• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Disempowering through definition: A dialogic ethics for understanding consumer vulnerability through Nike's 'Mike and Spike' advertising and African American consumer history.
【24h】

Disempowering through definition: A dialogic ethics for understanding consumer vulnerability through Nike's 'Mike and Spike' advertising and African American consumer history.

机译：从定义中剥夺权力：一种对话伦理，旨在通过耐克的“麦克与斯派克”广告和非裔美国人的消费历史来了解消费者的脆弱性。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Through socio-historical and market analysis and through the lens of ethical theory, this research argues that past thinking about vulnerable audiences is insufficiently grounded in evidence, unsubtle in its understanding of markets, and unselfconscious about its own paternalism. As a result, such thinking can actually disempower the very audiences it sets out to protect. This project is not simply a commentary on branding or on an historical incident; it is an important reflection of race relations in the United States and a theoretically important exploration of the power dynamics of defining vulnerability and of the roles and responsibilities of marketers, advertisers, endorsers, the media and consumers. This research proposes dialogic ethics as the framework through which to understand and define vulnerability in the consumer realm.;Advertising frequently is criticized for creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes of vulnerable populations. Scholars have criticized the media and, in particular, advertising for reflecting and perpetuating racism in portrayals of minorities, with much popular and scholarly criticism of advertising and race into the 1980s based on the fact that there were few to no positive representations of African Americans in mainstream advertising. In 1984, Nike signed rookie Michael Jordan and, in 1986, Nike's advertising agency hired Spike Lee to direct commercials starring the athlete-turned-hero. The Spike/Mike campaign became emblematic of a breakthrough in race relations. However, the cultural "success" of the Michael Jordan, Spike Lee and Nike relationship and its influence on the brand was played out on the streets across America. The late-1980s and early-1990s mass media was full of reports about youth---specifically black, urban youth---killing each other for Nike's Air Jordans. Social discourse on the increasingly mainstream images of African-Americans, initially pleased with the depictions of a positive, successful and empowered black man in advertising, exploded with charges of exploitation and manipulation. The debate was framed by the premise of urban African-Americans as vulnerable to advertising in a unique way. The circumstances of the "sneaker killings", which coincided with a time of change and re-formation in the advertising industry and its relation to the African American community, offer not only a rich context in and of itself but unsettles current perceptions of consumer vulnerability and are a hub from which to explore broader concerns about this concept---including issues of social, corporate and consumer responsibility, meaning exchange and control, power and discourse and empowerment. This long-running campaign and the discourse surrounding it are powerful expressions of American race relations and an opportunity to address how definitions of vulnerability can affect the marketplace and the populations deemed vulnerable.;This research explores the development of the Nike brand through its association with Michael Jordan and addresses to what extent this association came at a time when the black community was looking for and developing new expressions of their social experiences and position within American society, particularly as it was lived on the streets of urban America, and the ways in which that experience was represented to Main Street America. I argue that the Nike example provides a different perspective on the history of race dynamics and advertising than previously has been presented in scholarly inquiry. This case is a rich illustration of the complexities of and consumer engagement with the Nike brand; and because of the various, but similarly partial, interpretations in media and academic journals of the use of the Nike brand by black, urban communities, it provides a strong foundation upon which to question scholarly approaches to vulnerability and responsibility in consumption environments. Thus, the intention of this work is to interrogate the construction of vulnerability and issues of power and responsibility in the consumer realm, and to affect change in discourses of and approaches to consumer vulnerability by re-conceptualizing an approach that both recognizes the structures of power through which consumers must navigate and acknowledges the interpretive domain of human nature.;I propose a dialogic ethics as a framework for understanding vulnerability and responsibility in consumer environments. Paulo Freire, in particular, helps us to understand that our humanity is bound in dialogue. Dialogue requires co-participation. The naming of groups as vulnerable through sweeping generalizations neglects to empower the oppressed by giving them voice in the encounter. When definitions of vulnerability are instituted in cultural and social structures of meaning without appropriate respect for and discourse with those so-named, then we risk instituting a culture of silence from the oppressed or "vulnerable." This dehumanizes the oppressed and diffuses the structures of accountability that come with liberation. Instead, we must engage in true dialogue that accepts multiple voices, presents message that enable critical consciousness and empowers the participants, acknowledges the historical circumstances of our language in discourse, and promotes our humanness, which we find in relation to others.
机译：通过社会历史和市场分析，以及通过伦理理论的视角，这项研究认为，过去对弱势群体的思考不足以证据为基础，对市场的理解含糊不清，对自己的家长式生活不自觉。结果，这样的想法实际上可以剥夺它打算保护的受众的权利。这个项目不仅仅是对品牌或历史事件的评论；它是美国种族关系的重要体现，也是对定义弱​​点的力量动态以及营销商，广告商，背书人，媒体和消费者的角色和职责进行理论上重要的探索。这项研究提出了对话伦理学，以此作为理解和定义消费者领域脆弱性的框架。广告经常被批评为造成和维持弱势群体的负面刻板印象。学者们批评了媒体，尤其是广告，因为它们在少数群体的刻画中反映和延续了种族主义。在1980年代，广告和种族的传播受到了很多学者和学者的批评，原因是几乎没有甚至没有黑人的积极代表。主流广告。 1984年，耐克签下了新秀迈克尔·乔丹（Michael Jordan），并在1986年，耐克的广告公司聘请了斯派克·李（Spike Lee）来指导由这位运动员转为英雄的广告。 Spike / Mike运动成为种族关系突破的象征。然而，迈克尔·乔丹（Michael Jordan），斯派克·李（Spike Lee）和耐克（Nike）关系的文化“成功”及其对品牌的影响在整个美国街头上演。 1980年代末和1990年代初，大众媒体到处充斥着有关青年（尤其是黑人城市青年）互相杀害耐克Air Jordan的报道。关于非裔美国人日益主流的图像的社会论述，最初使人们对广告中一个积极，成功和有能力的黑人的描绘感到满意，并充斥着剥削和操纵的行为。辩论的前提是城市非洲裔美国人以独特的方式容易受到广告的影响。 “运动鞋被杀”的情况，与广告业的变化和重组及其与非裔美国人社区的关系相吻合，不仅为其本身提供了丰富的背景，而且使当前对消费者脆弱性的认识不安并且是探讨此概念的更广泛关注的中心，包括社会，企业和消费者责任，交换与控制，权力，话语权和授权等问题。这项长期的运动及其周围的话语是美国种族关系的有力表达，也是探讨脆弱性定义如何影响市场和被视为脆弱人群的机会。;本研究通过与耐克品牌的关联来探索耐克品牌的发展迈克尔·乔丹（Michael Jordan）以及在黑人社区寻找并发展其在美国社会中的社会经历和地位的新表达方式时，特别是在美国城市街道上生活时，这种协会的发展程度以及这次经历代表了美国大街。我认为耐克的例子提供了关于种族动态和广告历史的不同观点，这与以前学术研究中提出的观点不同。这个案例很好地说明了耐克品牌的复杂性和消费者参与度。而且由于媒体和学术期刊对黑人城市社区使用耐克品牌的看法有各种（但类似的）解释，它为质疑学术界对消费环境中的脆弱性和责任的方法提供了坚实的基础。因此，这项工作的目的是通过重新概念化承认权力结构的方法来质疑消费者领域中脆弱性的构建以及权力和责任问题，并影响消费者脆弱性的论述和方法的变化。消费者必须通过它来导航并认可人性的解释领域。我提出了对话伦理，作为理解消费者环境中的脆弱性和责任的框架。保罗·弗莱雷（Paulo Freire）特别帮助我们了解我们的人类受到对话的束缚。对话需要共同参与。通过笼统的概括将群体命名为弱势群体，忽略了通过在遭遇中表达自己的声音来赋予被压迫者权力。如果在意义的文化和社会结构中建立了脆弱性的定义，而没有适当地尊重和论述所谓的那些，那么我们就有可能在被压迫者或“脆弱者”之间建立一种沉默的文化。这使被压迫者丧失了人性，并解放了解放所带来的责任制。相反，我们必须进行真正的对话，接受多种声音，传达使人们具有批判意识并赋予参与者权力的信息，承认我们语言在话语中的历史情况，并促进我们与他人之间的人文关系。

著录项

  • 作者

    Coleman, Catherine Adelaide.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.;

  • 授予单位 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.;
  • 学科 Mass communication.;Black studies.;African American studies.;Ethics.;Marketing.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2010
  • 页码 324 p.
  • 总页数 324
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号