Douglas Rushkoff's Coercion was not based on the laws of semantics. Rather, Hayakawa's ideas were vaguely referenced in terms of the media and pop culture.
Rushkoff alluded to presymbolic and ritualistic utterances, directive language, cooperation in a society achieved by language, the map and territory analogy, intensional/extensional worlds, and levels of abstraction.
"...the answers were already built-in, but they gave you the illusion of interactivity. Like the responsive readings in a church service, they made you feel like you were actively participating in a deductive process..." (Rushkoff 14).
[Presymbolic/Ritualistic]
"As Miller put it, 'Do not ask any question that will lead to a yes or no answer, like 'Would you like to take a test drive?' Just ask him, 'Which one would you like to take for a drive?' His Language presupposes your actions" (Rushkoff 42).
[Directive]
"The CIA manual suggests appearing genuinely concerned about the subject's feelings, developing a mutual set of goals, or defining a common enemy as a means to developing the illusion of friendship. The opening is about listening, assessing, acknowledging, and befriending" (Rushkoff 34).
"The objective of this stage is to secure 'ongoing cooperation' by convincing the subject that he has not been duped" (Rushkoff 39).
[Cooperation in Society]
"In the same way that the CIA interrogator assesses his subject's 'psychologic-emotional and geographic-cultural typographies,' the car dealer fathers information during the 'preappraoch' in a process called 'blueprinting'" (Rushkoff 41).
[Map Analogy, Intentional/Extensional Worlds]
"The less specific the details, the more iconic and universal the reference" (Rushkoff 112).
[Abstraction]
These quotes present ideas that were introduced to us this summer by S.I. Hayakawa and Alan R. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action. As is evident, Rushkoff related these concepts to his own field of study, though less directly.
What struck me as controversial, however, was Rushkoff's claim that the icon, or symbol, is the thing symbolized.
"The product is its icon, inseparably and without exception" (Rushkoff 186).
Does this not contradict one of the main principals we learned from Hayakawa's lessons? How can two well-respected researchers publish view points on the opposite ends of the spectrum?
I'd like to hear how Rushkoff's points relate to the books each of you read. :)
(Samantha Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Hey, Sam. I'm just wondering, when Rushkoff states that "The product is its icon, inseparably and without exception", is he saying that this is the case for those who will believe it, or that it is the case in all situations? I don't know if that makes sense, so here's an example-- say, for instance, that Jane walks into Sports Authority, sees a pair of shorts that she doesn't really like, but they have the Nike swoosh, so she buys them. She honestly believes she is buying the "coolness" of the Nike swoosh. On the other hand, Joe walks into Target, sees a pair of shorts that he really likes, but could care less that they don't have the Nike symbol because he realizes that it doesn't really matter whether there's a Nike swoosh on them or the target symbol, just as long as he likes the shorts. In this case, would Rushkoff be saying that by Jane buying the Nike shorts she is really buying its "coolness" and that buying not Nike shorts Joe is not buying coolness; or is he saying that to the consumer, because Jane thinks (italics) she is buying coolness, that she actually is? Sorry if that's kind of confusing...
Emily T.
Hey Emily!
Don't worry about it, I totally understand your confusion.
But in this particular instance, Rushkoff was expressing his own idea about the connection between the icon and the product. He has acknowledged that the "swoosh" is one and the same with a pair of sneakers. He honestly believes that consumers walk into the Nike store JUST for the sake of purchasing Nike goods. And thus, he draws the conclusion that the symbol for the product and the product are one in the same. This is the chain of thought that I followed.
Even in "Merchants of Cool", Rushkoff exposed us to the idea that Sprite was one with pop culture and hip-hop. This would lead the consumers to believe that if they were in dire need of a good time, Sprite was their key to that goal.
(Sam Maliha)
People may buy Nike shoes because they believe the brand carries a certain connotation. But the connotation changes quite frequently and the connotation is different for different people. When i see nike, I think of a sports shoe, but other people see different things.
In the sprite example, also shows that there is no correlation between the symbol and the thing. Sprite may have been a symbol of hip-hop, but that has changed. If sprite and hip-hop were one and the same, then sprite would be a symbol of hip-hop even today.
Maybe Rushkoff is saying that people think that the symbol is the thing. At the time that "Merchants of Cool" was made, people may have thought that Sprite and hip-hop were one and the same. Hayakawa agrees that people make the mistake of thinking that the symbol and the thing are the same.
(Arvind Kalidindi)
The way I understood it, Rushkoff is referencing to the fact that when you buy Nike sneakers, you are buying into the Nike brand. Like the concept behind stocks, you own part of the company but at the same time you do not actually own the company. The thing is and isn't the thing symbolized.
I'm sorry if that doesn't make any sense at all,
Grace Yuan
I think that he really isn't saying that the symbol is the thing symbolized. I think that it goes more along the line of what Arvind was saying about people thinking that the symbol is the thing. Although there is a clear line between the symbol and the symbolized, that line is also thin, especially with people who don't study semantics. So I think Rushkoff is actually trying to say that so many people believe that the symbol is the thing that it has, to a point, become the thing. Make sense?
Hey guys.
I think I made a mistake when I failed to include the whole passage from Coercion. Here it is:
"Part of an icon's power comes from its indivisibility. The swoosh cannot be further deconsructed into its component parts. Just as golden arches means McDonald's, and the little red tab means Levi's, the swoosh is Nike. The product is its icon, inseperably and without exception. To buy a pair of Nike shoes is to buy the Nike swoosh. By adopting the postlinguistic currency of an iconic culture, marketers can reposition themselves and their brands in a manner consistent with the operating system of today's point-and-click marketplace" (Rushkoff 186).
My perception of this passage was apparantly different than yours. I understand all of your viewpoints. It is impossible for me, however, to completely agree. I honestly believe that Rushkoff feels that the icon IS the thing. But that is merely my own opinion.
(Sam Maliha)
I feel like Rushkoff is stating the obivious. Of course the swoosh is nike and of corse the golden arches are McDonalds. Why is that a big deal? The swoosh is just a way for people to know that they are buying Nike. If Nike didn't have a swoosh, but rather just wrote NIKE on all of its merchandise, what is the difference? If Nike wanted to change its symbol from the swoosh to something else, that wouldn't be a problem.
Companies copyright their symbols, which assures the connectivity between the symbol and their brand. No other company can use the swoosh. Rushoff says the swoosh is Nike, but that does not mean that he believes that the symbol is the thing. Rushkoff is merely stating that the swoosh is readily associated by consumers with the Nike brand.
(Arvind Kalidindi)
How can you be so sure that he's not actually stating his OWN belief?
I guess my perception of the passage is different than yours. But I feel that I am thinking this way due to Hayakawa's lessons from this summer.
If we hadn't read LITAA, we would have accepted Rushkoff's statement, right?
(Sam Maliha)
After reading the excerpt, I think the symbol can be the thing in this particular case. Some people obviously buy the brand instead of the product.
When Sprite was the cool thing back in the days, people bought Sprite to be cool; therefore, they bought their ways to get into the 'cool' culture.
I want to make a connection to the current culture. Recently many people started to buy clothes from Hollister and Abercrombie(I want to say that they have 'tipped' all of a sudden).If you look at their shirts, all of them carry the logos, seagulls or moose,in large prints. Why would the makers/merchants do that?-Because they want to say that wearing Hollister&Abercrombie is the cool thing.
Another example of people's buying the brand is the popularity of fake(faux) products of famous makers. If you go to the mall, you can see people selling Chanel sunglasses or Louis Vuitton purses for $20. In that case, it is apparent that buyers are purchasing the logo/brand name. They want that LV prints or the giant CHANEL sign on what they carry---to symbolize their wealth.
(Jennifer Park)
Piggybacking on Jen's point about the fake designer purses/clothing etc. If the thing is indeed the thing symbolized, like Rushkoff claims, if you bought a fake Chanel bag, do you own Chanel/the double C logo?
There is some connection between the thing and the thing symbolized, as is shown by the presence of brand logos. Furthermore, companies sue when others infringe on their copyrights (in this case, their logos) because it symbolizes the image of their brand. I think, however that saying the thing and the thing symbolized are one and the same is taking it a bit too far.
Yes, after reading these comments, I would also have to say that stating that the symbol is the symbolized leans toward an extremist point of view.
To answer Grace's question:
We are never able to "own" a logo, per se. Just think about how many other people out there have the same Chanel products as you do. The double C is lurking almost everywhere, begging people to futiley spend their well-earned dollars, euros, yen, etc..
I guess you could ONLY own a logo is you created it and kept it to yourself. Absolutely no one else would be allowed to know if it. But then again, how do we know that someone halfway across the world hasn't created a symbol identical to yours? Intensional/extensional worlds are never identical but Hayakawa never said they couldn't overlap.
(Sam Maliha)
Just a thought, but doesn't Hayakawa state that the symbol is not the thing to illustrate an inherent lack of a NATURAL relationship between the two entities? I mean, the issue he is trying to highlight is the assumption that the swoosh can only be Nike and possibly vice versa. Yes, for someone of a different semantic environment, the Nike swoosh might possibly be a symbol for some other thing.
When Rushkoff states that the symbol is the thing symbolized, he is skipping ahead of Hayakawa and addressing the relationship formed by people forming the association between the symbol and the thing symbolized. Is it simply true that when most of us look at the double C logo, we think of Chanel. Hayakawa tells us that the symbol was ORIGINALLY not one and the same as the symbolized. As people develop the association between the two, however, they do become related by a sort of socially-widespread warrant. This is the relationship that Rushkoff is addressing.
So, I guess that you can say that Hayakawa and Rushkoff's statements can both be correct because they address different portions of the symbol making process.
Tiffany is absolutely correct.
This actually goes back to what we were discussing in the summer: there may not be an innate connection between the symbol and the thing, but over time people develop an association between the symbol and what it represents. There is a reason why people think of McDonald's when they see the Golden Arches. Counterfeiters play upon our almost automatic linking of the symbol and what it represents, but this linking has developed artificially: there is no real reason why golden arches equals McDonald other than the fact that we think that they do.
To clarify, let me quote from myself from the summer:
"...as Hayakawa writes, the specific symbols themselves do not necessarily have a connection to what they are representing, as fireworks and apple pie do not have an inherent link to patriotism. But over time, due to people's perceptions, perhaps fireworks and apple pie have gained a pseudo-connection to patriotism? I know that bicycle tires and computer mice could just as easily stand for patriotism if we wanted to switch symbols, but the fact is that they currently don't. And if you attempted to replace the current symbols of patriotism (flags, stars, etc.) that have persisted over hundreds of years with arbitrarily decided ones the next day, I'm not sure that these new symbols would be as powerful as the previous ones. Maybe fireworks and pie did not originally have any intrinsic or fundamental connection to what they represent, but over time they might have developed a link based upon people's perceptions."
To summarize: The symbol is not inherently the thing, but for many people, the two are perceived as the same. Companies can then use that misperception to sell their products.
From what I understand about the above conversation and Hayakawa and Rushkoff, I would have to agree with Eric. I do not think Hayakawa and Rushkoff are disagreeing, but, rather, looking from different ends of the spectrum. It seems as though Rushkoff is looking from the buyer's perspective, and Hayakawa is looking from the semanticist's perspective. I think that they would both agree that the symbol and the thing symbolized don't have an innate connection, but, over time, as Eric said, connections are created to the point that people feel that they have an innate connection.
Emily T.
Just one last thought, but it seems like a good idea to bring to light a fact that we have all somewhat agreed upon: not all things exist in diametrical opposites alone. The assumption that only Rushkoff or Hayakawa could be chosen, or even that they were representative of the only perspectives out there. We cannot truly "take [our] pick" if we recognize that: a) they only represent *two* points of view and are not all-encompassing and b) they are not necessarily mutually exclusive entities.
Post a Comment