the message that the advertizement is trying to convey brings a heighten awareness to myself about the harshness of animal cruelty. The picture of the woman posing nude really implies to me that she would rather have no clothes than to wear any material made from an animal. If the woman were fully dressed, I don't think I would have interpret the advertizement the same.

tmerella

7/7/2012 11:42:20 am

I chose Image 2 to analyze from a feminist perspective. Image 2 is a PETA ad that shows a singer, with no clothing, holding a rabbit. PETA often shows similar ads with nude celebrities, that are supposed to be for a good cause. In actually PETA is exploiting their bodies and using them as a sex symbol to attract people to their cause. Another example of them exploiting celebrities is a link on their website called “The Sexiest Vegetarian Celebrities of 2012". PETA should not use people as sex symbols to grab the public's attention. There are other ways they can get their point across, than exploitation of the female/male body. It seems ridiculous that PETA would even resort to this type of advertisement being that the president of PETA is a woman. On top of that PETA is only using "attractive (slim, beautiful, handsome)" people to pose in their ads. What kind of message is this sending to young women/men, that you have to be sexy /show your body to make a difference in this world?

dagim

7/7/2012 12:09:00 pm

i choose image 1 as conflict perspective.the two presidents are advertising as if their is a good relationship between the two countries. But the the reality is not what we see from the image, because they have different ideology one is democratic the other one is dictator, The two countries are not allied rather they are opponents each other. The image is conflicting with the reality.

nathalie rivera

7/7/2012 01:59:53 pm

For the blog I chose the first image depicting President Obama and President Chavez, to my understanding the interactionist perspective would define this to be a positive. It argues that the individual action in uniting nations by two presidents who hold very different values with politics, religions and a number of other reasons coming together with the mutual understanding that peace united serves them better than disagreements. It takes into account that the individual action can change the outcome of the larger population. By this concept the united colors of Benetton intend to united cultures and countries by inspiring the people who are directly effected with . Its idea of using figures that are leaders they hope to inspires progression and union across lands and different ideas.

nathalie rivera

7/7/2012 02:02:45 pm

with any political or culture disagreements which explains why they use two leaders of the same sexual orientation in some of the other images they feature. Its idea of using figures that are leaders they hope to inspires progression and union across lands and different ideas.

My computer cut off part of my response sorry

Ryan

7/8/2012 03:40:32 am

I choose the last image from an interactionist/functionalist perspective. Before even reading the description it was obvious what the image was trying to convey. The woman is shown wearing traditional geisha wardrobe, an obvious link to ancient Japanese culture. Then, looking closer at the lips, you can see a whale conveniently silhouetted in red and drips off off the whale, which one can assume is to represent the killing of the whales. the fact that they choose to put the woman in traditional clothing to me not only shows the link between whale killing being a tradition in Japan, but also is subtly saying that this is a very outdated tradition at that.

Ryan J

7/8/2012 04:02:01 am

I would like to clarify on my perspectives. The take on tradition is functionalist, the clear challenging of this tradition is conflict perspective, the way these tradition opposers try to plea their message with the audience is interactionist along with how ever they plan on handling the conflict/ are asking the audience to do; stop the whaling occurances.

Thomas

7/8/2012 04:59:13 am

Oh shoot. I didn't even realize the whale silhouette. I thought it was just blood. I agree with a lot of people that there should be a line drawn when it comes to murdering animals. Although it is a part of their culture, I believe that they have to be respectful of others cultures who care for animals and study them.

Week 5: The State, Social Services, Global Effects, & Social Change

Leave a Reply.

Blog it Up!

Archives

Categories