NYT Article: What does it mean to be an American?

Click here to see article.

Check out this link.  It's an interesting article that unveils how a growing evangelical movement (within the U.S. military) is defining what it means to be an American, a "good citizen."   In defining what it means to be a good American, they are also specifying what is not a part of the "American" model.  The article covers the story of Jeremy Hall, an atheist, who, while fighting in Iraq, was castigated for his irreligion.  One of his superiors is quoted as saying, "People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!"

I recognize that this is nothing new - there are so many stories about evangelism in America, but I thought this article synthesized a number of points quite well.  It's worth a read.

Natural Resources and Environmentalism

"There must be a Hooker somewhere," Hooker Chemical Corp., TIME magazine (Jan. 19, 1968), p. 64.

"There are no simple solutions," Caterpillar, TIME magazine (April 17, 1978), p. 18).

In these two advertisements we can see how the growth of the environmental movement changed the way people thought about and depicted natural resource use and environmental issues. The 1968 Hooker Chemical Corporation advertisement from TIME depicts a sizzling porterhouse alongside a phosphorous mine. The ad brags that cows fed on feed grown in high phosphorous fertilizer grow bigger and need less feed. The chemical company has no qualms about associating food with fertilizer nor does it hide a big crane scooping out a giant mound of dirt. The advertisement aims to show how chemical/technological control of nature leads to a satisfying life for the consumer.

By 1978 this technocentric view of nature had been challenged by environmentalists. Companies involved in natural resource extraction had to be much more cautious and considerate about the way they depicted their relationship to the environment. In the Caterpillar advertisement, also from TIME, the image of a destructive machine plowing through the earth has been replaced with a scenic image of a man and woman chatting by a dam and reservoir. The actual product the company makes is nowhere to be seen. Instead Caterpillar is responding to environmentalists' concerns and trying to appear responsible. They understand that people are concerned with wildlife but want to remind the viewer that dams are providing energy to people. Rather than focus on resource extraction and construction, the advertisement says that Caterpillar is involved in "land conservation and water management". This advertisement shows a shift in attitudes towards corporations and environmental responsibility.

The image also employs traditional assumptions about gender to make its point. The environmentalist is a woman holding a charcoal drawing pad. Her gender apparently prohibits her from seeing the greater picture. She speaks colloquially and emotionally, ("That dam messed up the valley's wildlife.") while the man speaks technically and rationally ("That dam can generate power to light 30,000 homes.").

Cars, Women, and Advertising 1964-1977

Both of these car advertisements were published in Time Magazine, the first in 1964 and the second in 1977. The differences in what the ads emphasize as selling points reflects the contemporary economy and culture.



Dodge ad, Time Magazine, February 1964, p.33

The first ad (1964) shows a lovely woman and her presumed significant other. On the top, the woman poses curled up in the driver's seat, but in the lower section, the man is driving. The shift is mildly sexist, and reminiscent of depictions of women in cars in 1950s (see this earlier post for an example).

The text and sleek image of the car emphasize its luxury and beauty: the text calls it "lavish" and claims that "such fineries" were not just "for the country club set". The ad chooses to show the convertible (a traditionally more youthful/sexy/fun option in a car) rather than the hardtop version of the car mentioned in the text, further accentuating the sexy sleek image the ad is trying to sell.


Datsun ad, Time Magazine, March 1977, p. 97

The second ad (1977) shows a woman with a tennis racket and a dog in the back. This sporty, independent image of a woman corresponds to the rise of feminism through the 60s and 70s.

The most significant difference between car ads in 1964 and 1977 is the emphasis on gas mileage, due to the energy crisis that plagued the US throughout the 1970s, peaking in 1973 and 1979. The efficient gas mileage of the car is heavily advertised, and the features are described as "those other things" and given only a paragraph of description. The ad also mentions the EPA, which was founded in 1970 and started evaluating gas mileage in 1972. The 70s in general were marked by an increase environmental consciousness; combined with the gas shortage, it's no wonder that the ad relies on the car's fuel efficiency as a primary selling point.

Alcohol, the great American vice

Definitions of “Everyone” and “American”: Pluralism, Feminism, Racism, and the uniform American Narrative




“Miller High Life: Pleasure for Everyone!” TIME magazine (May 8, 1965), p. 45.

In this advertisement for Miller High Life, four older white men are enjoying a beer while they take a break from golfing. The image is accompanied by the caption, “Pleasure for everyone!”

The men are gathered closely around a table: their uniform appearance and the intimacy insinuated by their overlapping figures, suggests that the group is closed to outsiders. Their bodies form a kind of wall that acts to keep others out of their gathering and away from the “High Life” which is guarded at the center of their circle. Their backs face everywhere, except the viewer. While there is a space at the table for the viewer to “join” them, they do not engage the reader with their gazes. The viewer is at once privileged to be a part of their meeting, but looking at the image offers a certain sense of voyeurism, like gazing at something unattainable.

This group of men is enjoying a golden beverage; the “High Life.” Everyone in the photograph is a white man, and golf is also traditionally a country club, white man’s game. Thus, the scenario is from a man space, from a boys-club, from the clubhouse, from the country club. These are all elite spaces, where only special, privileged people congregate. To join them and partake in the “High Life,” one would need to be a part of this group. The image demonstrates the social situation at the beginning of the 1960’s; the “high life” was only available to wealthy white men.

Yet, the caption insists “Pleasure for everyone” (emphasis added). In this situation, “everyone” refers to older white men of the upper-middle-class. The four men are taking a break together; this image emphasizes their cohesiveness and unity as a group.
The scene maintains the one-narrative thrust which carried over from the 1950’s, and illustrates the particular Americanism championed in the early Cold War period, that of the elite, governing group.





“Campari: 9 out of every 10,000 Americans prefer Campari.” The New Yorker (July 9, 1979), back cover.

In this advertisement for Campari, nine photos of consumers accompany a studio shot of a full glass and bottle of Campari. The nine “Americans” are pictured individually, each followed by their own testimony, or “Campari Quip.” By picturing the Campari drinkers separately, this advertisement does not attempt to construct a prototypic scenario in which people should enjoy the product, as with the ad for Miller High Life. Since each consumer is pictured with hir “Campari Quip,” the advertisement gives voice to those who are pictured, presenting many narratives.

Also, unlike the previous picture, the people look directly at the viewer, to engage hir and include hir in the conversation about Campari. The advertisement even invites Campari drinkers to send in their own snapshot and “Campari Quip.”

This advertisement, which comes after the Rights Revolution of the 1960’s, reflects the push for individual rights, and the rights of individuals to participate in consumer life. Furthermore, the statistic offered–9 out of every 10,000–is not a statistic that defines a majority but instead a very, very small minority, .0009%. This advertisement demonstrates the movement during and after the 1960’s to recognize minority groups or groups who were previously marginalized as meaningful members of American society.

This advertisement shows a success of the Women’s Liberation Movement. In the earlier image, not only are there no women, but there is no possibility that a woman could join that group. In the second advertisement, of the nine people pictured, six of them are women. Their images fall under the heading of “Americans.” Now we see that women are recognized as representative Americans. As opposed to the America proposed in the first image, women are now included in a term like “everyone.” This advertisement is from 1979, seven years after the Equal Rights Amendment was introduced.

However, neither image includes African Americans or any other racial minority. Despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act (1964)–as opposed to the death of the Equal Rights Amendment (1972-1982)–black Americans are still excluded from constructions of “Americans” and “everyone.” While I will maintain that the second image shows a shift from the focus on an archetypal and idyllic Americanism to recognition of the multifacetedness of the American experience as it is lived by individuals, the scope of the American remained incredibly small. While the advertisement does recognize and make use of the societal recognition of multiple narratives, it chooses to give voice only to the white narrative.

The Evolution of Drug Use from 1969 to 1989: From Radical Youth Culture to Violent Drug Conflicts in Minority Communities

“Drugs Hit the Young,” Time Magazine, Sept. 26, 1969, Cover

This image was published during the peak of the hippie movement, away from the social activism of the sixties and towards the pursuit of personal pleasures in the 1970’s. The shattered and psychedelic image of the generic America’s youth represents the deterioration of the typical family unit and it points to the social challenges that increasing drug use posed. The drugs most popular during the decade were psychedelics, Marijuana, and Heroin, most of which became tolerated. During the Cold War, a cohesive nuclear family was the paradigm. In the image, America’s youth is represented by a young white woman and can also be interpreted as the emerging breakdown of the nuclear family with the public access of contraceptives and birth control that were restricted until the 1960’s. This precedes the rise in divorce and abortion rates and the shocks in traditional social relations that resulted from the second wave feminist movement in the 60’s.

“The Lonely War,” Time , Sept 11, 1989, Cover.

This image shows significant changes in the evolution of drugs in society. In contrast to the image from 1969, this image assumes that the traditional family unit is much less relevant and has increasingly become a single-parent institution specifically in “drug-infested neighborhoods across America.” Highly ethnic cities like Detroit are beginning to see the ravaging effects of drugs in their communities, most notably with the crack epidemic in the 1980’s. In addition to cociane and crack cocaine, people began using prescription drugs, and cstasy. But the crack epidemic almost strictly hit black and Latino communities across America and as Rantine McKesson's sign suggests, drug epidemics brought considerable violence and the deterioration of black communities. Compared to the drug concerns of the 1960’s and 1970’s, drugs in the 1980’s were considerably more associated with violence and brought to power several ethnic gangs in highly urban communities throughout the US. The themes of feminism and gender are noticeable in this image when compared to the image from 1969 because we are presented with a woman adversary to drugs. The words on Rantine's shirt clearly state that it is up to her to save her community from the violence and human digressions that the crack epidemic, which continues today especially in contrast to the more “clean” drugs used during the 1960’s and 1970’s, has caused in many other communities. In the first image, the question of drug use among the young was just that, a query. However, in this image, drug use is represented as a war being fought on the level of communities. The image also draws a distinction between differently racialized and classified drugs which were not so clear in the first image. Also, this image gives the false impression that extreme drug use is more characteristic of black and Latino communities. Both cocaine and crack cocaine have become stereotypically and demographically characteristic of extreme drug use among whites and blacks respectively. What was the tolerance for drug use during in the 60's and 70's changed drastically once newer and more debilitating drugs emreged.

Consumerism and the Labor of Love

Life Magazine. February 4, 1966 p. 41.

I found two striking images in Life Magazine from 1966 and 1979 that address both shifting consumerist attitudes and representations of relationships and love in American society. The first image is a chocolate advertisement directed at the hardworking husband who should express his appreciation for his wife's hard work in the household, but must do so within a limited budget. This image can have several interpretations within the context of the 1960s domestic sphere. A sense of economic caution implies that times are hard, but that one's Valentine's Day need not be any less special: it's the thought that counts and not the price. Other magazine ads around this time were also in tune with the budget-conscious consumer, listing prices of goods as one incentive to purchase an item. These ads appeal to a wide variety of readers with very different budgets. This connects with issues of economic concern for the American public. Johnson's 1964 "War on Poverty" speech addressed the easing the 19% poverty rate and establishing social welfare programs. These issues of national concern affected personal lives, as well. For example, the idea of "purchasing love" on a budget can symbolize the physical representations of emotions in American life, or how relationships were shaped within a consumer culture. Obviously this Valentine's gift is an expression of the importance that a woman plays in a man's life, but under the expectation that the wife should love her husband regardless of his financial capabilities ("A free kiss..."). Love, therefore, is priceless or even free; it has no physical replacement, but can be realized through reminders on special holidays or consumer purchases. 

Life Magazine. February, 1979 Vol. 2.2. p. 118.

The second image displays a million-dollar diamond as the perfect gift for a loved one. Although meant to be a joke, it represents a shift in outlooks on consumer culture in America. Magazine spreads no longer have the same consumer strategy of appealing to the wallets of Americans. These magazines, which can be bought by most Americans, display a culture of luxury-- a life that is to be desired. This extends from high-end fashion advertisements, to windows into the lives of the rich and famous, to culture (art, books, etc.). Consumerism transitions from a feasible and practical part of American culture to spending for pleasure, or an outward display of one's social standing. This can be attributed to the movement out of economic hardship as well as the movement of women out of the home and into the workplace. Reagan's celebration of consumer culture in the 1980s helped shape media representations of the new American lifestyle. In addition, Second-Wave feminism, extending well into the 1970s and 1980s, considered a new place for the woman in American society. Her new independence and re-established importance in new fields is represented in her deserving a wonderful gift. Although readers are not necessarily expected to buy this gift for a loved one, the simple suggestion implies that a woman is worth more than a cheap box of chocolates. The idea of love's material worth is central to the continuation of this consumer culture. It ensures the connection between emotional belief and its realization in a physical form. So, did this change what love or relationships entailed in the 1980s? It's difficult to say, but powerful and believable representations of a materialist lifestyle in magazines and popular culture suggest that materialism is a force that can dictate all areas of life-- especially in how we relate to others.

Shifting Gender Roles and Cultural Confusion

"Lady in the House"-The New Yorker, March 17th 1965, pp. 58

"You Know Her"-The New Yorker, April 7th 1975, pp. 7

These two images are both advertisements for women’s clothing, and though their format is similar, the message they send about the kind of attention women should seek, and how they might go about seeking it are starkly contrasted. The first image, from the March 17^th 1965 issue of The New Yorker is of a woman in a conservative but feminine dress being ogled by six men. The caption reads “There’s a Lady in the house” and then goes on to describe how “she’s the first lady to turn up fresh and sweet in springtime colors.” This woman’s femininity is enhanced by her dress and her attitude toward her clothing, and the binary gender relationship inherent in the advertisement is obvious.

The second image is from the April 7^th 1975 issue of the New Yorker, and depicts a woman in a conservative spring dress, leaning on a golf club and holding a golf ball. She stares out from the page unsmiling, head slightly cocked, in a challenging yet sexy posture. The caption reads “You know her…the one wearing the Leon Levin.” The phrasing of the caption implies that this woman is being talked about rather than to. Her dress is straight, her chest is flat, and she is playing a sport. She is more angular and chiseled than the woman in the first advertisement. Despite this “masculine” imagery, she maintains a femininely gloved hand and a “come hither” gaze. The mixture of masculine and feminine imagery in this advertisement highlights the cultural discussion and confusion surrounding gender roles and femininity which were rekindled by Betty Freidan’s “The Feminine Mystique” and other writings of second-wave feminism.

Other advertisements and cartoons from the New Yorker confirm the conclusion that gender role questioning and confusion were coming into public consciousness in the 70’s. While there were no depictions of women playing sports in the issue from 1965, there were several in the 1975 issue. One editorial cartoon was of a cocktail party, and a man was introducing two women, one of whom was dressed in a business pants suit. The caption reads “Ms. Watts, meet Msr. Caldwell.” The term “Msr” is intentionally non-gendered, like the modern term “ze.” Unlike our contemporary challenge to the gender binary which supports non-gendered or ambiguously gendered people (at least in liberal environments like Wesleyan) this cartoon is not meant as a critique of hetero-normativity, but is rather a comment on the de-feminization of women. By including this cartoon in the issue, The New Yorker is articulating a consciousness and confusion about gender roles which pervaded the period.

Gender, Materialism and the Inadequacy of Advertising Media to Portray Cultural Trends

The first two images are both derived from two consecutive issues of The New Yorker in late 1968. The thematic tension between the two suggests a hypocritical duality of American perceptions toward gender roles in the 1960s. Certainly, image A attempts to appeal to America’s idealistic, privileged younger generation by co-opting the language and imagery of the prominent counterculture they had come to embody. In this advertisement for Toshiba’s line of portable electronics, five twentysomethings pose in a cartoonish vessel charted for the land of “portable people.” The text below this representation describes young Americans as “your kind of people. Mod. Fun. Restless.” The image also depicts the subjects as lacking distinguishable gender roles: the young women appear almost androgynous. Their hair is cut very short (one woman dons a hat to obscure it altogether), and their height equals that of their male counterparts. The figures lean forward confidently in postures exuding progress, gazes fixed on a metaphorical common destination. The scene is reminiscent of Leutze’s “Washington Crossing the Delaware,” even replicating the presence of a symbolic flag. Thus, the image celebrates the revolutionary ambition of America’s youth, associating it with the principles of the American Revolution.


Conversely, image B reveals a more conservative perception of sexualized gender roles redolent of the environment of the 1950s. The cartoon is purely editorial rather than commercial, and thus the credibility of its depiction of American culture is questionable. Is the cartoon a less adulterated representation because it lacks the commercial motivations of an advertisement? Or is less socially indicative because it conforms more to the political opinions of the particular artist than to the demographic calculations of an advertising firm? Regardless, it serves to illustrate that the liberal cultural revolution of the 1960s did not engender a complete realignment of American values, so much as introduce elements of dissent and criticism to the hierarchal gender roles deeply entrenched in American culture. In this artist’s portrayal of the business world, women’s role in the workplace is predicated on their physical attributes. They are sexual fixtures––tantamount to office furniture––performing menial tasks, present only to amuse their male colleagues. Fittingly, they are relegated to the bottom of the artist’s billboard, indicating that women still occupy the lowest position in the corporate hierarchy. The successful businesswoman is regarded as threatening and thus less attractive, having removed subordination from her relationships with her male counterpart.

Considering the sources from which these images are derived, it seems image A is more representative of the contemporary social atmosphere of the late 1960s. Although a vocal movement in favor of women’s rights and a growing political discourse of gender roles in America were under way at the time, indications of these trends are almost entirely absent from the mainstream media outlets I have analyzed. The sponsors of Time and The New Yorker espoused values more in line with Richard Nixon’s “silent majority.” Political dissent and radical counterculture were in direct conflict with the capitalism and consumerism upon which commercial business was grounded, and any attempt to co-opt the “hippy” identity in advertisement would have attracted far fewer consumers than it likely would have alienated.

The final image, image C, is an advertisement for the mink pelt industry printed in The New Yorker in November of 1980. It depicts an effete woman adorned with pearls, makeup, fine leather gloves, a lace shirt and a large mink coat, interlocked with a much older man. The man’s attire is comparatively modest and conservative, yet combined with his domineering posture, suggestive of power and authority. Considered alone, the visual image offers merely subtle thematic undertones of the objectification and superficial idealization of women. Yet when one considers the caption, imploring the reader to “Wrap yourself in something special,” the advertisement takes on much deeper meaning. The object of this invitation––man or woman––is intentionally vague and sexually suggestive. The woman is clearly the visual object of the image, but for purely superficial reasons. The man, conversely, exhibits a possessive attitude toward his younger counterpart, as if to portray her as an objectified status symbol. The innuendo of the caption’s language (the decision to use the verb “wrap” as opposed to “wear” was certainly a conscious one) reinforces the sense that the man is indeed the recipient of “something special.”

Considered as a whole within its historical context, image C reveals several cultural elements that distinguish the social trends of the 1980s from those of the late 1960s. The ad most apparently highlights the materialism of the 1980s, with the growing emphasis placed on status symbolism engendered by the fur industry. It also suggests, though history proves this hypothesis only partially, that the eagerness of the baby boomers to reinvent gender consciousness, indicated in image A, has been compromised in the twelve years that followed, replaced by a sense of complacency following the decade’s successes and the realignment of American priorities. A more likely hypothesis is that these movements had little effect on the demographics targeted by the makers of fur coats, expensive perfumes and other superfluous symbols of material success. Just as in the catalogued issues of Time, Life, and The New Yorker from the 1960s, so too does the New Republic of the 1980s overrepresent the values and concerns of this particular subset of American society, resulting in a distorted perception of contemporary cultural trends and patterns.

Changes in American Industrial Output

The two advertisements I chose reflect the changing nature of American corporations, from tangible, goods-based production, to the new global economy of ideas and technology. The first ad, a Bethlehem Steel promotion of one of their new plants shows a company that had long been a titan of industry showing that it was keeping up with the times by opening a new, modern plant that would manufactures steel for the modern elements of life, from the larger things more commonly associated with industrial steel, such as bridges and buildings, to items around the home like gardening tools and air conditioning units. The ad is somewhat like a public service announcement for Bethlehem Steel, showing how the company is doing its part to keep the economy humming seamlessly. The ad is somewhat ironic in that, while promoting Bethlehem Steel’s investment in new plants, one of the causes for the decline of the American steel industry was the fact that most of the steel-making was done in obsolescent, turn-of-the-century plants, as opposed to modern plants built after World War II in Japan and Germany.

The second ad, by aerospace company Rockwell International, is an early example of the move in the modern marketplace for large corporations to have as their main product less tangible things such as ideas. Even IBM, for years America’s computing monolith, has as its primary business consulting, although they still manufacture computers. Rockwell points to it’s nine straight years of increased earnings and 20.3% Return on Equity as evidence of the competence of Rockwell management, and are now offering their services to other companies primed to take on the new economy. The emphasis on increased earnings belies the coming trend of publicly-traded companies having more and more demanded of them, profits-wise, by increasingly aggressive stockholders. Rockwell would also be termed as what David Beers would refer to as a “blue sky company,” and in retrospect, is positioning itself for the post-Cold War economy in which companies that had made defense contracting their bread and butter for the last forty years needed to diversify in the face of competition and greatly reduced government subsidy. In the same vein, though, the earnings rise that Rockwell touts may or may not be tied to the buildup in defense spending during the Reagan Administration.

Luxury and Utility of Electronics

These images are both advertisements for electronics. The first is for a Sylvania stereo which appeared in the October 10, 1969 issue of Time, and the second, from the January 23, 1984 issue of The New Yorker, is for an IBM personal computer. The shift in marketing exhibited by the two advertisements is indicative of a larger shift in how consumer products were perceived by the American public in the decade and half between when the two advertisements ran. The Sylvania stereo was marketed as a luxury item, while IBM ad implied that the personal computer a necessity for business. The shift is starker given the readerships of the magazines the ads; the IBM ad ran in The New Yorker whose readership is considered more upscale than the readers of Time, where the Sylvania stereo advertisement appeared. An advertisement from The New Yorker would be more likely to emphasize luxury than one appearing in Time, yet the PC was marketed as “A tool for modern times.” In addition to recalling the Chaplin film of the same name, the slogan implies that a businessperson without a computer cannot perform his job properly. The dominant image in the ad is Charlie Chaplin’s Little Tramp, a figure which represents the complete antithesis of luxury. A person without a computer is old-fashioned; buying a computer is a necessity just to stay modern.

In contrast, the Sylvania ad markets the stereo as a luxury item. The advertisement depicts a wealthy couple in well-decorated room listening to the stereo. Although elegant, the stereo’s appearance appears to detract from the décor of the room, but the ad’s slogan, “It sounds a lot better than it looks,” implies the that the stereo’s sound is worthy of the room and the wealthy couple listening to it. The ad’s audience is upscale like the couple in the background. This is a little surprising given the readership of Time and increased ownership of consumer durables over the 1950s and 1960s. The ad indicates that despite this proliferation, a Sylvania stereo was a luxury, not a necessity—in contrast to IBM marketing its PC as a necessity in the modern workplace. The shift to emphasize the utility rather than the luxury of the products indicates a shift in the acceptance of new technology, especially the computer. A decade before the IBM ad, Big Blue was associated with mainframes sold to the government and large corporations; the personal computer was unheard of my most Americans. By 1984, the PC was found in many homes and offices, companies like Digital, Wang, and Apple had become household names, and the PC was named Machine of the Year by Time. This proliferation of ownership of personal computers was a departure from the gradual increased use of products like a home stereo, which like other hi-fi systems existed decades before it was marketed as a luxury good by Sylvania in 1969. Even the size of the product indicated this shift; while the PC can fit on a desk, the stereo was part of an appliance which dominated the room. These rapid changes in the proliferation and marketing of technological advances in the 1980s might be related to larger shifts within American culture and the economy.

Cars: Rebellious vs Economical

https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/jcohencole/web/Cold-War-Media/Dodge%20Monaco%20-%20TIME%20Magazine%2C%20November%2019%201965%2C%20pp.19.jpg?uniq=phaiqx

https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/jcohencole/web/Cold-War-Media/Fiat%20-%20TIME%20Magazine%2C%20January%2028%201974%2C%20pp.7.jpg?uniq=phairh


In the 1960s cars had undergone drastic changes from those of the 1950s. Between the 50s and 60s there was a proliferation of car companies, foreign and domestic, and a proliferation in the types of cars. There was an emergence of many different car companies: Chrysler/Plymouth, Dodge, Jaguar, Volkswagen, Fiat, Saab, Mercedes, Renault, MG, Chevrolet, GMC (which included, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, and Pontiac), Jeep, and Lincoln. By the Sixties, cars had evolved and diversified into many different styles aside from the generic sedan such as, the Jeep, station wagons, mid-size sedans, large sedans, the VW bus, the Beetle, and sports cars. Car advertisements during the 1960s also became new and unique.

In this first image of the ’66 Dodge Monaco, like many other ads of during this time, blatantly targets more youthful men. The phrase, “Join the Dodge Rebellion,” and, “Don’t follow the leader…drive it,” can only be expected to catch the eye of the plentiful, rebellious youth of the 1960s. The 2 images of the pretty, young woman can serve 2 different purposes. When pictured in the passenger seat, her image serves to entice men; implying pretty women enjoy cars with V8 engines and bucket seats. Her other appearance at the bottom of the ad with a bomb behind her back supplements the rebellious image of the car. The smaller writing just below the picture of the car is also aimed at young men. “So, you men with unbridled imagination and a craving for action – move away from the crowd…Step into a Monaco and start a little following of your own.” The use of the words “imagination” and “action” are more than likely meant to imply “youthful.”



The second image of the Fiat advertisement from 1974 is similar to ads from many other companies during the period. Admittedly, the Fiat ad is on the more extreme side of the spectrum in that it provides very little imagery (the chart is a great deal larger than image of the car), but it serves the purpose of highlighting the fuel crisis. Like the diversification of cars between the 50s and 60s, with the 70s came the small, economy car. Similar ads of the time period began to replace words like “imagination,” “rebellion,” and “action” with words like, “small” and “economical.” Though, this Fiat ad is not aimed at men or women, similar ads for similar cars do seem aimed at men (though not as youthful). This change can be clearly traced to the OPEC oil embargo of ’73 and ’74, but the economy car stuck around after the embargo was lifted. This Fiat ad from 1974 explicitly states the gas crisis, and even challenges the morals of the consumer. “If you’re concerned about the gas crisis, you really owe it to yourself to check out the mileage results above.” Although luxury cars and a few sports cars did not place such a heavy emphasis on the gas crisis, the economical Fiat 128 Sedan, like the rebellious Monaco of the 60s, was the more prevalent ad of the 1970s.

Between the 60s and 70s many car ads transformed from catering to a more youthful audience to a more cognizant audience. Although the Monaco and the Fiat 128 Sedan are different types of cars, they, and comparative models, were the most common car ads, at least in TIME magazine. Popular car ads during the 60s were aimed more at the desires of the individual, the rebellious car or the comfortable luxury sedan for example. Between the 60s and 70s, especially during the OPEC embargo, more common car ads aimed more for the knowledgeable and resourceful consumer.

Media Project unrelated

An ad I found during Spring Break in the March issue of Continental Airlines' magazine.

Military Service and Education

https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/ktonhauser/ReadersDigestAugust1963p189.jpg?uniq=ph8vnd

“We can not learn men from books”

Ethyl Corporation Ad. August, 1963. Reader’s Digest. Pg.189.

For the second media project, I was going to look at the depiction of soldiers in the 60s and 70s and the first thing that struck me was that I could hardly find any in the magazines during the early 60s. The only picture I did find is not directly related to the armed forces but belongs to an ad for the Ethyl Corporation which encourages people to go on trips with their cars around their home towns. This is especially time related as this ad would not have appeared ten years later, when the first oil crisis limited the availability of gas. The lack of other pictures of soldiers indicates that the public was not too concerned with the United States’ military involvement in Indochina yet as Kennedy increased troops in the region only in the summer of ’63, around the time when this ad appeared. The soldier in full uniform is depicted positively as a role model for the little boy he talks to who drove all the way to the base to experience what it means to be a real soldier. The ad’s headline implies that serving in the military, the real life experience, is what forms real men which can not be achieved by learning from books. Considering, that the draft was implemented during until 1973, this statement has several implications. First, the allusion to manliness turns men serving in the armed forces into “real” men who fight the advance of Communism actively and are therefore to be admired leaving out those who are not part of this group, not “real” men. Second, the main reason how one could avoid the draft in this time was being enrolled in university. The hierarchy established in the quote downgrades learning from books and becomes especially significant when keeping in mind that the universities were considered places of liberal or even socialist thinking, therefore a double negation of the actively Communist fighting soldier.

https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/ktonhauser/ReadersDigestMarch1974p222_c.jpg?uniq=ph8w4i

“College isn’t the only place to continue your education.”

US Army Ad. March, 1974. Reader’s Digest. Pg. 222.

In contrast to the picture in the previous ad, this one is advertising directly for the Army. The necessity for this arose when the draft was ended in 1973 and the pervasiveness of the Army/Marines/Reserve ads in the magazines of the mid-seventies is striking. On reason to end the draft was to stop the massive anti-war movements of the late 60s and early 70s which can be seen in this ad. It advertises traveling and personal growth along with the many educational possibilities the Army offers. This is interesting as it constitutes a direct contrast to the ad from the 60s. The people in the ad are not pictured in their combat uniform but in their working environment as pilots or policemen or while sight seeing. Besides, women are depicted as part of the Army, giving them the possibility to participate in the “real” experience that was reserved for men in the previous ad. The focus on education makes the Army an alternative to college instead of making it the absolute opposite was implied previously. The military part of the education is more or less disregarded, active combat that was still happening in Indochina in 1974 despite the Paris Peace Accord of 1973 is entirely left out. The traveling destinations in the text only names “safe” places like Germany and as an additional stimulus, financial aid for post-Army college education is offered, trying to reevaluate entirely the connection between military service and higher education that was prevalent throughout the 60s.

The Conglomerate Ad: Oil and Gas Company Advertisements in the 60's and 70's

Signal Oil and Gas Company. August 29, 1969. Time Magazine. Pg. 2.

https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/jcohencole/web/Cold-War-Media/Pg.%202.%20Signal%20Oil%20and%20Gas.%20August%2029%2C%201969.%20Time%20Magazine.%20.jpg?uniq=ph8pka


This advertisement, published in Time Magazine, shows the clear rebellion in America against conglomerate corporations, and the attempt to relate to and reconcile with the American people. 1969 proved to be a year of counterculture. Movements to disassociate from the mainstream characterized a younger, dissident, and boisterous generation of Americans. This ad, published for an oil and gas company, represents an attempt at breaking the association of conglomerates with corruption—the idea that the company has an all too powerful grip on the heartbeat of the American economy and people.
What is most interesting about this advertisement is it’s sheer lack of flair. There are no pictures or slogans, with the exception of the Signal Oil and Gas logo. There are no gimmicks, no clichés, and no product plugs. This ad was clearly trying to connect on a simple level by reducing the ad to the bare minimum, avoiding the superficiality of logo designs and bargain sales. In lieu of the push against the corporate mainstream, this particular company attempts to separate itself from its negative associations.
The ad begins, in its largest type, by saying, “Conglomerate, like naked, is not a dirty word.” Why would an ad in this time period, with Time Magazine’s audience, endorse their product in such a fashion? Cleverly, Signal Oil and Gas is relating to the American public by also rebelling against a traditional mainstream perspective. Nakedness, as far back as Biblical times, is an allusion to shame and sin from the story of Adam and Eve. The human race’s downfall, according to the Bible, occurred when the pair disobeyed God by eating from the tree of knowledge. This knowledge leads to their awareness of nudity, shame, embarrassment, guilt, and sin. Thus, nudity was quickly associated with sin and wrongdoing.
In a stretch, this advertisement tries to spotlight a similar wrongful correlation—positing that the Signal Companies, while a conglomerate corporation, do not embody nor profess the negative stereotypes associated with the word “conglomerate”. But how was “a conglomerate” characterized in this era? The advertisement explains that conglomerates imply “a profit-mad monster who gobbles up unsuspecting companies by means of underhanded tender offers”. But the style of the advertisement in addition to its language works to disassociate from such a description. By minimizing the ad to words, the advertisement is in a way “naked”, using its transparency and openness to demonstrate its good intentions and ambitions.
In addition, the ad counters the hostility of the American counterculture by calling for introspection—“We suggest that in ‘conglomerates,’ as in nudity, the evil is in the eye of the beholder.” The advertisement does not simply attempt to connect with the anti-conglomerate culture, but rather asks the American public to be wary of generalizations—including all companies under the conglomerate umbrella. Furthermore, Signal Oil and Gas offers its own definition of “conglomerate”, describing it as “profitable, autonomous, and active”. Autonomy implies individuality and self-sustainability. Through such a description, the company again tries to relate to an anti-conglomerate America by illuminating its self-governance and adherence to its own principles in lieu of the government’s. The minimalist style and effective language of this advertisement reinforces its connection to a strengthening anti-conglomerate community.

Mobil Ad. November 19, 1979. Time Magazine. Pg. 2

https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/jcohencole/web/Cold-War-Media/Pg.%202%20Mobil%20Ad.%20November%2019%2C%201979.%20Time%20Magazine.jpg?uniq=ph8pk6

While the previous advertisement attempts to disassociate from the mainstream American public, this advertisement clearly attempts to identify with it. The decade in between the publication of these two ads, especially because of its radical social, political, and economic changes, reveals the shift in advertising on the part of oil companies. While the first advertisement was limited to typed print, this ad is clearly dominated by its visual magnitude. Snow-capped mountains dominate the background, while the foreground reveals the centerpiece of the ad. The advertisement’s publication in November of 1979 was just a year shy of the historic 1980 Winter Olympic games, highlighted by the “Miracle” victory of the United States hockey team against the Soviet Union in Lake Placid, New York.
By lowering the vantage point of the viewer, the advertisement heightens the importance of the product (Mobil1 Synthetic Motor Oil). Around the can of motor oil lies an Olympic Medal, presumed to be a gold medal given the fact that the product is Mobil1. The imagery of the Winter Olympics, printed in the previous winter, explains the importance of the product since its guarantees to help “you get started clear down to 35 degrees below.”
The product’s claims are then reinforced when the advertisement notes that the information it has provided is “a cold fact”. The repeated use of “cold” imagery harshly contrasts the very literal nature of the first advertisement. It also connects both the competitive spirit and patriotism of the United States with the character of the product. Instead of trying to relate to a more suspicious counterculture like the first ad, this advertisement follows traditional American values of patriotism, conveyed through the 1980 Olympic Games. Interestingly enough however, the protest movement was by no means over even as late as the late 70’s.
In fact, many people were still protesting the oil gas shortage in 1979, the same year as this ad’s publication. Gas was still a hot topic in the country at the time, powerful enough to catalyze Congress’ Conservation act and the CAFÉ standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). The crisis was also powerful enough to change the national speed limit to 55 miles per hour in order to use fuel effectively. The competition between oil companies reached its peak, and advertising wielded huge influence in the gas market. The American people were looking for the most effective product, and by relating Mobil’s product with the overall excellence of the Olympic Games, advertisers were able to generate support for the product. As opposed to the first advertisement, this page relies on visual imagery and current American pop culture in order to attract customers to buy Mobil1 gas and oil. Instead of differentiating itself from competitors (or conglomerates in general), this advertisement reinforces its product’s abilities by connecting it to mainstream culture.

Warning Label Placed on Cigarette Ads

The advertisements in Life magazines of the sixties through the eighties consisted of many cigarette advertisements which were predominant in the later decades yet missing in earlier ones such as the sixties. Throughout the seventies and eighties cigarettes plastered page after page yet in the sixties these were shown only once or twice every article. The change in quantity of cigarette ads resulted from the different forms of advertisement which became illegal around the seventies. As cigarettes once graced many shows and were sponsors for many shows that form of promotion became prohibited causing these companies to search for other ways to endorse their product, leading to an increase of cigarette ads in magazines.




Although the types of cigarette ad did not change much through the decades, what they said did. One ad I found in a Life magazine from 1962 shows a woman smoking a cigarette with her husband shielding her eyes and at the bottom mentions the research done to achieve this new level of cigarette. The research they mention is interesting because it is not about what cigarettes can do to a person but instead the research done to create mild, non-filtered cigarette. This shows the ignorance, or lack of willingness to accept, the damage that accompanied cigarettes. There was not much being done to prohibit the different ways cigarette companies were taking advantage of their buyers as well as no understanding of the increase in cancer related deaths of male smokers. All of this is demonstrated in the 1962 advertisement which focuses solely on the acheivement of successfully making a mild, non-filtered cigarette.



Then as the years pass these advertisements begin to express a new form of research which consists of the dangers of smoking. Thousands of studies were done which resulted in scientific articles linking tobacco use to cancer and other forms of diseases. These results caused a warning to be put on all tobacco products which increased from “Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to your Health” in 1966 to “Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health,” in 1970. It became illegal for cigarette companies not to put this warning on tobacco products which caused a decrease in the number of cigarette users and a decline in cigarette related deaths. This new form of ad is represented by a Marlboro ad in 1982 with a cowboy smoking a cigarette and a small white box in the corner of the page stating the warning. Although small, this box represents a new time in which advancements in the real issues of tobacco are being realized and dealt with in a professional manner. Now it is considered public knowledge what a cigarette can do to a persons body causing a decline in those who choose to take a puff of tobacco in the first place.



These two different advertisements of cigarettes show that while the basic idea of an advertisement may not change, a simple addition of a warning label may alter the success of a product. The changes, in this case, resulted from an increase in knowledge and research on the dangers of tobacco creating a more educated population who could prevent diseases from taking their lives.

http://https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/jcohencole/web/Cold-War-Media/Brandon%20Cigarettes%2C%20Life%2C%20October%2012%201962%2C%20Volume%2053-2%20pg%2023.jpg?uniq=w96zxc

http://https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/jcohencole/web/Cold-War-Media/Marlboro%2C%20Life%2C%20April%201982%2C%20Volume%205%2C%20pg%2017.jpg?uniq=w97004

Womanhood in the Late 70's: A break from the Past?

Snow Bird's advertisement in the July 20, 1962 issue of Life magazine sheds light upon the socially prescribed gender roles of the early sixties.  In keeping with the domestic affairs of the previous decade, this ad suggests that women are rather delicate and certainly not up to the task of using the "husky" Snow Bird to "devour...deep drifts and snow banks."  The language used is significant, and, like many advertisements during this time period, it insists that the item being promoted exudes masculinity.  Not only does the "powerful," "blasting," "devour[ing]" Snow Bird promise to enhance one's masculinity, but it also maintains that it transforms the unpleasant "chore" of clearing snow into an enjoyable "sport."  Juxtaposed with this heightened sense of masculinity is an image of a woman bending over ever so slightly to lightly pull a lever.  No "blast[ing]" or "snow-birding" is required of her.  She is merely there to start the engine - the fact that even she can handle the task is proof to the viewer that the Snow Bird "starts easily."  Crucial to the ad is the fact that the woman, dressed in everyday wear, remains fixed within that one frame.  On the other hand, the man, clad in heavy-duty snow gear, is central to the other three pictures.  This advertisement provides insight into what it meant to be a man and woman during the early sixties.

In contrast with the 1962 Snow Bird ad, this 1978 Simplicity advertisement suggests that much has changed in America and in the way that Americans think about gender in particular.  Not only does a woman take center stage in all three images, but also there are no men in sight.  Whereas the woman was only allowed to start the snow blower in 1962, we see that a woman can now partake in the action once reserved exclusively for men.  She no longer sits back as a predominantly passive individual, but rather she takes control and completes the job from start to finish.  She "clears," even "busts through foot-high drifts," and, with the "snowbuster...weigh[ing] less than 45 LBS," she can return the machine to its proper place in the garage.  Unlike the woman in the first ad who is dressed in a way that is appropriate for her designated role of lifting the lever only, the woman in the Simplicity ad proves that she is ready for the task at hand by wearing a heavy coat, durable winter boots, gloves, and a hat.  While this advertisement puts forth a different depiction of what life is like for women in America, it also indicates that women are still cast in a somewhat similar light as before.  Though the woman is now endowed with more power and freedom, it is still assumed that she can only handle "light work."  The ad reads, "New Simplicity Snowbuster makes light work of heavy snow...The Snowbuster 220 is so lightweight, almost anyone can handle it."  The cropping of the images is also significant.  Whereas in the first ad, the pictures are cropped in a way that shows massive amounts of snow catapulted high into the air (again, adding to the idea of action, sport, and machismo), the images featured by Simplicity are tightly cropped, thereby drawing less attention to power and more to the woman herself and the ease with which she can complete the task at hand.  "Snow-birding" plays no role in 1978, and, consequently clearing snow becomes a chore, albeit a "light" one.  Thus, while a transition away from the passive home keeper is evident by the late seventies, it is clear that there are still a number of barriers that continue to prevent women from realizing a position of strength, unfettered by the restraints of patriarchy.

Sexual Revolution, Feminism and the Activist Culture

The sexual revolution of the 1960s saw both an emergence of women as viable members of the labor force and an expansion in the socially accepted norms for female behavior. Sperry Rand advertised its innovative agricultural equipment by featuring a sixteen year-old girl who “stacked 100 tons of hay”, illustrating the growing fields available for women, occupations other than secretary, nurse or teacher (it should be noted these opportunities were not exempt from patronization, ie) women can perform the job with the help of new equipment). The ad not only says “It was always a man’s job”, but also appears in a traditionally “man’s magazine”, Sports Illustrated, demonstrating the pervasive nature of this change as not localized within, say, a feminist quarterly.
Socially acceptable ways for women to act sexually expanded as well. The stereo advertisement from The New Yorker depicts a woman in a seductive pose on the couch with a man, while the caption contains many thinly veiled hints toward sexual actions. The New Yorker additionally sported many advertisements geared toward high-end consumer products for women, including perfume ads and the beginnings of sexually suggestive women selling cars. The very position of the woman in the stereo ad, prone and gazing enticingly at the man, had not been seen before in the 1940s or 50s. This development speaks volumes toward American culture at the time as (arguably) such an emergence and expansion of women in American society would not have been possible without the greater domestic climate of activism. While in no detracting from the significance of this transformation, developments such as the Civil Rights and Free Speech Movements generated an atmosphere for change in America, with the change in female representation neatly summarizing the revolutionary climate.

Due to inability to effectively scan the second advertisement, here is a transcript:

“For times when you can’t get up to change records.”

“Consider our Lear Jet Stereo eight home tape player. It’s perfect for those times when you’re deeply involved in something. And the music stops.
A Lear Jet Stereo eight tape player keeps the music going. And it plays only what you want to hear, when you want to hear it…for as long as you want to listen.
You can play popular eight track cartridges in our stereo eight tape player for cars. Or in our stereo eight portables. Or any of the many different units we designed for home use.
When you just don’t want to fool around with your record player, turn on a Lear Jet Stereo eight tape unit.
And feel free to do anything else that interests you.”

Sports Illustrated, 1/1/71, Vol.34, No.1

The New Yorker, 11/9/68, p. 125

Did the Fire go out?

“BFD-Birmingham Fire Department”
Life Magazine, May 17th, 1963, Pg. 27

“Razzle Dazzle Threads,”
Life Magazine, September 1981, Pg. 103

People often use the phrase: “a picture can tell a thousand words.” That ideology certainly held true for my findings in this particular media project. As I browsed through the magazines from the 1960’s to 1980’s the images told a compelling story of the social atmosphere at the time as well as of the radical changes that were taking place as it relates to race, gender and even civil rights.
During the 60’s, America had on its hands the cancer of the race issue. Simply put, the feeling around the time was one that pictured White Americans as superior to African-Americans and it resulted in a battle for equality and civil rights. A few weeks ago, we read Martin Luther King Jr’s letter from the Birmingham jail that was written on April 16, 1963. In the letter, King had emphasized the constant struggles for African Americans in Birmingham as well as in other parts of the nation and he urged for authorities and the law to make a change. In the first image which was captured a month after King’s letter, we can see African Americans being sprayed with water by firefighters from the Birmingham Fire Department. Certainly these people weren’t a fire, so the image speaks volumes to how low African-Americans were viewed in society. On a broader scale the implications from the image can be represented in areas of life that King had touched on, whether it is segregated restaurants, motels, water fountains and even education etc.
During the 80’s there was a radical difference in the way African-Americans were viewed and treated as it relates to civil rights. They were able to attend the same schools, eat at the same restaurants, drink from the same water fountains and as we can see from the second image, model for the same companies. This is particularly significant because, just a decade before, African-Americans were fighting for equality and to be able to model for the same company as a White person was a huge progress. When I first saw the image, for me it represented a level of acceptance. Though changes in the law might only influence external acceptance, it was a stepping-stone for a calmer society with less racial tensions. The point that I’m trying to make is that, though the law will not be able to change the hearts of people, it can change their actions. It is evident that maybe just maybe the second image represents that the fire might have gone out.

Visions of Freedom in the 1970s

These images represent two drastically different visions of freedom during the early 1970s and show just how fragmented our society had become during this time of counterculture upheaval. These images show that even within the white community there there had been splintering into two ideologically disparate groups and that corporations were banking in on the counter culture iconography to sell products. The first image glorifies a freedom from society that can be purchased with money, the traditional view. The second image cites the freedom (actually better defined as liberation) that comes from engagement with society and the desire to change it into a place where more freedom could be had. The student movements espoused urban, political, and philosophical freedom whereas the yuppie freedom presented here is rural and escapist. It can only be supported by working "within the system" and the resulting free time and money.

Life Magazine. Ford xl sportsroof. 1969 vol 66 #1, pg 13

The Ford ad shows a young upwardly mobile white couple who are enjoying the freedom of the ability to escape from society and go into nature. This is no hippie nature-loving, however. They are being entertained by their toys: an airplane and a hot car, the products of industrial America. It shows how consumer America and industrial America feed into one another. The ad uses visual expansiveness of the field and its golden color to emphasize the peace and contentment that could be purchased from working hard "within the system."

Life, Slipstick Liquid Paper, 1971, vol 70-1, pg 75

The use of the word “Liberation” and the hippie/student-radical costuming in this ad shows that, by 1971, knowledge of the counter-culture was so widespread it could be used to sell products. Here it is used by the giant corporations and bureaucracies the radical movements were against to sell their products. Even though the costuming and wording is radical, this ad doesn't challenge the idea of women's roles as workers and, in fact, cruelly mocks it. The ad makes reference not only to the hippie and student movements but also the idea of the “new woman”- represented by the confident and beautiful secretary. The ad is ironic and cruel, however, when we realize we are seeing an ad for nothing revolutionary at all but, in fact, a comically mundane product: the easy-erase pen for secretaries. Just another thing to make "workin' for the man" a bit easier.

Corporate Environmental Opinion

Shell Chemicals, The Economist, Mar 1, 1969, pg 2

Lockwood Greene, Fortune, Sept 1970, pg 37

CPR Research, Fortune, Dec 1970, pg 39
CPR Research 2, Fortune, Dec 1970, pg 39
CPR Research 3, Fortune, Dec 1970, pg 39

American Gas, Fortune, Aug 1970, pg 7

The negative effects of industrial pollution on the environment have not always been known. Before the first Earth Day in 1970 and the formation of the EPA under Nixon the same year, pollution abatement was almost completely absent from the political agenda. Chemical companies and the oil industry are just two examples of sectors that contributed to pollution. In the era before environmental regulation, corporations were under few obligations to investigate long-term health and environmental effects. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, illustrates the enormous environmental consequences of an unchecked chemical industry. The 1970’s environmental legislation was extensive and included the formation of the Environmental Protection Act, The Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, The Clean Water Act of 1977, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 & 1977, and The Toxic Substances Control Act. Due to the newfound political salience and public support for pollution abatement, chemicals like DDT were banned in the 1970’s. Because legislation imposed higher operating costs on chemical and energy firms, resistance to pollution legislation was also strong in the 1970’s. Eventually, however, some corporations began finding solutions for pollution abatement and advertised their commitment to the environment.

In pre-1970 advertisements, there is little mention of pollution. The main focus is the application and effectiveness of the product. In the Shell Chemical Advertisement from 1969, for example, the chemical Dieldrin is hailed as a miracle for dealing with destructive pests. The chemical’s ability to biomagnify in food webs and cause cancer in humans is not mentioned in the advertisement either because its effects were untested, or Shell Chemical was not required to disclose such information.

By 1970, some companies catered to firms seeking pollution reduction consulting or technology. The Lockwood Greene Engineers, for example, advertise solutions for air, water, and solid pollution sources. This company is profiting by occupying the newly created niche of pollution abatement. An alternate approach from the same period is corporate resistance to legislation. The CPR Research advertisement from the same period states that, “Complying with pollution control regulations has become a multi-million-dollar problem. You need help.” The full-page ad, showcasing a dead oil-soaked duck, states that as many as 33 government agencies could take action resulting in costly pollution abatement requirements. Resisting environmental legislation was and still is viable for companies where costs of abatement are prohibitively high.

Some corporations did take a proactive approach to pollution abatement. The 1970 advertisement from the American Gas Association addresses both economic and environmental concerns. The product’s claim is to eliminate environmental pollution at a low cost. This advertisement from Fortune is a step away from the 1969 Shell ad which is solely concerned with the bottom line. Unfortunately, there is still much resistance to environmental legislation and pollution continues to be a problem.

Portrayal of Women through Perfume and Colonge Ads

This perfume advertisement from the November 1964 edition of the men’s magazine Esquire portrays woman critically as indecisive and concerned with petty considerations such as hair and dress, but also controlling of their husbands and home-life. “Woman have changed their hairdos, eyelashes...husbands and their ideas about life in general.” Meant to appeal to a male demographic the ad works but it does not correctly illustrate women’s rights. Women may have the ability to change their opinions but they did not have the ability to change the result of their ideas. As put forth by Casey Hayden and Mary King in “Sex and Caste: A kind of Memo” written in 1965, “It [our society] is a caste system which, at its worst, uses and exploits women. This is complicated by several facts, among them: (1) The caste system is not institutionalized by law (women have the right to vote, to sue for divorce, etc.)...” Hayden and King focused on the difficulty experienced by women to change the system, because the system by law allowed them equal rights but it was not instituted as such. Most men did not recognize the discrepancy at the time, even those advocating civil rights.
By the time the second ad, from the July 1982 edition Life magazine, was published women’s rights had been given attention and furthered, both by society and ironically so by the law when the Civil Rights Act of July 1964 actually began to be implemented. Senator Howard Smith had tried to defeat the bill through inclusion of women’s rights, but it was passed anyway. In the Revlon men’s cologne ad, the female is portrayed as a vixen. The male, a “Scoundrel”, the cologne’s name, should “Seize the moment.” Both genders are here represented as daring and progressive, they are described in more equal in terms. But the stigma still remains that the woman is being promiscuous while the man is just being a man. Inequality still remains but the difference between the 1964 ad and the 1982 ad is that women are obviously more progressive, and are allowed to be so.

Image 1.Esquire Magazine, November 1964 edition, Perfume.
Image 2.Life Magazine, May 1982 edition, Cologne.
Ps. For some reason I'm still unable to get the links to upload and work, but clicking on the images enlarges them.

2008: Americans still see themselves as middle class.

Chicago Tribune: Study: Earners high, low think they belong to middle class

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-middleclass-webapr10,0,7813039.story